Christ Jesus: whereas I contend, that the attributes in the text are strictly divine; and therefore incommunicable to any creature. Next, you speak of a subordinate sense, in which those attributes belong to Christ; which is the same as to say, (because you mean so,) that they belong not at all to him. For, I suppose, omniscience, or eternity, &c. in your subordinate sense, are very different from the other; and therefore are not the same attributes. It were better to deny roundly, that the same attributes belong to both; and then we should clearly apprehend each other. Lastly, I observe to you, that you understand the word subordinate, very differently from what catholic writers do in this controversy, and therefore, instead of it, should rather have said, in a restrained, limited which is your meaning, otherwise you contradict

not me.

Now then I must ask you, what ground or warrant you have from Scripture, or right reason, for putting restrictions and limitations upon the texts applied to Christ Jesus, more than to those applied to the one God? The expressions are equally general, and, seemingly at least, equally extensive. You are so sensible that you can give no solid proof of a restrained and limited sense, that you do not so much as offer at it; but only covertly insinuate your meaning, under dark and obscure terms. You speak of subordination, and quote Fathers for it, who understood it in the sober and orthodox sense: if you agree with those Fathers, you agree with me. But do not use their venerable names as a cover for what they never meant, but would have greatly abhorred b. I allow the second Person to be subordinately wise, good, powerful, &c. That is not the question between us: he is sapientia de sapientia; as lumen de lumine, and Deus de Deo. What I contend for farther is, that his attributes are

The testimonies which you have cited from Dr. Clarke, I take no notice of; because they have been already considered by a learned Gentleman, and shown to be foreign to your purpose. True Script. Doctr. continued, p. 11.

strictly divine, and his perfections infinite. I prove it from hence; because the attributes which belong to the one God, and are therefore undoubtedly infinite, belong to him also; from whence it follows, that the Godhead belongs to him too; and that there are more Persons than one in the one God. Whatever I can find in your answer tending in the least to invalidate this reasoning, I shall take notice of; though you have been pleased to be very sparing in this article. You observe, that "the exercise "of these attributes being finite, they do not necessarily "infer an infinite subject." I understand not what you mean by the exercise of eternity and omniscience, which are two of those attributes; nor how it can be finite, without an express contradiction; nor how either of them can be exercised, whatever you mean by it, but by an infinite subject. As little do I understand how infinite power, which, I presume, is what you chiefly allude to, must be finite in the exercise of it; as if there could not be an act of infinite power, or as if God could not do something which should infinitely exceed any finite power. These things very much want explaining; and so I leave them to your farther thoughts.

The clearest expression you have under this article is this: "When Christ is styled Lord of all, see it explained, "Matt. xxviii. 18. and Ephes. i. 22. where Christ is said to "have all power given him." Here, I think, I do understand your meaning; and am sorry to find that it falls so low. Would your predecessors in this controversy, the ancient Arians, or Eunomians, have ever scrupled to acknowledge that our blessed Saviour was Lord over all, long before his resurrection, or even his incarnation? That he was "Lord of all" before his resurrection, is very plain from the Scriptures, which carry in them irrefragable

Antequam faceret universa, omnium futurorum Deus et Dominus, Rex et Creator erat constitutus. Voluntate et præcepto (Dei et Patris sui) cælestia et terrestria, visibilia et invisibilia, corpora et spiritus, ex nullis exstantibus, ut essent, sua virtute fecit. Serm. Arianor. apud August. tom. viii. p. 622.

proofs of it. "By him were all things created, that are in "heaven, and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, "whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, "or powers: all things were created by him, and for "him and he is before all things, and by him all things "consist," Col. i. 16, 17. "Thou, Lord, in the begin"ning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the "heavens are the works of thine hands," d Heb. i. 10.

Can you imagine that the Son could be Creator and Preserver of all things from the beginning, and yet not be Lord over all till after his resurrection? If this does not

d It is not without good reason that we understand Heb. i. 10. of Christ. 1. The context itself favours it. The verse begins with xal où, which properly refers to the same who was spoken of immediately before, in the second Person. The ☛ preceding and ù following, answer to each other. A change of person, while the same way of speaking is pursued, must appear unnatural.

2. The scope and intent of the author was to set forth the honour and dignity of the Son above the angels; and no circumstance could be more proper than that of his creating the world.

3. If he had omitted it, he had said less than himself had done before, in verse the 2d, of which this seems to be explanatory; and as he had brought proofs from the Old Testament for several other articles, nothing could be more proper or more pertinent, than to bring a proof from thence of this also.

4. Declaring him to be Jehovah, and Creator of the universe, might be very proper to show that he was no ministering spirit, but rugoves; to sit at the right hand of God, which immediately follows.

5. To introduce a passage here about God's immutability or stability, must appear very abrupt, and not pertinent; because the angels also, in their order and degree, reap the benefit of God's stability and immutability. And the question was not about the duration and continuance, but about the sublimity and excellency of their respective natures and dignities.

