having dominion, is, according to the Scripture notion, truly and properly God. This shall be examined; but it will be convenient here to set down the Doctor's own words. "The word eos, God, has in Scripture, and in "all books of morality and religion, a relative significa❝tion; and not, as in metaphysical books, an absolute 66 one as is evident from the relative terms, which in "moral writings may always be joined with it. For instance, in the same manner as we say, my Father, my "King, and the like; so it is proper also to say, my God, "the God of Israel, the God of the universe, and the like: "which words are expressive of dominion and govern"ment. But, in the metaphysical way, it cannot be said, "my infinite substance, the infinite substance of Israel, "or the like a." He repeats the observation, (p. 290) b; and is very positive, that the word God, in Scripture, is always a relative word of office, giving the same pretty reason for it as before. This shall be carefully considered; and the manner of speaking accounted for, in the sequel.

I shall only observe here, by the way, that the word star is a relative word, for the same reason with that, which the doctor gives for the other. For, the "star of "your God Remphan," (Acts vii. 43.) is a proper expression: but, in the metaphysical way, it cannot be said, the luminous substance "of your God Remphan." So again, water is a relative word; for it is proper to say, the water of Israel: but, in the metaphysical way, it cannot be said, the fluid substance of Israel; the expression is improper. By parity of reason, we may make rela

a See Dr. Clarke's Reply, p. 284.

♪ Compare also Script. Doctr. p. 296. alias 264.

e It is very obvious to perceive where the impropriety of such expressions lies. The word substance, according to the common use of language, when used in the singular number, is supposed to be intrinsic to the thing spoken of, whose substance it is; and indeed, to be the thing itself. My substance is myself: and the substance of Israel is Israel. And hence it comes to be improper to join substance with the relative terms, understanding it of any thing extrinsic.

tive words almost as many as we please.

:

But to proceed I maintain that dominion is not the full import of the word God in Scripture; that it is but a part of the idea, and a small part too; and that, if any person be called God, merely on account of dominion, he is called so by way of figure and resemblance only; and is not properly God, according to the Scripture notion of it. We may call any one a king, who lives free and independent, subject to no man's will. He is a king so far, or in some respect; though in many other respects nothing like one; and therefore not properly a king. If by the same figure of speech, by way of allusion and resemblance, any thing be called God, because resembling God in one or more particulars; we are not to conclude, that it is properly and truly God.

To enlarge something farther upon this head, and to illustrate the case by a few instances. Part of the idea which goes along with the word God is, that his habitation is sublime, and "his dwelling not with flesh," Dan. ii. 11. This part of the idea is applicable to angels or to saints, and therefore they may thus far be reputed Gods; and are sometimes so styled in Scripture, or ecclesiastical writings. Another part of the complex idea of God is giving orders from above, and publishing commands from heaven. This was in some sense applicable to Moses; who is therefore called "a God unto Pharaoh :" not as being properly a God; but instead of God, in that instance, or that resembling circumstance. In the same respect, every prophet, or apostle, or even a minister of a parish, might be figuratively called God. Dominion goes along with the idea of God, or is a part of it; and therefore kings, princes, and magistrates, resembling God in that respect, may, by the like figure of speech, be styled Gods: not properly; for then we might as properly say, God David, God Solomon, or God Jeroboam, as King David, &c. but by way of allusion, and in regard to some imperfect resemblance which they bear to God in some particular respects; and that is all. It belongs to God, to receive

worship, and sacrifice, and homage. Now, because the heathen idols so far resembled God, as to be made the objects of worship, &c. therefore they also, by the same figure of speech, are by the Scripture denominated Gods, though at the same time they are declared, in a proper sense, to be no Gods. The belly is called the God of the luxurious, (Phil. iii. 19.) because some are as much devoted to the service of their bellies, as others are to the service of God; and because their lusts have got the dominion over them. This way of speaking is in like manner grounded on some imperfect resemblance, and is easily understood. The prince of the devils is supposed, by most interpreters, to be called the "God of this "world," 2 Cor. iv. 4. If so, the reason may be, either because the men of this world are entirely devoted to his service, or that he has got the power and dominion over them.

