^.>'vA ijL.K' ,■ ;v- Qr^C-A. J^tv- ^LJvy" The( Case, _ Shelf, Book, OP TH ologieal PRINCETO .^c.C E Seminary, N, N. J. 1 Division J Sectien No, 0 t. THIRTEEN SERMONS Concerning the Doctrine of the TRINITY. Preach'd at the MerchantVLecture, dX Sdter\-H^IL TOGETHER WITH A Vindication of that Celebrated Text_, I John \. 7. from being Spurious-^ and an ExplI- catioii of it, upon the Suppofition of ics being Gfr nuine : In Four Sermons, Preach'd at the'fame Lecfture. An. 17 19, 1720. • / ^ By Edmund CalAxMy, D.D. f^ifquis h*ec legit, uhi pnrher certus eft, pcrgat mecum 5 uhi pnriter hicfitnp, qUiCr/it mecum : uhi errnrem fuum cog- nofcitf redent nd me ; ubi meum, revocet me, Augufti- nus de Trinitate. Lib. I. cap. iil. Cum homines Deum tjuaru7Jt, ^ ad intelligentiam Trinitn- tis {-pro cnptu infirmitatis humane) animum intendunt ; facilliyne dehent ignofcere errnntihus in tanti fervefii- gfition^ fecreti. Auguftinus ibidem. Lib. II. cap. i. Frlnted for John Clark^ at the Bible and Crown in the Poultry, mar Cheapfide. 172^. ■^?^ m^ \ I *A\\m^mr\\[*m T O His Majesty King GEORGE: SIR, UR Countryman ^Z- cuin writing upon the Doctrine of the Tri- nity, in Defence of the Common Chriftian Faith, infcrib'd his Work to the Em- A 2 peror The Dedication. peroi- CHARLES the Great, and was well accepted. Standing up for the fame Faith, (of which Your Majesty is the Great Defender) I am very thankful for the Honour done me, in having leave to prefix Your ^uguji Name, to my well meant Endeavours. To You (Great Sir) all among us that have any value for Religion, look with a du- tiful Reverence, as pur Com- mon Parent ; gratefully own- ing that pur Liberty to fpeak, write, or aieii andServanfy Edmund Calamy. THE PREFACE. N the Debate about tfoc Doctrine of the Trinity^ yvhlch I think may 'very well he allowed, to he of as gi-eat Importance In Itfelf and its Confequences^ as any of our mofi dlfilnguljhlng Chrifiian Tr indole s ^ TV hat is alkd^d cither for its Defenfe or Illufiraticny out &f the Sacred Scriptures^ the Fathers,, the Schoolmen^ or the Writings of Modern Di^lnes^ (^whlch are all ufually cited) is manifeftly of 'very dlffe-^ rentCmJiderationi THE Sacred Scriptures are here our proper Stan- dard ^ adhering to Tvhich we are fafe^ whoever demurry or make Ofpofition. As far as they upon being confttlted^ are found to contain and deliver this DoSfrine either dU reElly or confequentlaUy^ we are bound to receive and adhere to ity whatever Difficulties it may have attend^ ing it^ and how much foever vje may be exposal to Cavils. It IS therefore a Scriptufd TRINITY 2i;>6/V/& I have here endeavour'' d to defend and plead for : And as to the Senfe of the feverat Texts produced ^ I have film'' d at coiU^tlng It from the mofi common Signlficatic?i The Preface. cf the ^ords and Exprejfions ufedy _md hy comjarmg parlous PaJJages together ^ not ozrer looking what has been (aid by others y tho^ without apprehending ntyfelf to ht under any Obligation to take my Notions from any fin- gle Terfonsy or Bodies of Men^ let them be euer fo de- ferring of RefpeB or Efieem. And upon the fi^ole^ I mufi Civn^l am fo far from jiwndrlng that we meet with no more about this DoBrine In our facred Writings^ that IthlnJz ove ha've great Reafon to be thankful^ that we have fo wuch there difcover^d concerning it^ as may gl've m fujficlent Security of our Salivation in the Way of the Gofpel. I ^ar^t eafly forget^ (nor willingly would J) what I heard In my younger Tears from an eminent Dl'vine (now ovith God) who was pretty generally reckon d one of the heft Treacher s of the Age. Occaftonally mentioning In a pub-- lick Dlfcourfe the DoSlrine of the Trinity, and the right Way of fupportlng It^ he^ the better to tlluftrate the Weakness of fuchy as not laying their main [Strefs on Re^ 'uelationy fled to Reafon or Authority^ and made either the one or the other of them their main Refuge ^ compared their Conduci to the unaccountable Beha-vlour of a Tar^ eel of People y who belrtg in an Impregnable Forty where they might he able to defend themfel-vesy and had no need to Fear any Force that could be brought againft them, de- ferted it^ to contend with their Enemy upon plain Ground y to the needlefs hazarding their own Safety. The Simili- tude I thought "very apt and inftrualve : and fuch was the Impreftion it made upon mey as to bring me to take up ti Refolutlony from which I never yet could fee Reafon to depart y That I would carefully take heed of being tempted tipon one Pretence or another y to divert from the Scriptures in fuch a Matter of pure Revelation y as that Doclrlne is ; €r to concurr In fettlng any Thing in the Icaft Degree y upon a Level with themy in order to the Supporting and Defendi7ig it. Nor can ly upon the clofeft Search L havt hen able to makcy find any Way like this_ to^ keep up the ~~ ■ Credit V\ The Preface.' CrW^ of thofe Holy Writings,, on -which our Religion fo much defends, ■ THE "very lafi Penman of Scripture^ St. John the Jpofile^ (whofe Zeal for the Trinity^ and in parii^ 'cidar for the proper Divinity of our BleiTed Savi- OUR_, is celebrated among the Ancktits) left thfs World ^ a little after the Beginning of the lid CenturVj ac- cording to our common Way of compttting^ and about Two hundred and twenty Tears before the Meetmo- of the Council of Nice. And within this Space of Tlme^ federal of the Fathers^ either more defgnedly^ or more occa [tonal-' ty^ in their Writings ^ {fe'veral of which are lofi^ a^td