The  Argument  on  which  the  Charge  refls,  is
This,

"  He  that  has  not  the  Nature  of  the  tri4e  and  on^
*'  Ij  God^  or  is  not  naturally  and  necejfarily  God,  is  not
''  Ij  Nature  truly  God,  as  truly  as  Aia^i  is  by  Na-
•'  ture  truly  Man.
"  Our  Lord  (according  to  the  Doflor  )  has  not
*'  the  Nature  of  the  true  and  only  God,  nor  is  He
"  naturally  and  necejfarily  God :  Therefore  He  is  not
*«  by  Nature  truly  God,  as  truly  as  Alan  is  by  Na-
"  ture  truly  Man.
Let  the  Reader  now  judge  whether  the  Doflor,
in  faying  that  Chriil:  is  by  Nature  truly  God,  &c.  has
not  either  grojsly  contradi6l:ed  Himfelf,  or  meanly
equivocated.  It  might  have  become  this  ma-
deft  Pleader  either  to  have  confefTed  the  Charge ,
or  to  have  fhown  how  to  get  clear  of  it.  All  He
can  fay  is,  that  the  Son  has,  by  That  Nature  which
He  derives  from  the  Father,  true  Dominion:  And  fo
has  every  lawful  Magiftrate  true  Dominion,  in  as  juft
a  Senfe  as  is  here  underftood  of  Chrilt,  a  Dominion
derived  from  God,  Is  This  what  according  to  ufe
of  Language,  and  Cuftom  of  Speech,  has  been  un-
derftood by  the  Phrafe  God  by  Nature^  And  how
has  Chrift,  by  Nature ,  true  Dominion,  when  his
Nature  is  fuppofed  to  have  exided  before  any  Do-
minion commenced,  and  is  fuppofed  alfo  to  continue
after  the  Dominion  fliall  ceafe  ?  Not  to  mention  that
the  Dominion  is  alfo  prefumed  to  proceed  from  Free
€rant,  and  to  be  given  or  taken  away  at  Pleafure.
