**visible and invifible;" from the loftieft angel that furrounds the throne, to the meaneft worm that crawls in the duft. Now thefe, and fuch like expreffions, it must be acknowledged, are very extravagant, if Jefus contributed no more to the production of the universe, than the apostles did to the miracles wrought by their inftrumentality.But if it be faid, Jefus formed the creatures by his own power, which he received from the Supreme Being; then it follows, that the Father communicated to him the power of creating. But that is an infinite power; for it furmounts the infinite distance which is between being and nothing. Now infinite power is an infinite perfection; and, it is manifeft, that an infinite perfection cannot be communicated to a creature, which is and must be finite in its powers and capacities. The supposition of the contrary is abfurd, as it involves a contradiction: becaufe it implies, that fuch a creature is both finite and infinite.

Again: If Jefus Chrift, being only an exalted creature, did create all things; he must be confidered, either as an inftrumental caufe, or as the principal caufe. Not the former; for no inftrument can act but where there is an object, and fuch an one to which it is in fome measure proportioned. But, in the work of creation, there is no object on which to act; the work itself producing the object. If the latter, he is the Creator; he poffeffes an infinite power; he is truly and properly GoD For if he be invefted with infinite power, why not with unerring wisdom and fupreme goodness? Why not with every perfection of the Deity?

Further: Either Jefus Chrift acted alone, in the creation of all things, or in conjunction with his Father. If the former, why is the formation of the world ever attributed to the Father? If the latter, either he exerted the fame, or a different power. If the fame, it was an infinite power; for fuch is the Father's. If a different power, it was created and finite. But as Omnipotence needs no coadjutor, (to will, and to create, being the

fame with God) fo the fuppofition of a finite power giving existence to the univerfe, and the idea of a created Creator, are the first-born of abfurdities. Nothing more offenfive, nothing more shocking to common fenfe, than the thought of a creature creating the world; yet with fuch inconfiftencies is the Arian system attended, and fuch abfurdities do its abettors digeft.

Once more: On the Arian hypothesis, it is impoffible to defend Mofes and the patriarchs, from a charge of idolatry; in worshipping, as the true God, the angel who appeared to them fo often. Because they cannot fay, with the Socinians, That this angel was not worshipped on account of his own excellence, but "because he reprefented God; and that, detached from his exalted office and miniftry, he was not worthy of C more honour than any other of those heavenly intelligences. For this angel, according to them, was THE WORD; whom the evangelift teaches us to confider, as exifting from the beginning with God, and as being God. So that all the honours he claimed and received from the ancient patriarchs, must be looked upon as due to his own perfections: and, confequently, we are taught to apply to an angel thofe oracles which had for their object the eternal God-To apply to the servant, what is peculiar to his Lord; to a fubject, what is due only to the Sovereign. But this confideration will be refumed hereafter.

CHAPTER XI.

The Language of the Holy Spirit, on the Socinian hypothefis, is obfcure, abfurd, and not confiftent with piety.

As to the obfcurity of Scripture, on the prin

S

The obfcurity we is reducible to one' Let us now fee,

ciples of the Socinians, it is fo apparent that I need not fpend any more time in proving it; I fhall, therefore, only inquire into the occafion of it. find in many paffages of facred Writ, or another of the following heads. whether the darkness and difficulties attending those texts, which are controverted between us and our opponents, be referable to any of them.

In many parts of the Scripture there is an obfcurity attending, which arifes from the nature of the things proposed to us. To this head belong the difficulties with which we meet in thofe paffages of Scripture which relate to the nature of God; the mystery of the incarnation; the decrees of election and reprobation; the fatisfaction of Jefus Chrift; the eternity of those torments which await the wicked; and all those great and fublime fubjects, which are incomprehenfible by man, except they ceafe to be what they are, or he ceafe to be what he is. But we cannot reduce to this principle the obfcurity which our adverfaries find, in the paffages before mentioned. For there is not, there cannot be. any great mystery in a creature revealing the counsel of God. It is no furprising thing for a man to live at the time when the gofpel-difpenfation commenced, or in the time of John the Baptift; to be known of God only; to be appointed to a more glorious miniftry than that of the prophets; or for a man to be made flefh, that is, to partake of a corporal nature. It was no very wonderful thing, according to the interpretation adopted by our oppon ents, which Jefus afferted, when he faid of himself;

t

I was, in appointment, before Abraham-I poffeffed a glory with the Father, before the world was; because it was determined, in the Divine decree, that I fhould poffefs it.'

Another cause of obfcurity in the facred Writings, is, The darkness which was brought on our minds, by the first grand apoftasy. "If our gofpel be hid, it is hid

to them that are loft; in whom the god of this "world hath blinded the minds of them that believe "not-The natural man difcerneth not the things of "the Spirit of God, neither can he know them." We fhould, therefore, examine ourselves and fee, whether the obfcurity of which we complain, fpring from our own depravity. It might, indeed, be juftly fufpected to arife from this quarter, in reference to the controverted texts, if we were the perfons who found them obfcure; but as it is chiefly our oppofers, they ought to acknowledge the obfcurity. For in our fenfe, the object is fublime and mysterious, but the language plain and familiar in theirs, the object is well proportioned to our capacities, but the language is obfcure and perplexed. -Further: Are we, or our adverfaries-let common fenfe judge-Are we or our adverfaries, the perfons who are chargeable with a fecret defire of giving an unnatural turn to these paffages, in favour of our own opinion; and with acting under the influence of evil paffions, in finding out entirely new and very extraordinary fenfes? What mistake, what irregularity can there be in fuppofing that thefe expreffions, "In the beginning," are to be understood in a general fenfe? Or that these, "The Word was GOD," include fomething more exalted and more Divine than the glory of a mere fervant? Or that these words," By him all things were "made, and without him was not any thing made that "was made;" fignify fomething more, than preaching the gospel, reforming the world, and the effects which followed? Or that thefe," Before Abraham was, I 65 anı," include an affertion and commendation of

perfonal excellence, which do not agree to the meaneft of rational creatures? Who, I afk, is able to fix and to prove a charge of mistake upon us, or of any extravagance, for thus thinking of fuch paffages as these?

Again: The genius of the original tongues, which, in fome cafes, is very different from ours, is another caufe of obfcurity. It is granted, however, that this is not the fource of thofe difficulties with which we meet in the paffages difputed between us. The-genius of the facred language is far from leading us to invest a mere creature with the most glorious characters of the Creator. To this it is quite averfe. Other languages have something heathenish and impious in them. They do not fcruple to use the terms, adorable, divine, facrifice, incenfe, eternity, and fupreme good, when speaking of a creature. But the language of infpiration, being the language, of GOD, never proftitutes terms of fuch facred fignificancy to little or bafe purposes; is always fober, religious, and confiftent with itself. The penmen of Scripture, it is true, fometimes ufe hyperboles; but never fuch as cap injure the glory of God.

Further The Scripture is obfcure in reference to events which are yet in the womb of futurity. Great perfpicuity, in prophecy, might impede the accomplishment of it. No body wonders, for instance, that things should be involved in ænigmatical figures, in the visions of Ezekiel, fo as to render his difcourfes obfscure; because they are the fecrets of futurity. But, in the expreffions before us, there is no prophecy. They, in general, refer to the time paft. Such as, "Before Abraham was, I am. In the beginning was the Word. The word was with God. The Word was God." The obfcurity, therefore, of which our opponents complain, cannot arife from this fource.

Once more: A falfe philofophy, or a mifapplication of that which is true, is another occafion of obfcurity in many paffages of Scripture. Various texts, in the Old and in the New Teftament, though clear in themselves,