but few of them comparati'vely remain now In our Hands ^ gave their Senfe of this Doclrlne, And till the ftartlng of the Ar ia.n.Not Ion y it appears In what they have ad^ vanc'd concerning It^ to have been their main Defgn^ either to vindicate the Worflnp of our Dear REDEEMER^ on the Account of his Divinity : or elfe to oppofe a Fan- cy that feems to have been betimes ftlrring in the Churchy that there TV as fitch an Union of Father and Son^ In the Deity ^ as that they no Way differ d^ and the One might be fald to have done^ whatfoever was done by the Oiher : And it is not impoffible hut their Oppofitlon to this erroneous Conceit^ may have fometlmes carry d them too far. The Two main Writings upon this Head hi thli Teriody are Tertullian againfi Praxeas^ and NoVatian o» f^g Trinity- And I jlwuld think it might fatlsfy fuch as are reafonable^ to find thefe Two fo clear as they are agalnft Sabellianifm^ notwlthfianding that not b.e-^ ing at that Time ajvare of the Danger of the as yet un-^ mention d Arian Scheme ^ they may not have guarded againfi it with all the Strength and Clearnefs that might have been defir^d^ or which could they have forejeen . "ii^hat would, have been afterwards advancd^ might havs been expecled fro?n them, HOWEVE^^ It hew pretended^ That thefe frf Fathers generally agreed in their J^otions and Senti-' b ^ ments^ The Preface. mcntSy 'With thofe that wtre afterwards condemn"^ d In the Council of Nice ,• for the Satis faEiion of fuch as either want Ability to confult the Learned Bijljop Bull_, in the Language he wrote -in^ or have not Time to run over his large CoUeBionSy I in oixe of the fol- lowing DifcourfeSy have in a narrow Compafsy {with" out in the leaf >detraBing from our Rule of Faith) ojfer^d what appears to me to he fuficlent Troof of the contrary : A7td hav,e there jhewny that they who firfi fucceeded our 'infpird Writers ^ did in the maln^ in what they puhlifid upon this Do- cirlne of the Trinity^ adhere to the Holy Scrip- tures. WHEN the Council of 'Mice was over. An. 325'^ and ^i^/rf ^/- Conitantinople. An. 581^ 7%oSuhje^was more ovrlt upon than thtSy and the Y2iK\iei^ generally with great XJnanimity afcrted the Eternity of the Sacred Taree_, and their Equality in all Divine Perfe^ions. This was done not only by St. Athanafius^, (who both livd before the Nicenc Council ^ and a good while after it) but aljo by St. Bafil^ St. Gregory Nazianzene^ St. Gregory Kyffen^ and St. Chryfollonij and the rejl of the Great- ejt Men In the Greek Church ; and by St. Hilary, 6"/, Jerome^ St. Ambrofe, St. Auftin, and others that 4;ame after them in the Latin Church : And the main 'Difference amongfi them jecms to have been about the Word Hypoltans,, by which fome underftood Perfon_, ^nd others Nature ; But without much Difficulty^ that 'nvas at length accommodated ^ and fo Eaft and Weft wai of one Mind. HA D I in thefe Dlfcourfes entered upon Particulars under this Period ^ I had been inevitably drawn into a Length that would have been tlrefome : and have there^ fore been content with a few occafional Touches and Re- ferences onlyy Here and There. And for the very fame Reafon^ I .ha^ve alfo forborn to take Notice of the De- bates in the Vth Century, about the Incarnation of ths The P R E F A C E. the Son (f Go Dj, which -were mana^d with fio fntall Heat and Subtlety J upon Occajton of the Neltorian and Eutychian Controverjies. BUT a little after the Tear 5-003 that Excellent^ old KomB.n Nobleman Boetius_, wrote upon f/6? Trinity : j^nd tho^ he adherd to the 'very fame Notions as were before generally current in the Churchy yet his jJwrt Dif courfes on that Subje&y are fo full of Phllofophlcal Terms ^ and Metaphyjical Subtleties^ that it is no eajy Thing to follow htm. And ^tts alfo much the fame as to John Damafcene^ who about the Tear 7 ip^ piblljlilng Four Books of the Orthodox Faith^ Intitul'd the frfi of themyO^ G0D3 One and Three. It then began to grow the Way to turn Religion into a Science^ and handle it accordingly : Which has been fo far from doing it any real Service y that it has unhappily diverted many from any Concern about being acquainted with the Life and To- wer of it. IN the Time of Charles the Great_, and towards the Tear 8oo_, our Countryman Alcuin and Paulinus of Aquileia wrote on the Trinity^ in Oppofitlon to Elipandus of Toledo^ and Felix of Urgel in Ca- talonia^ who with Vehemence afferted that our Savi- our was not the Natural but the Adopted Son of God. ^W /w fZ'g Xlth Century^ Anfelm wrote on the fame Subjeci agalnfi Rofceline^ who ajjerted that the Three Terfons of the H kin ITY were three difiinB Beings : Arguing, that elfe it might be [aid that the Father ^WHoLY Ghost were Incarnate, as well as the So K. And afterwards St. Bernard wrote on the fame SubjeB againft Abaelard : And there were like Debates between Abbot Joachim_, and Peter Lorn- bard J Mafter of the Sentences. But they that livd in thofe Times, very generally afferted a like Trinity in U^ity, a7id Unity In Trinity^, wUh thofe that went before them, b 5 AFTER The Preface. AFTER the Ttar 1200^ there took place among, the Schoolmen J 'who were a dark and, cloudy^ hut 'volu- minous Sort of Writers^ a Language and Phrafeology and Method of handllf>g all Subjecis that offered ^ that 7pas fecuUar, They treated the fe^ueral Parts of The- ology_, and the DoBrme of the Trinity among the refiy in a wr anting and disputing Way^ branching out Into an Infimte Number of ^uefiionSy 'which