only dependence upon the will of the Creator, but that it is accountable to him as the law-giver, ruler, and judge. Creator and creature are relative terms, and imply the necessity of rule and government : unless we could imagine (which would be contradictory, if not blasphemous) that the Creator shewed so much wisdom in the making of creatures, without any design to rule and govern them: or, in short, that he was not able to manage the things he had made.

Seeing then it is infallibly true, that by the immediate agency of the divine Word, (Jesus Christ) all things were made; he must be the immediate ruler of the world in general, and of angels and men in particular. This will be further manifest, from a consideration of the scripture account of his character, who governed the church in all ages.

And here we are in a great measure confined to the rule and government of the church; because revelation is a history not so much of the world as of the church, and takes no more of the affairs of the world into the account, than is necessary some way or other to compleat the history of the church. So that the bible in general, may be called God's history of the church in all ages. And it hath these two properties, which no other history can pretend to, first, that all the facts are infallibly related by him, who was an eye witness and directed the whole. Secondly, this history is not confined to past facts, which all others must be, but extends to all future periods, to the end of time, with the same exactness as if they were past. Yet, from the account we have of the church, we learn, that he who guided and governed it by his wisdom and power, also ruled the world in general though in very different respects.

I do not propose to take under consideration, all the remarkable things which occur in the government of the church; this would be to transcribe almost the whole bible; only a few instances to make it evident, that Jesus Christ was the sole director of every thing pertaining to it in all ages.

It is evident beyond dispute, that in a great number of appearances, recorded in the old testament, whether in a bright cloud,-flame of fire,— or as a man, who is often called angel, he who spake assumed the highest names and characters of Deity. And the spectators, as well as the sacred penmen or historians, call him GOD, JEHOVAH, &c. ascribe such perfections,-and give him such homage and worship, as are due to none but Almighty God. It must then be equally true, that it was God who spake, whether in the cloud, in the fire, or in the man, who is so often called angel.

That it was not a common angel is plain, for he challenges divine worship, which no created angel ever did. We have many instances of the appearance of other angels, sent upon particular errands, both in the old and new testaments, as ministers in the affairs of providence; yet none of these ever assumed divine titles, nor would they allow any kind of worship to be given them; much less did they challenge the names and honor due only to God. On the contrary, they declared themselves special messengers sent by divine authority, -expressly refused divine worship, when through mistake offered them, and prefaced their embassies, with a thus saith the Lord. This is a manifest discrimination betwixt their character and him, who in all his appearances, bears the titles, and receives the worship which belong to God.

It is likewise evident from the scope of scripture, and agreed to by every denomination of christians in general, that God under the character of paternity, or he whom the scriptures call the Father, hath throughout the whole dispensation of revelation, always maintained the character of the invisible God," whom (says the apostle) no man hath seen, or can see." Or as our Savior affirms, "Not that any man hath seen the Father,-ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." As we cannot in the least degree call in question so plain a testimony concerning the Father, by the Son," who only knows the Father, and can reveal him," we may safely conclude, it was not the Father that made these appearances, which are recorded in the old testament.

And as to the Holy Ghost, he never appeared (that we read of) as a man, or acted as an external messenger; his work in the divine economy being internal upon the mind, according to what we can learn from revelation concerning him under that

name.

But as the scriptures represent Jesus Christ as the image of the invisible God,-his express image, the brightness of his glory,-in whom the Father dwells, the revealer of the Father,-the word of God, by whom he is manifested and made known, as a man doth his mind by his words, we have good ground to conclude, from these general considerations, that whatever divine messenger we read of in the old testament that appeared to good men, (by whatever manner of appearance) to whom the name of GOD in a proper sense, or JEHOVAH is ascribed; or to whom these good men paid worship and homage, due only to God; this messenger may with all safety be owned to be the

true God, though he uses such names as to us may seem to imply inferiority, or rather* condescension; and at the same time to be the Logos, or Word of God, who under the new testament is known by the name Jesus Christ.

These things kept in view, it will plainly appear to any attentive reader of the bible, that he who appeared on various occasions under the sacred titles of GOD, JEHOVAH, GOD ALMIGHTY, and received the worship of the saints, is no other than the LORD JESUS CHRIST.

But before I shew from particular instances, that these appearances are applied to him in the new testament, it will be necessary to remove an objection or two, raised against this doctrine in general, by such as are afraid of the force of it, in proving the proper Deity of Jesus Christ.

When we at any time speak of inferiority as applied to Jesus Christ, we should take care not to lose sight of his condescension, which has been too little attended to in the controversy with those, who will allow him to be no more than an inferior God. Though he condescended to become man, and acted in an inferior character, this did not change his divine character, (which our divines have given too much occasion to conceive, by the terms they have used on this subject) but only shewed his grace and condescension. He assumed a form when he was manifest in the flesh, which he had not before, but remained the same unchangeable JEHOVAH. The very heathens seem to have understood this notion of condescension in their gods; for when Paul and Barnabas had cured the impotent man at Lystra, they cried "The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." They wondered at so great condescension, but never imagined that their gods had less divinity, or were less to be worshipped for the change of their form; for they still gave them their highest titles, Jupiter and Mercurius, and their high priest, with the people, were ready to worship them, in the most solemn manner their religion could express. But among christians, there are many who will not allow the Deity to be manifest in the flesh, in grace and condescension, without denying him supreme wor. ship, and the character of the true God.

They do not deny that it was Jesus Christ who made these appearances, and they dare not deny that the titles and worship due to God are given to him; but not satisfied that he should have such honor, in a proper sense, they endeavor to account for his assuming these divine honors in an improper and figurative sense, as a messenger, ambassador, or at most an inferior God, sent and authorized by the great God. Hence they argue with great assurance,

that as ambassadors among men may speak in the same manner, and receive the same honor, as those in whose name they come; so Jesus Christ, consistent with his being a creature of high rank, might, as a representative or deputy, clothed with authority from the supreme God, and representing his sacred majesty, assume the names, and receive the worship due to God."

Ans. This argument is not only weak, but quite foreign to the point. The antecedent, or first proposition is not true in fact. No examples can be found of any ambassador assuming his master's titles. He who had such presumption, must be possessed of a larger share of pride than Rabshakeh himself, who said, "Thus saith the great king of Assyria,-my master sent me to speak these words.' But according to the objection, he would have said, "I am the king of Assyria." Whatever pride nuncios, legates, and ambassadors, may otherwise shew, none of them presume to say, I am the pope of Rome,I am the king of Britain, or I am the king of France.

But though the first proposition were true, which it is not, yet there is not the least connection betwixt it and the latter. For though ambassadors among men were to assume their master's titles and honor, there is some proportion, but in the other