fies; and that the fubordination, delegation, commiffion, &c. under which he is said to act, is only spoken of him as he is man, but never as he is Gon and Man.

Are not both these parties liable to be objected to, as pursuing a wrong mode of removing the difficulty? The former, in order to remove it, denies the Divinity; the latter denies, or explains away, the fubordination; but the New Teftament affirms both the Divinity and the fubordination. The matter, therefore, to be enquired into is, Can thefe, according to the doctrine of the New Testament, be compatible with each other? Denying, or explaining away

either

either the one or other is not removing the difficulty or answering the question. The question can only be answered by fhewing how the Divinity and the subordination, which are affirmed in the New Testament, are compatible with each other.

If what I have fuggefted in the following pages concerning the filiation is admiffible, I think the queftion is effectually answered; and the Divinity and the fubordination will appear not only to be compatible with each other, but neceffary and unavoidable. But I dare not affert, till it has undergone farther examination, that the suggestion is liable to no objection. It may, al

though

though at prefent I do not perceive them, be liable to infuperable objections; and, in that case, I have only to wifh, that good and learned men would apply their thoughts to the confideration of this important queftion, to the intent, that it may be answered fo as to be liable to no objection.

One objection, doubtlefs, will be made to what I have fuggefted, and a very ferious one it is: That, if admit ted, it will tend to make a variation in a creed, which is fupported by the venerable fanction of a numerous feries of ages, and, of course, to disturb and unfettle the minds of many good men on the fubject of their faith.

To

To this perhaps it may be answered, that, even admitting the truth of my suggestion, there will be no occafion for expunging any article in the received creed. The article, "Begotten of his "Father before all worlds," may ftill remain, if interpreted in a sense which it may well admit.

Eternity is an idea that is neceffarily annexed to all the actions of the Eternal Being; and, therefore, in the Eternal Mind, it may moft truly be faid of our LORD, that he was begotten of the Father before all worlds; confequently, if interpreted in this fenfe, in which only sense the article seems to be true,

no alteration will be neceffary in the creed, and things may remain in their present state without the hazard of giving offence to any.

The texts and arguments urged in the following pages are, it must be confeffed, many of them fuch as have been repeatedly urged by others, and, therefore, of course, will by fome men be turned over with a difdainful and faftidious twirl. Others of them, I believe, are new, and fuch as have not occurred before; but, then, on account of their novelty, they must wear a fufpicious appearance. Let them not however be rejected merely on account of their novelty; but let them be brought to the

test,