they debated 07f both Sides with Abundance of Curiofityy and a num^ herlefs Parcel of cramp Difilntilojis^ fetched from the Writings of Ariltotle_, ratUr than the Bibte^ -which confounded Infiead of inftrucling. And this was the common prevailing Way^ down to the Times of the Rc^ formation. THO^ I cant fay but in the Writers of this Sorty there are fome Things that are well advancd^ yet much of their pains (and that upon this as 7vell as othe^ Sub^ jcBs) appears to me to be very like weaving curious Webs to catch Flies. I dare therefore promlfe my Reader ber forehand^ that he will here find the fublime SubjeSl of the Trinity fo handled ^ that he will meet with no Metaphyfical Nicetle/y cramping Terms y. or confounding jDlJlin^lons of the Schools to dijiurb him. Nothing here occurrs of the Perichorefis in the Trinity^ or the in- dividual Subftantiality of the Sacred Three. There Is nothing here of Suppolitality^ nor of the fame fpeci- fical and Numerical Effencej about which there was fuch a Contention for 7ner.ly between MarcliuSj and Cur- cellacus^ ayid about which ^ as to the Se7ife of the Fathers y S.here is fuch a^ Qontefi yet dcpcndlfig between Dr. Whitby ^nd Dr. Wateriand. In JJjorty I have only kept the word .perfon^ and have given the Reafon whjy and intima- }ed what is mte^ided by it. And if that be but aUowd mcy I know of no Term 1 have ufed about thts Doclriney ihai^ need g-ive Difiurbance to ar^y. Jnd fo little Fond^ fiefs have i of Words y that I could be content to part with .thalfoQjtatmth^^ provided y what is meant hyip 1^'\ '. '■. h The FtLEF ACE, uhut fecur^dy Ti'hlch is a real Diftind:ion in the God- {iead_, ^nfwerahle to the fei-ernl diflhi Et Charatlers gi^criy and different Offices that are ^ffignd^ In the Sacred Scri- ptures. JSior IS it In ?r?y yl'pp'ehefiJJon^ worth while to contend for any IFord that is ?iot exprcjsly Scripturrd^ no not e^ven tho^ it has been ever fo wuch ufed by Divines^ if Tvhat is meant by It^ after Its being frovd true^ be but fccur^d. AT the Time of the REFORMATION^, when other Do- Urines were tf'pon Search^ found to have beefifadly adul- terated and corrupted in the Romifh Churchy by un- fcripturalj unwarrantable additions to the Frimitlve Creeds ^«i ConfeffionSj that of ^^e Trinity was^ as to the Subftance of ity foujid agreeable to the fiancllng Rule ot Faith^ and therefore necejjary to be retained, Tfoo' at the fame Time^ jufi Cojnplaint was very generally made^ of the confoimdmg Language ufed about it in the Schools. Accordingly It was brought hito the Con- feflions of the fever al Proteitant Churches^ and their Catechifras^ as well as Theological Syltems ,• of which fo large an Account has been given in the Do- drine of the BlclTcd Trinity^ Stated and De- fended by fome London Miniilers^ as makes my di- lating upon it altogether nee die fs. BUT putting all together that has been offer' dhy thofe that have had this Subjecl under Confideration^ (both formerly y and more lately) as to the Scnfe of the Scri- ptureSj Fathers^ Schoolmen, and Keform'd Di- vines, about this Matter ^ I think we may verj natu- rally be led lijto this RefeBlon ; that if the Vottrine of the Trinity, and of the cojymion Deity ofthe^di- ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, as It has been ufually Stated^ is really an Error ^ it mufi mofi certainly be of a very dangerous INature^ and fubverfive of the main Foundations of Religion : And yet (which is ftrangf to conceive) it has prevail* d In the very bejl and purejl Churches of Christ fnce He left this Earthy and it b 4 hiki The Preface.' has been fufforted and defended hy as Great Men ^ and as remarkahle Bodies of Men met together m Councils and Synods upon a Variety of Occafions^ as the Chrlfilan World has e^ver kno7vn. Whereas on the contrary^ if this VoBrme is true^ (and if it be not fo^ I can't fee how Re- i)elation itfelf can he allqivd to help us to judge ^ ivhat isy and what is not fq) it may 'v^ry well he Matter of great Joy tq 7*5 to find It fo generally adhered to^ he- caufe the Majefty of the Son_, and Spirit of GoD^ cur own Redewftion^ the Worjlnp of the Chriftian Churchy the Comfort of our Souls ^ and the Credit of the Sacred Scrl^ pturesy have therein fo great and fo manlfeji a Con- cern. A ND yet its eafy to he ohjer'v'd^ That as this Do- Brh'ie met lulth no finall Oppofitlon at the firfi Spreading ^Chriftianity tn the Worldy fo alfo foon after the Re- formatio N_, did there arlfe fome among ourfelijeSy fpeaking pt^rvcrfe Things^ to draw Difcipl^es'after them. As the Chrlfilan DcBrlne was informer Ages^ 'Z'ehemently opposed hy the Gnofticks^ Ebionites^ and ArianSj fo has the Doclrine that has commonly prevailed in the Reformed Churches ^ hee?t opposed 7i>'ith as great Vc" hemence^ and no lefs Subtlety^ hy Servetus^ Valentiiiu§ *Gentii!Sj ^W Socinus_, a?jd their Followers ^ to the peruirtlh(^ many^ and the fimking and difiurhmg more : And yct^ TlMi77ks be to GoD^ the Truth fiiU remains un(J)aken^ and 1 hope^ and douht noty ii^ill continue to do foy In all fucceedlng Ages. Michael Seryetus was very like Simon the Sorcerer ] who we are told^ A^ls viii. 9. gave out that himfelf was fome great one. For whereas It is faldy R.ey.xii. 7. That Michael and his Angela ■fought againit the Dragon j he interpreted it of himfelf. The Truth of it is^ he was Infufierahly arro- gant ^^ and fouUmouth'' d in his RefltBlons^ on the Great \Doftrlnes of the GoiipQl. He call'd the TRINITY a Thre£''headed