viour answers the Queftion, concerning the Woman who had feven Husbands: Neither can they die any more; for they are equal to the Angels, and are the Children of God, being the Children of the Refurrection, S. Luke xx. 36. Here we fee again, that being Angels, and being the Children of God, are ufed Synonimously. As therefore they are in this life called the Children of God in very many places, they may, for the fame reafon, be judged iodyfexor even here. Nor is there any more difficulty in giving them the Title of the Children of the Refurrection before the Refurrection. Indeed the Hebraifm does only imply a Title in rever fion. The Children of the Kingdom are not they who are poffeffed of Heaven, but they who are intitled to it. So it is, when the good Seed are faid to be the Children of the Kingdom, S. Matth. xiii. 38. For the Refurrection is fuppofed to follow the Harveft, and therefore cannot agree to the Seed-time. So alfo, when the Children of the Kingdom are faid to be caft out, S. Matth. viii. 12. This cannot poffibly be meant of those, even of the old Peculium, who are already pof feffed of Abraham's Bofom, and the Promifes of Heaven. And it is the Spirit of God that gives us this Title, even in reverfion, to be Children of the Refurrection. This makes us bear the Image of the heavenly Adam, 1 Cor. xv. 49. as he is of the invifible God. By this, Chrift is formed in us. By this Spirit, we are intitled to the fpiritual Body, v. 44. which the Apostle's reafoning fuppofes to be that which intitles even our Bodies to a Refurrection. Thus I have refolved all these Accounts of our being accounted the Sons of God into this one, of our having the Divine Spirit: Which is certainly better than to reckon on them fo Separately as N 3

the

S. LXIII.

the Socinians do, without any connexion with Principles received in that Age.

The Doctrine forementioned is very plainly This Title, the Doctrine of the New Teftament. S. Paul though common to Chrift him- tells us exprefly: As many as are led by the felf with the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God, Rom. true Peculium, viii. 14. He calls it the Spirit of Adoption, Standing very whereby we cry Abba, Father, v. 15. This Spi confiftent with rit bears witness with our Spirit, that we are his being the the Children of God, v. 16. This Spirit gives Son of God in us the fame Title to be the Sons of God, that a higher fenfe Chrift himfelf has. If therefore be be the Son

is notwith

than they.

of God for being born of the Holy Ghoft, we must be so too for the fame reafon, because we alfo are born of the fame Spirit. This gives á clear account of thofe Expreffions of our being joint Heirs with Chrift, Rom. viii. 17. and of his calling us Brethren, Heb. ii. 11, 12. and of his being called the Firft-born among many Brethren, Rom. viii. 29. because we are born of the fame incorruptible Seed of that fame Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever, 1 S. Pet. i. 23. We are faid to be born again in our Baptifm, of Water and the Spirit, and are thereby intitled to fee the Kingdom of God, S. John iii. 3, 5. That is faid to be our washing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghoft, Tit. iii. 5. which could not be, unless the Spirit there received, were the Principle of the new Divine Immortal Life, which we have as the Children of God, and which is fuppofed to be in us on account of our being fo. This Divine Spirit is the Sea quois, 2 S. Pet. i. 4. which is fuppofed in them who are Sons of God. Yet the Socinians are ftrangely miftaken, when they hence infer, that our Bleffed Lord was not God in a higher fenfe than we are capable of, because they find these ways mentioned

