IV. The next paffage I fhall take notice of, is one extremely fhocking: Mr. Watts fays P, "the human foul of Chrift is a fublime fpirit, fuperior to all angels, and every created being, the firft-born of every creature, and poffeft of fuch capacious powers, as, by virtue of the indwelling Godhead, perhaps, might be fome way employed in the great and wondrous tranfactions of creation and providence in paft ages." I pafs by here the fancy of Chrift's human foul, a created fpirit, being fuperior to every created being, as felf-contradiction, and fo needing not any remark. As to the furmife that Chrift's human foul might be employed in the work of creation, I needed to have faid no more to it than what Mr. Watts 9 formerly faid, " that creation is a peculiar work of God," were I fure he would ftand by that affertion; but he has retracted fo much of his former writings, that it is hard to know what he ftill allows: However, let his fentiments be what they will, it is plain enough, on the foot of reason, that the Creator of all things must be uncreated; and the Scriptures fo appropriate the works of creation to God, that all other beings, and inferior inftruments are excluded from the glory of it: Thus Hezekiah addreffed himself to God, "Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth, thou haft made heaven and earth." And thus the Levites, in their prayer recorded by Nehemiah, "Thou art Lord alone, thou haft made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their hoft, the earth, and all things that are therein, the fea, and all that is therein, and thou P Differt. Part II. p. 109, 110. 2 Kings xix. 15. P. 68. 1 Chrift. doct. Nehem. ix. 6. preferveft preservest them all." Job fpeaking of God, faid, he alone fpreads out the heavens." God by the prophet y Ifaiah, has declared thus of himself, "I am the Lord, that makes all things, that ftretches forth the heavens alone, and fpreads abroad the earth by myself." The Apofle Paul has affured us, "That he who built all things is God." Thefe texts fufficiently exclude any creature, tho' ever fo fublime, from being employed in the proper work of creation. A created Creator is a difficulty, that none, fince the Gnoftics and Valentinians, except the Arians, have been able to fwallow, and it has clog'd their scheme fo much, that they could never come to any fixed refolution as to this matter. As they never have been able to prove, that a creature could be employed in the proper work of creation, I am forry our author has made fuch a conceffion to them, and, in effect, given up one of the moft ftriking arguments, to prove the Deity of Christ. V. There is another moft unaccountable conceffion, which is made by Mr. Watts, " that 'tis not for us to fay, that in the nature of things it is utterly impoffible, for any being beneath a God, to have any one of the powers or characters (fuppofed proper to God) communicated to him." It is moft irrational to fuppofe this, for as the divine attributes of God are infinite, they must be incommunicable to a creature; because the finite and limited nature of a creature is incapable of receiving the infinite perfections of God. Certainly, in the nature of things, it is impoffible, that the effential and ▾ Ifaiah xliv. 24. t Job ix. 6. * Heb. iii. 4. peceffary neceffary properties of an infinite fubftance can become the properties of a finite fubftance. VI. Our author, in fome parts of his books, gives a fanciful account of Godhead being communicated to Chrift. He fays y," the divine Nature or Deity may be faid to be communicated to Jefus Chrift the Son, by the Father's uniting the human nature of Chrift to his own Godhead (or to fome divine power represented perfonally) or by God's affuming the man Chrift Jefus, his Son, into a perfonal union with himfelf; which act of uniting the Godhead to the man Christ Jefus, may be called a communication of the Divine Nature to the Son." I can make no more of this, than a heap of confufion.' How Godhead can be communicated to a man, because the human nature is affumed into a perfonal union with the divine, is what I am not able to apprehend; and as I understand it not, I must leave it, without farther remark, to the confideration of those who can discover more clearness and brightness in Mr. Watts's ideas, than I am able to do in the words cited. VII. The modern Arians have groundlefly afferted, that there is no warrant in Scripture for worshiping the holy fpirit. I am forry to find "Mr. Watts making the following conceffion 2: fince we find fo great a filence in Scripture, of any exprefs precepts and patterns of prayer or praife directed diftinctly to the perfon of the bleffed Spirit, let us not bind it on our own confciences, nor upon others, as a piece of neceffary worship, but rather practise it occafionally, as prudence and expedience may require." I am' y Differt. Part I. p. 16. See alfo Part II. p. 99. z Chrift's Doct. p. 232. perfectly C e perfectly astonished at fuch an affertion coming from one who had allow'd, that the holy Spirit was worshiped in fome texts of the bold Teftament, that we are dedicated to him in baptifm, that the Apoftle Paul pray'd for the bleffing to defcend from the holy Spirit on the Corinthians, in the fame way in which the bleffing of the Father and Son are prayed for, and that the fame is repeated by the Apostle f John. That after all these affertions, he fhould fay, g" we cannot find any exprefs examples of petition, fo directly addreffed to the person of the holy Spirit, as there are to the Father and Son," is very furprizing and unaccountable. The reafons he gives, why petitions and praises may not have been addreffed to the Spirit in Scripture, are mere fancies, and do not deferve difcuffion; and the leaving it to prudence and expedience, to use or difufe doxologies to the Spirit, is putting what is either a neceffary duty, or a great evil, on a very precarious foot. Either the holy Spirit is God, or he is not; if he is not, he has no right to worship, and to worfhip him is flat idolatry; but if he is God, he has a right to worship, and confequently to have doxologies addreffed to him; fo that it is impiety and facrilege to deny him the ascription of praife, let men fay what they will, of prudential, peaceable, or expedient methods. i I readily allow Mr. Watts, that it is the Scripture must be the rule and ground of the particular worship we pay to each of the facred three;" but tho the Scripture is the rule and directory of our worship, yet it was never defigned as the formulary of our devotions; fo that notwithstanding we have not a pattern in Scripture of a doxology addreffed to the holy Spirit, yet as we find worship evidently paid to him there, we have a fufficient warrant from thence, to addrefs doxologies to him . Since he has a right to worship in general, it is daring infolence to deny him any particular part of wor fhip. Mr. Watts infinuates doubtfully," that there may be two or three examples of a doxology addreffed to the Spirit, in the writers of the three first centuries." If he knew the matter he talks of, he has done very ill to speak in fuch diminishing terms of it; but I would rather hope, he thinks the cafe is as he has represented it, and then he is grofly mistaken, and fhews how unfafe it is, to speak of a matter of fact by way of conjecture; for it is certain, that the Spirit is join'd with the Father and the Son in doxologies, more than two or three times in the writers of the three firft centuries m. * See my true Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 68, 78. 513-517P. 151, 152. Η Δι' ε, και μεθ' δ, τῷ πατρὶ, ἡ δόξα, καὶ τὸ κράτο, σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, εἰς αἰῶνας, ἀμην, Epift. de Martyrio Ignatii, p. 52. Ed. Smith 205 Διὰ τέτο, ο αεί πάντων ἀνῶ σε, ευλογῶ σε, δοξάζω σε, σὺν τῷ αἰωνίῳ καὶ ἐπερανίω Ιησε Χρισω, ἀγαπεῷ σε παιδί, μεθ' ε, σοὶ ἢ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, ἡ δόξα, καὶ νῦν, καὶ εἰς τὰς μέλλοντας αιώνας, 'Αe. Polycarpi noviffima in Epift. Ecclefiae Smyrn. cap. 14. p. 71. Ed. Oxon. Smith. Mat & digu Ta Os & Tarpi › ayís πvsújari. Ecclef. Smyrnen. Epift. cap. 22. p. 75. VII. In |