Cerberu^^ a7ul was guilty of divers Blaf ' "' ' ' '■ " •■'•■' ^ • - ■ j)hsmies. The P R E F A c eJ ^hemtes. Me is hy many (notwithfianding he had a f^ariety of fubtle Fetches) thought to have been far front beino- right In his Head : And for that Reafon^ as well as others y I jlwtdd be loth to undertake a Vindication of his Treatment at GtntY2i^ An, lyjj. Valentiuus Gentilis attempted to bring in a proper Tritheifm^ and making Three dijtin^ Godsy he might as Tvell with the ancient ValentinuSj ivho ll'vd In the. lid Century^ have made them up Thirty. He boafied that he was the firft Martyr that lofi his Life for the Glory of the Father. But -whether the Zeal of thofe^ who upon that Account made a Martyr of htm at Bem^ An. 1 5*663 was not too fiery y %s not the Matter of my prefent Confideration, ^QCiTVdsfet up for Photinianifm^ and had many Fol^ lowers : And they that are defirous to fee his Method of managing^ and how eminently Go D in his Providence appeared agalnfi hhn^ may conjult Dr. Owen's Freface to bis A^nfver to Biddle^ where they will meet with a large Account; and fuch Authors referred to^ as will abundantly fatlsfy their Cwlofity, BUT after all the Lengths that have been rufty hy fuch as have beeyi the moji eager m pur fulng their ow?i Fancies y I can find but Three different schemes about the Poelrine of f>6f Trinity that can be proposed ; and they arey That of the SabellianSj that of the Arians^, and that of the Catholicks. Some have attempted to mloc them together y and have In fome few Things difFer'd in their SeyitlmentSy from fuch as in the malny were in the fame Scheme with them. But it will upon a clofe Examination be foundy that in One of {hefe Three Schemes J all at Ufi center, THE Sabellian Scheme takes away the Deity of the Sottj and reduces the Holy Ghoft to nothing. To charge the Followers of AthanafiU3 with this (as is the ■ ^ Way The Preface. Way (f Mr,\^h\&ori) ts to make a Var eel of Fools of ^em^ •witbmt doing them common Justice : But -as to the Followers of SoGinus_, their Views are evidently the fame. The Sabellians^ did not only with the Catho- licks_, make the Father and Son of One Ejjence or Na- ture^ but they made them one SubjeB or Hypfiafis^ with a nominal only^ not a Real DiftinBion, 1-heir Tri- nity 7i^as properly^ One GoD aSling in Three diffe* rent Difpenfatlonsy under the Law^ the Gofpel^ and the Efftifion of the Spirit ^ with a deify d Man under the fkcejid. And fuch a Trinity^ even a Socinian may ezree to. THE Arian Scheme hrings In a Real Tritheifm^ cf One Supreme and Two Inferior Gods. And whofo^, ever pretend to own the Deity of f^g Son «W Spinr_, hut at the fame Time contend for a proper Superiority^ gind a greater Excellence in the Father ,* are^ In my Apprehenfio7ty in that Scheme^ how unwilling foeqjer they may be to own it^ or to be charged with it. Thh Scheme was' brought out of V\2iX.ovi\^m. into Chriltia- nity ,• and that by which it is dijlifiguijh'd^ is the holding Three unequal Perfons^ One i7ide pendent y and felf-exlficnty and the other Two deriving a dependent Exi fence from the firfi • which in the Ijjue^ is no more than One GoD^ and Two Excellent Creatures. WHEREAS the Catholick Scheme aferts^ One Divine Nature ^ i?itirely injoy'd by Three ^ that are ne- cejjarlly exiflenty and as necejfarily related to each other ; Ti^ith fuch a Subordination cnlyy as excludes any proper or real Superiority or Inferiority in the Divinity. It takes /« ^ Trinity^ their Unity^ ?^e/V Real Diftindion^, and their EqjLialIty_, as to all Ejjential Excellencies and Terfeclions * tho* all that in the 'rvaln- are in this Scheme^ are not alike clear as to all thefe Articles. Different Ways are particularly taken ^ to explain both the Unity of the Effence^ andthe'Tnmty o/Perfons in the Deity : IVealous a DefirCy not only to avoid being imposed ztpon where they were aware of no Right to make a Demandy but alfo to fecure to the Holy Scriptures the Honour of being the Standard of Truth_, in this and every other Doth'ine. The Truth that both Sides are for y is the famey and their Firmnefs iji adhering to ity the famCy tho' their Sentiments differ as to the proper Ways of Supportiitg it. And therefore tho^ it were to have been wijli'dy Thaty according to the Wife Man's Advice y they had left off Contention before it had been medled with ^ yet to charge either the one^Side or the other with Difinclination to the Docirine of the T RilJumher of Teopkj -who may be likely to cafl their Eyes upon them. And if I own^ that I ha^e In their proper Tlaces^ made fome Additions ^ of ^vhat I either had not Time to deliver from the Ful- plty or of -what occurrd that I thought proper for II- itfflratlony "while I was imployd In the tedious JVork of Tranfcrlhlng^ I fuppofe it will be forghjen me without much Difficulty, TERHAPS fome might have been better pleas'd^ If I had caft the Subfiance of thefe Difcourfes into the Form of a Treatlfe : But I thought it might have its Advantage as to a Number of Readers *, to keep them hi their native Form ; becaufe I have thts Way Li- berty for a Variety of TraBlcal RefleBlons^ which I hope may not be altogether without their Uje, I have chang\l the Order In which thefe Sermons ^ere deliver'dy putting thofe lafi^ that were preached firfi ; looking upon it^ upon fecond Tlooughts^ to be more proper y to referve my Vindication of I John V. 7. to the Clofe^ than to begin with It ; tho^ in Jo doing I had the Learned Zanchy for my Pattern. IN 'what I offer upon that Text^ I have neither fcrupled borrowing from Worthy M, Martin_, ; (who now refis from hjs Labours) nor varying from him tip- on Occafion ; and I have done the fame^ by what other Writers I have confulted on that SubjeB. Tho^ I did not at jlrji certainly know that Air. Emlyn 7vas .the Author of that TraB which I principally oppofe ; yet fince I have known^ and ije has piblickly ownd it^ I have wav^d fome Things that mizht perhaps have veen repreje7Tted as mvtdious . ^*nd ij after ally I have not given fufficle?