legated or subordinate authority; or that he acts under the authority, and in the name of a creature, which is not meet to be said of the supreme God. It remains, therefore, that as Christ's universal kingdom and headship is by gift from God, of which only the man Christ is the receiver, committed as a trust to him, so he certainly wants no ability to execute the trust in the nature entrusted with it; I say, no ability whether of power or knowledge, sufficient to render him a careful, vigorous, and every way most effectual head of his body, and ruler of the world; and to den. this, is to rob him of his greatest glory.

Besides, what benefit or gift is it to the man Chris that the divine nature should execute a power whh it always had, and could exercise without any gift him? What reward, or what addition was this him?

Another argument may be drawn from that co fortable ground of confidence in a Christian's addto God, which the Scripture lays down, viz. the st pathising compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ tow his distressed servants, arising from his own suffer! when on earth, "Seeing we have not an high pri who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infir. ties, but was in all points tempted as we are; let therefere come boldly to the throne of grace." H iv. 15, 16. Christ's having been tried with sufferi makes him a more compassionate earnest advocate. and this is our comfort.

legated or subordinate authority; or that he acts under the authority, and in the name of a creature, which is not meet to be said of the supreme God. It remains, therefore, that as Christ's universal kingdom and headship is by gift from God, of which only the man Christ is the receiver, committed as a trust to him, so he certainly wants no ability to execute the trust in the nature entrusted with it; I say, no ability, whether of power or knowledge, sufficient to render him a careful, vigorous, and every way most effectual head of his body, and ruler of the world; and to deny this, is to rob him of his greatest glory.

Besides, what benefit or gift is it to the man Christ, that the divine nature should execute a power which it always had, and could exercise without any gift to him? What reward, or what addition was this to him?

Another argument may be drawn from that comfortable ground of confidence in a Christian's address to God, which the Scripture lays down, viz. the sympathising compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ towards his distressed servants, arising from his own sufferings when on earth, "Seeing we have not an high priest, who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted as we are; let us therefere come boldly to the throne of grace." Heb. iv. 15, 16. Christ's having been tried with sufferings makes him a more compassionate earnest advocate for us; and this is our comfort.

Now it is certain, this compassion arising from his own experience of trouble, can belong to none but his human nature; the divine nature is compassionate, not for this reason, because it was tempted or grieved with misery. No, it was only the man Christ suffered, and consequently feels a sympathy from hence with his distressed servants. And it is most certain, that if he sympathises with them in their troubles, he must then know them in that nature which only has a fellow feeling of them; for none can sympathise with the miseries of others, which he knows not of. So that they, who deny Christ's human nature to be capable of the knowledge of all our miseries, do, in effect, deny him to be such a compassionate advocate as the Scripture represents him, and rob us of this strong ground of consolation and hope in our approaches to God, which the Apostle would have us to build on.

And this doctrine has been so far from appearing either impossible or absurd to the reason of mankind, that I might produce the consent of a very great number of learned men, even among them who oppose my other opinions. The Lutherans allow the man Christ a sort of universal knowledge, as well as universal presence, which they plead for. The schoolmen, both Thomists and Scotists, allow him universal knowledge, though they differ in their way of explaining it.

And there was a time in the sixth century, when in the christian church some were branded with Heresy, under the name of Agnoetæ, who held Christ was ig

norant of anything, which I conceive must have been in relation to his human nature; for those persons owned him to have a divine nature, and it is hard to imagine they could attribute ignorance to that. But waving that matter, which is disputed, it is enough for my purpose to prove what sense the christian church then had of Christ's extensive knowledge, as man; that they who wrote against those heretics do expressly deny any ignorance in Christ as man. For this we may produce two famous patriarchs of the ehristian church at that time, Eulogius of Alexandria, and Gregory of Rome; those heretics produced for their opinion Christ's words, that he knew not the time of the last judgment, as an instance of his ignorance. To this the former person says, that he was not ignorant of it, not as man, and much less as God. The latter says, In natura quidem humanitatis novisse, sed non ex natura humanitatis. He knew it with the human nature, but that knowledge did not rise from the humanity; which is what I maintain as to the knowledge I attribute to him, but not extending it so far as to all futurities, which they did.

And I find not a few of the modern reformed divines, who, when out of this dispute, speak agreeable to this, and are far from thinking it idolatry to ascribe as much knowledge as I have done, to the man Christ. Thus the reverend Mr Baxter, in his notes on Eph. iv. 16, plainly intimates, that he conceives an angel might be made capable of ruling the universal church