Thus we see how the word God, according to the popular way of speaking, has been applied to angels, or to men, or to things inanimate and insensible; because some part of the idea belonging to God has been conceived to belong to them also. To argue from hence, that any of them is properly God, is making the whole of a part; and reasoning fallaciously, a dicto secundum quid, as the schools speak, ad dictum simpliciter. If we inquire carefully into the Scripture notion of the word, we shall find, that neither dominion singly, nor all the other instances of resemblance, make up the idea, or are sufficient to denominate any thing properly God. When the prince of Tyre pretended to be God, (Ezek. xxviii. 2.) he thought of something more than mere dominion to make him so; he thought of strength invincible, and power irresistible and God was pleased to convince him of his folly and vanity, not by telling him how scanty his dominion was, or how low his office; but how weak, frail, and perishing his nature was; that he was man only, and "not God," ver. 2, 9. and should surely find so by the

:

event. When the Lycaonians, upon the sight of a miracle wrought by St. Paul, (Acts xiv. 11.) took him and Barnabas for Gods, they did not think so much of dominion, as of power and ability, beyond human: and when the Apostles answered them, they did not tell them that their dominion was only human, or that their office was not divine, but that they had not a divine nature; they were weak, frail, and feeble men, of like infirmities with the rest of their species, and therefore no Gods.

If we trace the Scripture notion of one that is truly and properly God, we shall find it made up of these several ideas; infinite wisdom, power invincible, all-sufficiency, and the like. These are the ground and foundation of dominion; which is but a secondary notion, a consequence of the former: and it must be dominion supreme, and none else, which will suit with the Scripture notion of God. It is not that of a governor, a ruler, a protector, a lord, or the like; but a sovereign Ruler, an almighty Protector, an omniscient and omnipresent Governor, an eternal, immutable, all-sufficient Creator, Preserver, and Protector. Whatever falls short of this is not properly, in the Scripture notion, God; but is only called so by way of figure; as has before been explained. Now, if you ask me why the relative terms may properly be applied to the word God, the reason is plain; because there is something relative in the whole idea of God; namely, the notion of Governor, Protector, &c. If you ask why they cannot so properly be applied to the word God in the metaphysical sense, beside the reason before given, there is another as plain; because metaphysics take in only part of the idea, consider the nature abstracted from the relation, leaving the relative part out.

From what hath been said, it may appear how useless and insignificant your distinction is, of a supreme and a subordinate God. For, not to mention that this must unavoidably run you into polytheism, and bring you to assert more Gods than one, contrary to the whole tenor

d

of holy Scripture; which is an insuperable objection to your hypothesis; I say, not to mention this at present, your hypothesis is built upon a false ground, as if any thing could be properly God that is not Supreme. Supreme, in the strict sense, supposes for its ground all the essential properties of one truly and properly God, as described in Scripture. Another God after this, is no God; because Scripture makes but one; besides that an einferior God is only God improperly, and so called by way of figure, or in some particular respect: so that at length your famed distinction of a supreme and subordinate God, resolves into a God and no God. The question then between us is, whether Christ be God properly or improperly so called; that is, whether he be God, or no. Your arguments to prove him a subordinate God only, I shall look upon as so many arguments against his divinity, and as designed to prove that he is not God.

You cite John x. 35, 36. "If he called them gods, "unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture "cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father "hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blas"phemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" From hence you endeavour to prove, that Christ is God in the subordinate sense only; that is, as I have said, not properly or truly God. But I can see no manner of ground for this inference from the words before us. Our blessed Lord had insinuated that he was really and truly God;

See what Dr. Bennet has very well urged upon this head, Disc. of the Holy Trinity, p. 178, &c.

Neque enim proximi erimus opinionibus nationum, quæ si quando coguntur Deum confiteri, tamen et alios infra illum volunt. Divinitas autem gradum non habet, utpote unica. Tertull. adv. Hermog. c. vii. p. 236. Deus non erit dicendus, quia nec credendus, nisi summum magnum. Nega Deum, quem dicis deteriorem. Tertull. contr. Marc. 1. i. c. 6.

Qui super se habet aliquem superiorem, et sub alterius potestate est; hic neque Deus, neque magnus rex dici potest. Iren. 1. iv. c. 2. p. 229. Unus igitur omnium Dominus est Deus. Neque enim illa sublimitas potest habere consortem, cum sola omnium teneat potestatem. Idol. Van. p. 14. Ox. edit.

Cypr. de