}t Proof that that Text ' ' " is The P R E F A C E. «• genuine, to the SatJsfaBion of fuch at are vnllino' it jhotdd fafs for an umv arrant able Addition^ I think I may yet be allowed to hope^ that if ivhat I haije col'* lecled upon that Subject be but confiderd^ ove jljall not for the future have fuch mighty Boafls^ of the Fidnefs of the Proof of its being abfolutely fpurious. IT has been my "Endeavour to avoid Eagernefs a7i^ Sittemefsy which in my Apprehenfon ts 7jo Ornament in a Theological Debate. J have ahnd at Defending the Truth in that Way^ that appears to me mofl jvor- thyy both of itfelf and its Author. I can 'with a great deal of Safety declare that I have not the leafi De^ fire to incenfe any agalnft thofe whom I differ from. I can heartily pity them en the account of any Thing they may have indurd for the Sake of what they ap- prehended to be Truth ^ and can make Allowance for a peculiar Edge upon their Spirits ^ that have met with fuch Treatment y as was naturally apt to exajperate. And it is my obferving the Aptnefs of Severity to four Mens Spirits y that makes me the more averfe to it in. any Religious Difference. I reckon it my own Happijjefsy and am very thankful for it^ that I did at frfi fet-out in the World with fuch 'Principles as theje ^ That as Er^ ror does not deferve^ fo Truth does not need Seve^ rity to fupport it ^ and that as Error will not long be fupportedy fo netther is Truth befriended by it : And thefe Principles I believe I fiiall now carry unaltered to my Grave. SOME perhaps may think the mentioning the Ob- jeUions of the Erroneo^^ fo particularly as I have fometimes done^ to be a laying Snares for the Inju- dicious ^ and a Way to ralfe Scruples which they other- wife might never have had^ and may not be eaftly able to get rid of : But when they who themfelves have deferted the Truths are with great Indufiry and Subtlety conveying their Poyfon^ methinks it is but ft that fui* tabic AntUotes JJwuld be prepared. I mtffi confefs, I fake The Preface. take the Anfwering of Ca^ils^ to he a Debt due t» Truth. They can^t he anfwer^d without being men" tion'd ; and In fame Cafes cannot he ivav^d^ hut Truth will he betrayed. It would he an hard Qafe^ if •when almofi all Converfatlon ts full of Snares y breach- ing jljould not he allowed to make Trovifion agamjh them* I have only this to add^ That If any JJjould he In* cim'd publickly to Animadvert upon what ts here pub- lljh'd in Defenfe of the common Fahh^ my either ta-^ king Notice of them^ or overlooking tbem^ will wholly depend upon the Apprehenfions I jhall have^ when all Things are confiderd^ that either my Sileitce or my farther Writings will be moft for the Honour of Go D j and Service of Religion^ and the promoting of Truth ar^ Peace joyntly. THESE Difcourfesy and the Candid Readers of them^ are humbly recommended to the Divine Blef- fingy hy a Sincere^ Difintercfted^ Univerfal Admirer and Purfuer of Truth and Love, Edm. Calamy. THE THE CONTENTS. SERMON L HE Deity of the Fathek, afferted and illuftrated, from, I Cor, viii. 6i jll • But to us there u but One Gody the E A* THER. Page I. SERMON II. Tlie T)eitj of the Son prov'd and confirm- ed, from, I John v. 20. This is the true God, and Eternd Life. p. J i. SERMON III. Obieclions againft the Sufreme Deity of the Son confider'd, and anfwer'd, from, John v. 25. ThAt all Men fhould honour the Son, even as they honour r/;^ F A T H E R. P* ^9' SERMON IV. The Reply to the Objeftions againft the Su^ freme Deity of the Son continued, from, I CoR- The Contents* COLOS. ii. 2. •^'— • To the Acknowledgment of the Mj fiery of GoDy and of the Father, and of Christ. p. 101. SERMON V. A farther Continuation of the Reply to the Objeflions againft the Supreme Deny of the Son : From John v. 23. That all Men fhould honour the Son, ^'^^f^ ^^ Mey honour the Father, p. 135. S E R M O N VL The Deity of the Holy Ghost, prov'd and confirmed, from M A TTH. xxviii. 19. '^--Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. p. 167^ SERMON VII. Objeftions againft the Deity of the Holy Ghost confider'd, and anfwer'd, from, 2 Cor. ii. 11. for what Man knovceth the Things of a Man^ fave the Spirit of a Man which is in him f Even fo the Things of GoD knoweth no Man^ hut the Spirit of God. pag. 201, SERM. The Contends. SERMON viir. Of the Unity of the Godhead, from, I Cor. viii. 4. We kno)V • . that there is none ether God J but One. p. 227, S E R M O N IX. Of the Distinction in the Godhead^ from I Cor. xii. 4, 5, 6. Now there are Diverfities of Gifts^ but the fame Spirit. And there are Difftrences of Admij^ ftrations^ hut the fame Lord. Ar3d there ^ffj^ Diverfities of Operation's ^ hnt it is the fame God, which rvorketh all in all. p. 257. ^ S E R M O N X. The Old Scheme and New compared as to Antiquity, from Jeremiah vi. 16. Thtis faith the Lord^ fland je in the Ways and fee j and ask for the Old Paths, where is the good Wajj and walk