Att. Gen. Then here will we conclude the evidence of this witness.

Cross-examination of the Witness.

Court. Defendants, what questions will you ask of him?

Priestley. My Lord, in his first quotation of Clemens Alexandrinus, the Witness describes the Father as saying, that Christ was made equal to the Lord of the universe; but this is proving too much, for thus Christ is made supreme, whereas supremacy can only belong, and can only properly be ascribed, to God the Father.

Witness. Though Christ be declared equal to the Father, as Lord of the universe, he is subordinate, as being the Son; or, as the Creed which speaks the belief of Athanasius renders it, "He is equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; but inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood."

Lindsey. But when Clement says of Christ, "that he can want nothing who has the Word, the Almighty God," surely the scribe has committed an error; for if the Greek of the original were written in the genitive case," the Word of the Almighty God," the mistake would be rectified. 1

1 This was the proposition of G. Clerke, in his Antenicenismus, written against Bishop Bull, to substitute Tou παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ for τὸν παντοκράτορα Θέον.

Witness. But we cannot submit to such an emendation where there is no ground for it; for no manuscript countenances it; and were the alteration admitted, the sense and meaning of the passage would be entirely done away. The sense of Clement, as I have already asserted, is this: — "He who has the Word, can want nothing; because that Word is God Almighty, who can do all things for those who are his, and who, as Almighty God, is the cause of all plenty."

Lindsey. We defy you to prove that any ancient Father or writer called Christ, God Almighty; for I cannot regard the passage which you have quoted sufficient.

Belsham. I, also, am of opinion that “ Almighty" is always applied to the Father only, by the most ancient writers. 1

Witness. Tertullian, who wrote A. D. 200, speaks decidedly to the contrary. He says, "The names of the Father, God Almighty, - the Most High, -Lord of Hosts, King of Israel, I AM, as far as the Scriptures teach us;—I say, these titles belong to the Son likewise, and that the Son came in these, and always acted according to them, and so manifested them, in himself, to men. · All that the Father hath,' he saith, are mine;' why

6

So Dr. Clarke, in his " Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,"

and others, have erroneously said.

not, also, his names and titles? Therefore, when thou readest, Almighty God, the Most High, the Lord of Hosts, the King of Israel, and I AM, consider whether the Son be not pointed out by these titles, who is in his own right God Almighty, as he is the WORD of God Almighty."-Here the sense of Tertullian is manifest, that Christ, as he is the natural Son of God the Father, and as he is his Word (the Word existing in him) has all things that God the Father has, and so all the essential attributes of God the Father belong to him, and among the rest the attribute of Almighty.1

Lindsey. That the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the same with Jesus of the New seems to be inferred from this and from the other quotation cited by the witness from Tertullian; but we collect from the writings of the ancient Fathers that it was not God the Father who appeared unto the Patriarchs of old, and to other holy men, but some representation of himself, suited to be his messenger, and to be occasionally seen by men.2

1 Adv. Prax. c. 17.

Omnia Dei Patris attributa essentialia in ipsum competere, atque inter ea attributum Dei omnipotentis. — Bull. Animad. G. Clerke, p. 271.

Omnia, inquit, Patris mea sunt; cur non et nomina?Tertull. ut supra.

2 This objection has been frequently started. See Waterland's Defence.

Witness. That Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testament I have already shown to be the belief of Justin Martyr; as clearly can I show it to be the belief and assertion of Irenæus, of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Novatian, and the Antiochan Fathers. That the angel who appeared to the Patriarchs and others was, in the judgment of these Fathers, Christ, is indisputable. God the Father was never seen by any man, nor can be seen even under any assumed appearances; for having no principle from whence he springs, he is subject to none; nor can be said to be sent by another. On the contrary, the Son of God, in respect to his being born of the Father, certainly, on that account, receives all his authority from the Father; nor is it any more dishonour to him to be sent by the Father, than to be born of him. He is of the Father; by him the Father made all things that are in the world, and, moreover, in due time made himself known to the world by him.2

Lindsey. But a forcible objection has been urged against this position by one who alleges St. Paul, in the beginning of his Epistle to the Hebrews, to declare, "That God, who, at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken

Defen. Fid. sect.i. ch. 1.

2 Defen. Fid. Brev. Animad. adv. G. Clerke, p. 278.

unto us by his Son." Here, by these last days is to be understood the days of the Evangelists; before that time, therefore, it seems that neither the Son of God had spoken, nor God, through the Son; for if the Son of God, or God through the Son, had so spoken, the Apostle could not have made that distinction between the latter times of the Evangelists, and the ancient period of the Old dispensation.1

Witness. I answer, with Justin Martyr, that the Word, or Son of God, appeared to the holy men of old as an angel, putting on the form of a created though spiritual intelligence: under the New dispensation he appeared in the form of man, and assumed our nature. 2 Now, how does this agree with the Scriptures? God says, in Exodus (xxiii. 20:)" Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared: beware of him, and

1 This was the objection of Ludovicus de Tena, in his "Difficulties in the Epistle to the Hebrews."- See Def. Fid. p. 11.

2 Filium Dei ad humana colloquia descendisse ab Adam usque ad Patriarchas in visione, in somno, in speculo, in ænigmate, &c.— Tertull.

Reverà enim erat Dominus per Mosen Pædagogus veteris populi; per seipsum autem populi novi dux, facie ad faciem. -Clem. Alex. Pæd. 1. i. c.7.