mentioned in the Scripture, how lower Beings than he may, notwithstanding, be intitled to that Appellation. If they would take the Dodrine of the New Teftament rather from it felf than their own Schemes, they would find, that in the participation of the Same Divine Nature, Chrift may notwithstanding, alone, have fuch Prerogatives as may make that fame Nature properly Divine in him, and Divine only in a lower fenfe as it is in us. This fame Divine Spirit is by the Scriptures, fuppofed to be in the aboriginally and immediately from the Father, whofe Image he is thereby made, the Image of the invifible God, Col. i. 15. 2 Cor. iv. 4. Heb. i. 3. In us only derivatively, who are therefore faid to bear his Image as well as that of the Father, Rom. viii. 29. 1 Cor. xv. 49. And it is certainly more Divine, to have the fame thing originally than derivatively. The Abwas begotten of the Father, and therefore had his Divinity from him before the World, and before all Creatures, because without him nothing was made which was made, S. Fobni. 3. We receive the fame Divine Spirit only intime, and are uncapable of receiving it otherwife. He received it by a neceffity of Nature, and as ne ceffarily as the Father himself had it. We freely and arbitrarily Of his own Will begat he us by the Word of Truth, S. Fames i, 18. This makes his Existence neceffary, and ours contingent, as therefore properly created. He is the exprefs Character of his Perfon, wasdrews autỡ, Heb. i. 3. Ὑφισάμινα are oppofed to φαινόμενα. So the looking at the Son directly, is opposed to the viewing his paris or refemblance in a Glafs, or in the Water, which is a shift for weaker Eyes. So the 62 is fuppofed to see the Father's Perfon directly, which he does καιδιαμβάνειν.

N 4

te

n

72

nalaμdvew. But he is fuppofed in perfon to be ἀκατάληπG, not only to αίθησις but to any e created ves. Thence it follows that we cannot h reach his Perfon, but his exer, his reprefentair tion in this Character, that we cannot fee the Father's doka, but its afμa, fo the fame Epiftle to the Hebrews expreffes it, in the Son. This is what he elsewhere expreffes, by the Light of the glorious Gospel of Chrift, who is the Image of God, fhining unto us, 2 Cor. iv. 4. and by God's fhining in our Hearts, by giving the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Fefus Chrift, v.6. This must ne ceffarily fuppofe a great diftance of Nature between the Aoy, who is thus fuppofed able to fee the Father in his own Nature, and us who are fuppofed to be able to view him no otherwife than in the Ay. Befides, the πλήρωμα wangwua of the Spirit is ftill afcribed to the Aóy. He it is that fills all in all, Eph. i. 23. all the fulness of God, Eph. iii. 9. all fulness, Col. i. 19. ii. 9. Of his fulness we all receive, only grace for grace, S. John i. 16. Single par ticular graces, fome more, fome fewer, but none all. So that though all of us partake of that which is infinitely perfect, yet none of us can pretend to infinite perfection. That still may be, and is, the Prerogative of Chrift, in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells, though we alfo partake of the fame Divine Nature. When therefore our Saviour proves his own right to be called God, from the right they had to that Title to whom the Word of the Lord came, his Argument is not à pari, as the Socinians fancy, but à majori, as I have now explained it. His equal Title appears from his having the fame Gifts, which any of them had to whom the Scripture gives the Appellation of Gods. And

his having thofe fame Gifts in a higher degree, even of infinite perfection in degrees, will prove him to have a better Title to the Name of God in the fame fenfe that they had it. Nay, Infi nity of any kind, will prove his Title to the Name of God in the appropriate fenfe. Much tmore, that Infiniteness which extends to all Perfections, as well as all Degrees, which is implyed in the notion of the wangwua. This feems to have been the true fenfe of a ribe, as afcribed by the Fathers to the Ay, long fince the clear definitions of the Catholick Church admitted by them who used this very Word, had made it impoffible for them to deny his Origination from the Father. It had relation to that notion of Godhead, which, as I have fhewn, was derived from the πνεῦμα. This πνεῦμα bes ing originally in him, made the Jerns alfo which was confequent to it, be fo too. That was the meaning of as with the Platonifts, from whom this Language was derived, to denote all the Archetypal Idea, which by their Principles, were lodged in the Aóy. The Derivatives were fignified by the termination eins. In this particular, Plato himself, and his Followers, had Homer for their Authority, who fo often calls his Heroes Joelds. This was after imitated by the Fathers in many other particulars derived from the Idea in the A2o. So the Archetypal Man was called by the Platonifts themselves arodview, the eclypal and particular Man ȧvgwrоedus, &c. Thus manifeftly the Socinians mistake the whole defign of the New Teftament, when they neglect the ftudy of Technical terms, and chufe rather to bring their Hypothefes to the Scripture, than to learn them from it. But, my prefent defign is only to fhew, how this Appellation of the Pofterity