therein ^ and je jhall find refi for pur Souls. p. 287, SERMON XL The Old JgcHEME preferable to the New^ on many Accounts, from Jeremiah vi. 16. Thtis faith the Lordj [land ye in the Ways anJi fee^ find ask for the Old Paths^ where is the Good " " Way, The Co NT E NTs; Way, and walk thereiny and ye (hall find rejt ftr your Souls. . P- ??5* SERMON XII. GtiRiosiTY to be avoided r From John iii. 9, Nicodemus anfwer^d and faidy How can thefe Things he? p. 363. SERMON XIII. Tkuth and Love to be maintained jointly, fi-om jj^ Ephes. iv. 15. ^ — Speaking the Truth in Love. p. 389, SERMON I, II, III. A Vindication of that celebrated Text f-om being Sfurious^ I John v. 7^ Tor there are Three that hear record in Heaven^ the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and thefe Three are One. p. 423, 457^ 5^5- S E R M O N IV. #^* The fame celebrated Text particmlarly ex- plained and opcn'd, fuppofing iij^to beG^- nuine, P« 5J7' 1 Cor 1 I C O R. VIIU 6. But to 7is there is hut one God, the Father. ^nHATnotwithftanding the Di- Salrers- vine Simplicity and Unity^ there hall,T«f/- is a Trinity in the D b i t y is a ^'^-^ ^ ^^" diflinguifliing Dodrine of Chri- ^^^^5?"^^ flianity ,• into the Belief where- ^^* ^'^^^* cfj all its Votaries are to be fc- lemnly initiated^ and in which they are to continue all their Days : And from the firft Rife of our Holy Religion^ this both by Friends and Enemies^ has been reckon'd one cf its prime Articles. As difficult as this Dodrine is^ it isciFer'd to the Faith of fuch as defire Salvation by the Help cf a Redccwer and Sancilfia-^ in the \Vay cf the Gcfpel^ without any thing added to quaiiiy the Harfhnefs cf it. And to con- vince th* this fs no mere Speculation^ it is order'd^ ttj^t bcth their Wcrfhip, and their L'ves^ fhouid be ir.fluenc'd by this Principle. And that the Belief cf it may be the more firnily rocted^ Care is taken th.^t this Do- drine (hould run through the feve;al Parts o\ Divine Revelation^ and be interwoven with the other Truths^ on which that lavs B the ^.H, 2 The Dei t y^ , SERMfT thcgreatefl: Strefs^ and which it moft v/ai:m- j^.. " ly recommends ^and inculcates.. The very.^ Frame animated his human Body^ inftead of a ra- . tional Soul ; which was the common Way of. the Followers of ^?7^/.f. And others have de-^ ny'd the Deity of the Holy Ghofl_, whigii^ was xhe difliij'giiifhing Principle of the Fol-:j e/'^Z^e Father. 3 lowers of Macedonlm,' Thefe all had' their Serm. dftferent Pleas and Pretences, which fliould j he ccnfider'd by fuch as would fully eftabllfh ^^^.^^y^ the Truth as it \s reveaFd. fXHis Doarine of the Tr'mn^ tls well as. that oif Redewmon^ and that of the Hea'vemy ^Blejjednefs^ under the Old Tcfiafnent^ was co^ v^r-d with a cloudy Darknefs, the more di- . ftjnd Revelation of it being referv'd for t\ib Naij Tefiqment Difpenfation : And now thkt ir is more diftindly revcai'd than rjt wj$-:befofe^ by our Bleffed Saviour and his Apcftks^ the Way and Manner of it remains fthl *i"Secret; And yet the Dodrine itfelf is^tO* be received and cwa'd^ notwithftand- ing wi!^are incapable of comprehending it, or fathoming the Depth of it. And in reality^ what Wonder can it be, that our weak Con- ceptions fhould nor be able to reach to the heighth and depth of To great and fubiim.e a ..SubjIeiSt as the Divinity ! The Theology and the Oeccmmy of the Trinity, are evidently of dillind Confi de- ration. Each of the Three are God, and all Three are One God: Kndt\-\tOeco?jomy of all xhe Three Divine Perfons in this Tri- nity is; very admirable. For each Perfon has obligd Mankind by a diftind Title j and tbiere is at the fame Time a Difcovery made of the Right of each, to the hearty Love and S^ryic_e^of Mankind, aiifwcrable to each Perfon's diftin^ Title. We are to worfbip the Father^ under the Title of Creator of the Uniyerfe; and 'he vyas known to Men from the very Creation of the World. We are to w^orfliip the Son under the Title of our Redce- wcr and Saviour, tho' his Divine Glory and Government were not clearly difcover'd, till He ]ia4 accompliOi'd the great Work of Re- B i dempaog. Tht D E 1 T r demption. And we are to worfhip the Hot) Spirit under the Title of the Comfoner and SatiBfier^ . tho' his Divine Majefly did not clearly fhine forth, till he came down upon the Apofties and firlt Chnftians with a plen- tiful Communication of all borts cf Gifts and Graces ; after which Men were baptiz'd in- 'to the Belief of the intire Trinity *. I T is my Intention, to confider both the Truth, and tlie Improvablenefs of this Do- Scheme of Notions^ upon this Part of the Chnftian Dodrine, and fhew which is to be preferr'd, and for what Iveafons. And then Fll add an endeavour on the one hand, to check unwarrantable Cu- ricfity, and on the other,';to convince you that it is a very pollible Thing to have air that Zeal for Truth that is requiflte c/en in as momentous Points as thefe are, without * In flenam, (^ adunatam Trinitntcm, Cypf. Epift, ad Jubai. lde Hicrec. Bapt. of the Fatijer. 