conjecturé concerning the Ebionites having been originally Pharifees, certain it is, that they were vile corrupters of Christianity; and that they were held in abhorrence by the primitive Chriftians on account of their evil principles, in turning the grace of GOD into all the licentioufnefs of fin; and, in denying τον μονον δεσπότην, Θεον και Κυριον ἡμων Ιησουν Xpisov. Whatever, therefore, may be derived from this ancestry of the modern Socinians, they are fin-, gularly and fully entitled to it all; and if they think that there is any acceffion of authority to their opinions obtained thence, by all means let them triumph in it: but, they fhould confider, that it is the authority of men, who were the pefts of, and a difgrace to, Chriftianity; of men unknown to the world, but by the foaming out of their own fhame, and who carry in their front a name which attaches difgrace to themfelves, and to their opinions. But let us return from where we have digreffed...

After St. John has faid, that the Word was GÓD, he adds, in order to obviate any fuggeftion that Divinity was bestowed upon him as a donation, ouros ny εν αρχή προς τον Θεον. This fame perfon was in the beginning with GOD; that is, "was in the unity of "the Godhead." Hence," all things were made "by him, and without him was not any thing made' "that was made." All which, if it doth not fignify, that he was GOD from all eternity, then language hath no power of communicating any meaning

to

to us.

Again; "He was in the world, and the "world was made by him, and the world knew him "not. He came to his own (i. e. to the Jews who "were the people of GoD, and, therefore, bis own,) " and his own received him not; but, as many as "received him, to them gave he power (a right) "to become the fons of GOD," as it is in our translation, but, more properly, it is children of God, TERVα OOU; that is, by adoption. Now it is a moft certain truth, that no one can give a thing which he has not; no one can give a right to you to become an adopted child, but the perfon who adopts you; and, if JESUS CHRIST gives a right to any to become the children of GoD, it is because he is God himfelf; for, otherwife, he gives a right which belongs to another, and which he has not himself to give. But, you fay, he gives by delegation, by commiffion. If St. John had said it, I should think so too; but St. John fays no fuch thing; and, until he does, the argument must stand good, that JESUS CHRIST is GOD, because he gives to others εovia Texva Θεου γινεσθαι.

EOU YIVE Bα. How far, however, he may be faid to give by commiffion will be feen hereafter, when this matter will be more particularly noticed.

66

John v. JESUS had faid, My Father worketh "hitherto, and I work." On this account the Evangelift tells us, the Jews fought to kill him, because he called GOD his Father, and made himself equal with Gop, πατερα ίδιον έλεγε τον Θεον, ισον ἑαυτον

TOLWY TW DEW. As the Jews, who heard him, interpreted his calling GOD his own proper Father, to be a making himself equal with GOD, fo alfo muft we; and the question will be, Did the Jews herein, or do we, mifinterpret him? For, if, in calling GoD πατερα ίδιον, he did not mean to make himfelf equal with GOD, he never would have fuffered the Jews to have remained under fo great a misapprehenfion of his words, and, in confequence, would have answered them in fuch a manner as to have removed their error. Let us fee, then, how he does anfwer them.

1

"Then answered JESUS, and faid unto them; Verily, verily, I fay unto you, the Son can do "nothing of himself, but what he feeth the Father "do; for, whatfoever he doeth, those alfo doeth "the Son likewife; for, the Father loveth the Son, " and fheweth him all things that himself doeth."

This is a part of our LORD's answer to the Jews, and is by fome conceived to be full in proof, that he did not mean to call himself equal with God, and that he is not God; for, the Son can do nothing of himself, which, if he was GOD, would not be true; for, as he can do nothing of himself, therefore he is not GOD. This conclufion is too haftily conceived, and proceeds, probably, from a misapprehenfion of the premises.

For,

in

For, the Jews, imagining that our Saviour had,

proper terms, made himself to be Go», by calling GOD his own proper Father, received the doctrine with the highest degree of indignation, as conceiving that it militated against their firft and great commandment, that they fhould acknowledge only one GOD; and, therefore, they fought to kill him, for advancing what to them appeared to be fuch blafphemous doctrine. Here, then, the objection of the Jews to what our LORD had faid to them manifeftly was, that his doctrine was the affertion of more Gods than one. The anfwer, therefore, required to fuch an objection was, either that he did. not make himself equal with GoD; or, that his making himself equal with GoD, did not militate against the unity of GOD. That he did not answer them by a formal renunciation of an equality with GOD is most certain, and needs no proof; and that he did answer them by fhewing that his equality. with GOD, as being the Son of GOD, did not militate against the unity of God, it is hoped will be fufficiently proved by what follows.

But, firft, let me premife, and recommend to the very particular attention of the reader, that he bear conftantly in his mind the implied fignification of the words Son of GOD. That, as the words imply a neceffary participation in the Divine Nature; fo, alfo, do they as neceffarily imply a fubordination, fubjection, and a compliance with the will of the

Father;

Father; which fubjection or compliance is no more any impeachment of the Son of GOD's Divine Nature, than the subjection and compliance of a Human Son with the will of his Father is any impeachment of his Human Nature: for, notwithstanding the compliance and fubjection, he will be as truly GOD in nature in the one instance, as he is man in nature in the other. And this being attended to, it will ferve to obviate and to remove those difficulties with which the minds of many have been perplexed who have conceited, that the inferiority, neceffarily appertaining and applied to the condition of a fon, extends to, and neceffarily implies, an inferiority in nature; which, we all know, moft certainly, neither is, nor can be, true: for, be the fubjection what it will, the son of a man will be in his nature as truly a man, and to the full extent and measure of humanity as the father is, fo that the inferiority is merely an inferiority, and not of nature; and hence the full and perfect Divinity of the Son of GOD will be perfectly compatible with all that is spoken of him as a Son in Scripture, and as ating under the delegation and commiffion of the Father.

The Son, it is faid, can do nothing of himself, i. e. feorfum a patre: therefore, the Son's equality with God did not militate against the unity of GoD. As a feparate, independent Gon, which the Jews fuppofed he afferted himielf to be, he might have acted from himself alone; but this he difclaims. He is