author of the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity. "Before Abraham was, and before all gene

rations, I had a being with him of whom.

Mofes told the Ifralites, that his name was "I AM."

That often justly cited paffage in the 9th. Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, of whom as concerning the flesh Chrift came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, is a rankling thorn in the eyes of unbelievers, which Dr. C. wished to extract with the poultice of a devised ambiguity. He would have us believe that the original Greek is of a doubtful construction, and may fignify either, of whom Chrift came; God who is over all be bleed for ever; or, of whom Chrift came, who is over all; God be bleffed for ever. To this text we shall have occafion to turn again.

The Arians in general confefs that the Divine Perfonage who fo often, and fometimes

fo magnificently makes his appearance under the Old Testament, is Jefus Chrift, the Son of God; yet when this tranfcendent Being exprefsly

M 4

expressly says,—I am the God of Bethel,~ we are to understand him as in effect saying only, my Father, whom I reprefent, is God of Bethel. Such is the sense of these expofitors; who however kindly and logically grant that the Word was with God, or, in plain terms, exifted from all eternity, tho' not actually, yet potentially! One is tempted to speak ludicrously by the extravagance of

these conceits.

Is not this making the word of God of none effect thro' wantonness of interpretation? Is not this turning holy Scripture, which should be the rule of faith, into a mere play-thing of fancy?

Let us take a view of another famous writer's fentiments on this important fubject.-Mr. Whiston, after acknowleging Jefus Chrift, (whom he calls Ayos Dear Dpwños) to have given the law upon mount Sinai, to have appeared to the Patriarchs, &c. and to have taken "the peculiar ftyle, titles, attri"butes, adoration, and incommunicable name " of the God of Ifrael," fuppofes him to have been "truly and really concerned in the

"' creation

"creation of the world." But, obferve, he was a Creator merely by commiffion; &c. "it being (according to this author) unfit "and impoffible for the DIVINE NATURE "ITSELF, or at leaft THAT OF THE FA"THER, to be fo much, and in fuch "a manner concerned with the corporeal "world, and the finful race of mankind, as where find this DIVINE PERSON,

"we every

our bleffed Mediator, to have been."* And fo we are obliged to this philofopher for his wonderful difcovery, that Jefus Christ, tho' a DIVINE PERSON with all the attributes &c. and the "incommunicable name of the God of Ifrael," was yet without the DIVINE NATURE, because it is impoffible for the DIVINE NATURE to act in the abstract ; or at leaft for THAT of the FATHER to do fo, which, it seems, is fomething diftinct from, or fuperior to the Divine! If this is not Chriftianity, it is tolerable Platonifm.

But the grand expedient to which a latementioned Divine, and indeed the Arian

*Whifton's Solution, &c. p. 254.

fraternity

fraternity have ufually recourfe, is yet behind. Unable to with stand the united force of the feveral texts by which the full Divinity of our Saviour is evinced, they contrive to refolve the whole of his Deity into that absolute authority which, they fay, he derives from his Father, and exercifes jointly with him in the government of the universe. Dr. Clarke not unartfully tells us, that "the reafon why the Scripture, tho' it files the "Father God, and alfo files the Son God, yet " at the fame time always declares that there is "but one God, is, because in the monarchy of "the universe there is but one authority, origi"nal in the Father, derivative in the Son: "the power of the Son being not another power oppofite to that of the Father, nor another power co-ordinate to that of the Father, "but itself the power and authority of the "Father, communicated to, manifefted in, and exercised by the Son." *

But did not, or would not this able writer recollect, that fomething befides power was communicated, when the Father gave to the

Scrip. Doc. of the Trin. Prop. 39. See Stephens's Sermon on the eternal generation, &c.

Son

From which

Son to have LIFE in himself? paffage I take occafion to observe, that when an ambiguous word occurs in any paffage of Scripture; or a term, which independently confidered, appears to denote communication from the Father, and inferiority in the Son, its fignification is generally qualified and reftrained by the plain tenor and importance of the whole fentence. This is eminently the cafe with the text laft quoted. As the Father hath life himself, fays our Bleffed Lord, fo bath he given to the Son to have life in himself. In this phrafe having life in himself, (which is a periphrafis of Jehovah, the first and most effential name of the Deity,) the self-existence both of Father and Son from all eternity is neceffarily implied because tho' the word given imports communication of an incomprehenfible kind, yet fuch communication must have been from eternity. To affert, that the Father gave felf-existence to the Son from all eternity at any supposed period of time, would be neither more nor John 5. v. 26.

:

lefs