5 without breaking in upon that Brotherly S£km. Lcve, on whicli^ the Gofpel lays fo . great a j Stret^. _ ^ ,,'"; V ' s^r-^ I begin with confidering the fewrV Dei- ^' • ' ty^ which is what this Text fpeaks diredlly to, when it fays^, To us there is but One God^ tbs Father. To us Chriilians, there is but One God^ any more than there was among the Religious Jt-ws^ and ' the Wifer P^^/««/ J- and the hathcr is He : And He is manifefted to lis, and to beador'd by us as the Father, Xhe Ancient Creeds therefore began thus,- L be- lleve in God^ or, / belie-ve in One God the Fa-- thcr. And this Word Fathtr intimates that Jie has a5f?»,- and that tho' he has ieveral that bear that Name and Title, yet that he has one that is his Son in a very pecuhar manner. Nor is it more evident that under Chriftianity there is but 0»e GW, than it' is that the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrifty who through him has manifefted the Bowels of a Father for us finful and wretched Mortals, is that On.t God, and to be adher"d to, Icy'd and ferv'd as fuch. And wiiatever bepojiies of the many Gods whom the Apoftle reieds and difclaims, he muft" be own'd to be G o d by all that bear the Name ot Chriftians. For tho' there be Gods many^ and Lords many ^ pt tQ us^ there is but One Gody the Father, And here I propofe, I. T o confider the Scriptural Meaning of the Word God^ which is by fome re- prefented as a Word of doubtful Sig- iufication. n. To give Proof of the ivir/jer's Deity. B 5 HI. To ^^The Deity III. T o confider G o d as a Father^ which is the ufual way in which he 15 r^-* prefented to 115 in the Writings of the Neiv Tefiament, - IV. To return an Anfwer to feme Que* ries about the Fathtr and his Deity. Andj V. T o add a few Reflexions that may be of common Ufe. 1. I begin firfl:^ with the Scriptural Meaa* ing of the word God ^ which is by fome reprefenred as a Word of doilbtful Signifi- cation. And hew can we wonder that Ca- vils fhquld be multiply'd^ about the Senfe of other Words and Phrafes that have been tts'd in the Debates there have been in the Church upon tiiis ArticlCj by fuch as can think it worth their while to raife a Duft^ ^bout the proper Import of the Word Go^ / We are tDid * That the Title of God is gi'ven in "very different Senjes in Serif tare ,* and that fometimes it Jigfilfies the mofl Highy Ferfedt^ ^d Infinite Beings 'who is of Himfelf alom^ and c^es iitilhir his Being nor Authority ^ nor dny thing to another : And at other Times y it Is fnadc'the Cha- racier of Perfons 'who are in^jefied -with Jubordinate Authority and Voiver from that Supreme Beings ^And it is faid_j Thus Angels are fiyrdGodj.VhL 'Viii 5". And 'Magiflratei are Gods, Exod. xxii. 'a8. Pfal. ixxxii. I. Joh. x. 34^ 55". And fomc- '^H'mes' in lhe. fingular Number ^ one Ferfon It fiyl'd God j ay Mofes is called a God to Aaron. Exod, ivc ii-^ * Emlyn'f Jr^^^, p. 3. 6cc. of the Father* if. H^. and a God to Pharaoh. Exod. vii. i. ^7jd tbt4S the Devil is call'd /i^ God of thk. World. a Cor. iv. 4. th^ is, the Wi7ice and Kider of it ,• ^|j6(>' kj tmjufi UJurpation and God's Tcrmljfion. iTovJ as he who alone is God^ in the former Senfey is irtf.ntdy above all thcfiy fo U'e find bim ^dffiingu'fiy'd from all others - who are called God^ by ^his Chara^ery a Gcd of Gods^ or the Ch.ef of aH X^odsy &c. And the Texts ailedg'd in Proof are_, Deut. x. 17. Joji^. xxii. 22. &c. 3d ^3 T b^ that thus reprefents the Matter^ would I doubtj upon Trials be hard put tor it_, to give any fui table Proof, that it is iri -.^ontradiftincftion to thofe improperly cair4 t.Gpds^ aud not rather in Oppofition to the -MwnGods or Objeds of Worihip;, that the -.J^ftHigh, is in tlic Places citedj ar elfe- 'ijwhere^ caii'4 the God of Gods. But waving r f^3 CO me it evidently appears more natu- - «fal, and a much more likely way to prevent : Confufionj for u$ to fay that the word God^ ^iis. fometimes us'd properly in Scripture^ and - fometimes improperly and figuratively, Whea ^ the word God is us'd properly ill Scripture^ it fignifies One of Infinite Wifdom^ Omnifcient^ Omnipotent^, Omniprefent^ All-fufficient_, and t/in fliort an intinitely Perfect Being. And -.M^Jicnthe Title of God is given to any low- -,i)r inferior Being, it is given but iwproperl/ jipd figuratively; and at the far theft intimates - Jiu mor(S_, than a Refemblance to G g p in 4onie or other of His ExceUencies. Kojr -can I fee how this can be difprov'd. Perfons .that . are c^ll'd Gods in this latter^ this figu- .. 4'ative Senfe^ are no more truly Gods, than \. Herod was a FoXy OV Dan B. Serpent y tho' we- Lukexlu. ^tapborkally they were fo ftyl'd. When Princes ^^'^^ ^j^ or Magiftrates are call'd Gods in Scripture, j^/ ■*^ris \vi A mmphQrml Senfe : and they are not ' B4 ftriaiy 8 The Deity ftr'dly or prcperly, or truly fuch. Tho* Mcf s^ and Magiftraces, and Angels too are caked Gcds in ;DC/ipcare^ yet we don't ufe to fpeak cf their Divinay. The Ancient Father Irem^tis \N2i^ much in the rjght^ \^iiti\ he fo earneil:y contends^ That * neither ihe Lordy nor the Holy "yirif^ nor the Afofiles^ tvould have abfoluttly call'd One God^ that was not truly God : And when he adds^ That the Scripture calling them Gods that are ?^ot fo^ . does not altogether jhcw thim forth as Gods^ hu:: fiUl adds [omethlng that ^e-ws them not to he Gods^ But whatever it is as to the Old Tefiamenty we may obferve w.'th refped to the Nc-Wy that no Angel or King^ or Prince^ no Crea- ture of any Scrt^ is there caiPd God in the fin- gular Number^ by any cf tne Sacred Pen- men : And have Keafon to remember in or- der to our greater Caut^on^ that when the Multitude fo extravagantly ccmpiimented He^. Afts xii. rody as upon h:s taking Speech to cry cut^ 'Tis 93' the Voice of a God^ and not of a Man^ and he did not rebuke them^ he was frefently [mltun hy an Angel ^ becauje he did not give Glory to God. Another celebrated Modern Writer^ will have it^ That the Word God is always a> 'Relative Word of Office ^ and that . he proper Scrip'' ture Notion of God is Dominion f- And he that h generally reckon'd the mofl" fubtle Writer among the 6'(;«»/>»/3 thought it worth h^s wh'ie to Ipend an whole Chapter^ in or- der cu the corroborating that IMotion 4- But it '$ paft my Skill to diicern^ how either Do- mmion fing.y^ or any other Particulars m whicU ' "*■ Adv. Hisref: Lib. III. Cap. 6, t See Dr.