make sonship, as applied to him, a name of nature, because his sonship and his existence as a creature are coeval, and sonship implies inferiority and posteriority to the Father.-Therefore to apply sonship to CHRIST in any other sense than a name of nature, is the same to the Arian, as the taking Micah's priest and his gods was to him; and leaves him and his cause as Samson was when his locks were cut off. But the application of the term Father to GoD as a name of nature, is what I cannot understand, neither as consistent with the author's own scheme, nor in any other sense, except what he calls the Athanasian doctrine of the trinity, which says, that one divine person begat another in his divine nature and essence.-But as he says there is but one person in GoD, and that is the Father, who only and exclusively is the true and living God, this term Father must exhibit and make known something peculiar to the nature of GOD, and this must particularly be, that he begot a Son; now, he says, that this Son is a mere creature, the first that God created, consequently, the nature of GoD was after the begetting this Son what it never was before, i. e. a Father! I dare not mention some other glaring consequences!-let it suffice to say there can be no changes, no variations in the nature of GOD.

It is evident, that if the name Father be natural, or a name of nature in GoD, it is necessary and essential to his being, and is coeval with his existence. And as he holds CHRIST, to be no more than a created existence, it must follow, that God is a Father without any consideration of CHRIST as a Son, or without the existence of any creature. But where he gets this abstract notion of a Father is more than I can conceive. Father and Son are

correlates; they, as it were, give being to each other. They are relatives, and cannot subsist even in idea without each other. A Father that never begat a child, is an idea above my comprehension. And though the term should be considered figuratively, it will rather embarrass than clear the matter. For whatever way it is considered, it must have a relation to something in some respect as a Father; but if it is a name of nature in GOD, it can have no kind of relation to creature existence; for his nature is eternally the same without any consideration of creatures. The Father must be prior to the Son in existence, but not as a Father, for the names begin to exist the same moment. As the terms have a natural relation to each other, and, as he says, they are names of nature, this will make CHRIST an eternal Son, and must be attended with eternal generation, and all the nonsense which schoolmen have invented on this subject; which have made more Arians than all other considerations put together. If Father be a name of nature in GOD, it must be eternal, and consequently the name Son, and the person who is called by it. This agrees very ill with his being a mere creature, and having no Deity of his own, but only that of another dwelling in him. To make him eternal, is to make him GOD; consequently the scholastic doctrine of the trinity is true; or which is even worse, there must be two eternals, no matter whether they are called gods or any other thing, the absurdity is the same.

I cannot conceive how this author will reconcile this sentiment with some others in his book; page 30, after telling us that the name JEHOVAH is a name of nature, he says, "The other names of

GOD seem to be names of relation.-In page 33, he says, "God also calls himself a Father; which name is chiefly designed to express the near and special relation which he stands in to CHRIST and his people, as begotten by him, and believing in him.-A father supposes a son, or offspring; it is a name which is expressive of that relation, nor can it subsist without it: GoD then began to be a Father when he had a Son, the image of himself, and not before; it is not a name coeternal with his being, nor essential to his nature; he might be JEHOVAH, and not a Father," &c. I know no way of avoiding self-contradiction here, but by asserting that relative names, and names of nature, are all one. But this would be to confound things very different. Among several other differences, there is one that makes this case plain, &c. That a man of nature points out, and exhibits something that belongs to the subject that bears the name; but a relative name denotes some relation which the subject of the name bears to another subject. A name of nature has its meaning in the subject itself; a relative name has uo meaning without the consideration of another subject.-Among creatures, there may be but small differences in some cases, and some names may point out both nature and relation, but in GOD, it is impossible that the same name which defines his nature, can in that sense be a relative name to his creatures. But as we have no abstract names of Deity it is presumption in creatures to make comparisons, consequently when we speak of names of nature in GoD, we talk without authority from revelation.

From the author's own words we may conclude, that as the existence of the Son had a begin

ning which he affirms, paternity in GoD must have had a beginning, as it is a relative, and necessarily infers filiation, without which, as they are correlates, it could not exist. So that to make Father a name of nature in GoD, is undeifying Deity itself; or making the term Son a name of nature in GoD also. If paternity be natural in GoD, filiation must be included, at least as to eternal and necessary existence; which upon this plan, can no more be separated from the Son than from the Father. The consequence is still, eternal generation must be natural and essential in Deity;-or, there must be two GODS eternally and necessarily existent,

The sense of the term Father as applied to GOD must be learned by analogy, or we can have no knowledge of it at all. This is one grand evidence, how far the divine Being hath condescended to the weak capacities of men, in making himself known to them in a language that has analogy to what they know among themselves. And though the analogy in many respects is but faint, yet where there is none, ideas must fail, and enquiries should cease, into such terms as Father applied to GOD. What knowledge we pretend to more, if it is not revealed in so many plain words, is mere uncertainty, and cannot be reckoned any part of that system of necessary truth which GoD intended to teach us by revelation.

There is no property or affection which fathers as such among men are endowed with, that is not ascribed to GOD as the Father of his children in CHRIST. And though the difference is very great as they are applied to GoD and to man; yet, here revelation leads; and we may safely follow. God

is represented as the Father of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, under distinct considerations; but they all centre in the economy of salvation. I may therefore venture to affirm, that there is not one idea which can with propriety be prefixed to the term Father, as applied to GOD, in the whole of revelation, but what has a plain reference to the works of GOD, either in creation, providence, or redemption.

JEHOVAH is commonly called the proper name of GOD. I have no objection against calling it his proper name, if by proper be understood, that this name is proper to no being but the ALMIGHTY. As all other beings are dependent, and not selfexistent, they can have no claim to that name which in its signification includes in it, or points out self-existence. But this does not say that this or any other name is essential or necessary to Deity; for were it so, the name must define his essence, which of consequence would be limited; for every definition sets bounds to the thing defined. As we cannot know his essence, it is presumption to enquire after the name of it: this is a search beyond the capacity of finite intellects. He has revealed himself under such names as in divine wisdom and goodness he saw most suitable to the different parts of his relative character; and that they might know him, depend upon him, and put their whole trust in him, to whom he had in free grace and condescension come under such relations as are expressed or implied in the names he has revealed. And if the times past, present, and future, are included in his name JEHOVAH, they point out to his people, his power, faithfulness, mercy, and care, exercised towards his church; and that in every generation, he is to these