6. I may add, that this sense is very consonant to antiquity; which every where speaks of the Son as Creator, and in as high and strong terms: such as these, τεχνίτης, δημιεργός, ποιητὴς: ἀνθρώπων, ἀγγέλων, τῶν πάντων, τῶν öλwy, Toù xócμov, and the like; testimonies whereof will occur hereafter. Barnabas, speaking of the sun in the heavens, calls it gyev xeçãv avtoũ, meaning Christ; though there is some dispute about the reading: of which see Grab. Not. in Bull. D. F. p. 23.

These considerations seem sufficient to overthrow the pretences of a late writer, Examin. of Dr. Bennet on Trin. p. 40. As to former exceptions to this verse, they are considered and confuted by Bishop Bull, Jud. Eccl. p. 43. See also Surenhus. in loc. p. 600.

satisfy you, return to John i. 1. He was Osos before the world was, by your own acknowledgment; which being a word of office, and implying dominion, he was certainly Lord, as soon as ever there was any thing for him to be Lord over. And when he came into the world, the world that was made by him, (John i. 10.) he came unto his own, (John i. 11.) Surely then he was Lord over all long before his resurrection.

You will ask, it may be, what then is the meaning of those texts which you have quoted? How was all power given him, according to Matt. xxviii. 18? Or how were all things then put under his feet, according to Ephes. i. 22 Nothing is more easy than to answer you this. The Aoyos, or Word, was from the beginning, Lord over all; but the God incarnate, the Oeάvpwоs, or God-Man, was not so, till after the resurrection. Then he received, in that capacity, what he had ever enjoyed in another. Then did he receive that full power in both natures, which he had heretofore possessed in one only. This is very handsomely represented by Hermas, in his fifth Similitude where the Son of God is introduced under a double capacity, as a son and as a servant, in respect of his two natures, divine and human.

"The father calling his son and heir whom he "loved, and such friends as he was wont to have in "council, he tells them what commands he had laid upon "his servant, and moreover what the servant had done; "and they immediately congratulated that servant, for "that he had received so full a testimony from his "lord."(Afterwards the father adds,) " I will make "him my heir together with my son.This design of

* See Bull. D. Fid. N. p. 38.

f (Pater) adhibito filio quem carum et hæredem habebat, et amicis quos in consilio advocabat; indicat eis quæ servo suo facienda mandasset, quæ præterea ille fecisset. At illi protinus gratulati sunt servo illi, quod tam plenum testimonium domini assecutus fuisset-volo eum filio meo facere cohæredem.Hoc consilium domini, et filius, et amici ejus comprobaverunt, ut fieret scilicet hic servus cohæres filio. Herm. Past. Sim. v. c. 2. p. 104. Cot. edit.

"the lord both his son and his friends approved, namely, "that this servant should be heir together with his "son."

66

It is much to the same purpose that Origen says to Celsus; "g Let those our accusers (who object to us, 66 our making a God of a mortal man) know, that (this "Jesus) whom we believe to have been God, and the "Son of God from the beginning, is no other than the "Word itself, Truth itself, and Wisdom itself: but we say farther that his mortal body, and the human soul "that was therein, by means of their most intimate con"nection to, and union with the Word, received the "greatest dignity imaginable, and, participating of his "divinity, were taken into God." It is difficult to express the full force of this passage in English: but you may see the original in the margin.

From hence you may perceive, how easy it is to account for our Lord's having all power given him, after his resurrection; given him in respect of his human nature, which was never so high exalted, nor assumed into such power and privilege, till that time; having before been under a state of affliction and humiliation. There is a notable fragment of Hippolytus, which Fabricius has lately given us in the second volume; and which is so full to our purpose, that I cannot forbear adding it to the former. Speaking of that famous passage in the Epistle to the Philippians, chap. ii. and particularly upon these words; "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him," ver. 9. he comments upon it thus. He is said to be exalted, as "having wanted it before; but in respect only of his

δἼδωσαν οἱ ἐγκαλοῦντες ὅτι ὃν μὲν νομίζομεν καὶ πεπείσμεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι Θεὸν καὶ υἱὸν Θεῖ, οὗτος ὁ αὐτολόγος ἐσι, καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία, καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια· Τὸ δὲ θνητὸν αὐτοῦ σῶμα, καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐν αὐτῷ ψυχὴν, τῇ πρὸς ἐκεῖνο, οὐ μόνον κοινωνίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει, τὰ μέγισά φαμεν προσειληφέναι, καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου θειότητος κεκοινωνηκότα εἰς Θεὸν μεταβεβηκέναι. Orig. contr. Cels. l. iii. p. 136, &c.

h Hippolytus, vol. ii. p. 29. Fabric. edit. See a parallel place in Origen, Com. in Joh. p. 413.