^Chvke's ^eply, pag. 284, drtd 290. I Crellius d^ Deo, ^ ejus Arcributis. cap. 13, • . -^^ -y^ df the Father. which a created Being is capable cf refem- bling the Mcft High^ are fufhcienc to dene- rtinate any Being prcpe.ly Cj o d- That can- not be without intiiiite l^erteclions *. St. Taut rejeds thole as no God ^ which are ^ net fuch by Nature. And it mull be own d 'that the Learned Writer I refer to^ is fo confiftent with himfeit^ as to give thcle Words ct the Apcltie^ How'je'it^ then when ye knew not God^ ye Qd\, iV.8- dtd Sew'ce un o ihem which by Nature are no Qods^ fuch a Glcfs as he thought would ferve his^ Purpvfe. For he reprefents the meaning of this Expredion^ by Nature arc no Godsy to be this j ye ferv'd them^ that have no Being m Nature^ or that by Nature have none of thai Di- vine Auihority and Dotninion 7vhich you vainly af" cribe to them f. Whereas the Apoftle's real intention appears to have been to intimate to nSy that he only is truly and ftridly and properly Gody who is God by Nature ^ and has all the eiFential Perfedions of the Deity natu- rally belonging to him. And the fame Apo- ftie fpeaks tu the fame Purpofe in the very Words before my Text^ faying_, There be that are caU'd Gods^ ivhe.her in Heaven or in Earth j as there be Gods war^y : By which he evidently diitinguifties thcfe that are caifd Gods i^ the large figurative Senfe^ trom him that is really 3nd properly fo call'd ; that is^ from him that is Gcd by Nature. So that to make up the No- tion of God in the true and proper Senfe, there m.uft not only be Dominion ^ but a Di- rine Nature and Divine Perfedions to be the Ground of that Dominion. Many * ^eethAtUrgc'y and dlfiinclly pYovd, z« Dr. FiddesV "hoYi^ 6f Dpvhifty. Vol: I. pag. 371, 372. ^c. f ^^^ £)r. ClarkeV .^'^-/y, pag, 76, 77. /^ lo The Deitt SeRM. . M a n y are .extremely fond of a Dififlm- j^ dion between the Supreme, and a Suhrdhate God: But as far as I can underftand jixy Bible^ that is a Diftlncaion that has noFoua- dacion. According to the Principks there laid dawn^ as far as I can perceive^ whoever i$ truly and properly God^ muft be Supreme^ as well as Omnipotent^ Omnifcient, or pci- fefs'd of any other Excellency ; And a Stilor^ dinate God^ is no true and proper God at ajL One way in which the Toljtheifm of t^he.P^r- gan World is expos'd in Script ure^ is by re- prefenting the Weaknefs and Folly of any Suhardina.e Deities^ under one as Suprtmey whictl --. . the God of i/r^e/ always difclaim'd. His coim- **'* • x^oi^ Language was this: I am the Lord ^apd \Wi. y\iv.^^^^^ ^^ ^^ne elje. There is no God befides me^ Ji S^ ^ there a God befides me ? Tea^ there is no God, ^ / llai. xlri know not any. 1 am God^ and there is none like me z ^' Before me there 7pas no Gad formed ^ neither jhall there be after me. And Ir emeus feems very fairly to have laid in againit the Diftinction fore* mention dj between the Supreme and a Suhdr^ dina t God^ when he ftys^ That he that has any Qm above- hlr/Ty and is in the Toiver of another ^ can : neither _ be fad to be God^ ftora great King *, ,BuT there is another Diftiacftion as jto the Word God^ that may I think be, admit- ted ,. fa iciy^ and wkhout.any; Hazard; Ajid that i^j That, that Wprd is fometimes to Jdc tSLkcn/ibftrachdly znd indefnittly ^ and at ptjter ^t\mtsmQvtUmitedly;sin^:co7jfi7iedly. Sometiii)es it takes in all. th^-Jnii^lte.PerfediQns of jjie Deity 5\whe.rea$..a|:;^otiiej: tirnes it.dire^iy . points iis. to the Jeveral diftinguifliing Rxo- perties of tjie Perfon. in.. the Deity that, is • ?? '^V-' niQre ^/LivJ^ Adv.Ha^ref. lib, 4. cap. 5. of the Fathe r. II more particularly referr'd to. And I don't Seru^ fee, why we may not admit this for a Gene- j^ ral Rule, that we are to underftand the Word ^,y>^.is^ God IndefirAtely^ abftrading from the Confide^ ration either of Father^ Son^ or Holy Ghofi^ whenfoever the Context, or fome other ;^Circumftances, do not confine its Significa- -tion and Intent to One of them only. The BleiiedGoD may be alfo conHder'd by us, either ahfolntely or relatively, Abfo- lutely fpeaking. His Name i§, I Am. He is ihe hilgh and Lopy One^ that inhahiteth Eternity. Exod. iiu vBut He is moil ufually fpoken of, as He itands jjt- iTrtlated to his Creatures. Thus He is repre- J * **^"' fented as the Objed of our Worfhip and Ser* vice j and in this refped: we are to have no ^^ther Govt but One, The Gods of the Hea* ^ thens were the Idols they ador'd : And when they form'd an Idol to worfhip it, they are ■fiid to make a God of it. And the Devil is Ifai- xHir. \ therefore reprefented as the God of^ this WiHd; ^J' '^•. -'the God of the Heathen World in general, ' '^^' ^^' becaufe he Vv^as ador'd among them. But the *' vGoD of JJrael \s reprefented as the Univerfal ^■Creator and Governor, and this joyntly with his Infinite Excellencies, is taken notice of as the proper Foundation of His Worfliip ^nd Service. Earthly Potentates may be -•fcaird Gods improperly and metaphorically^ ■ tjecaufe they have fome Likenefs to God in Power ; as the Idols of the Heathens are ■ '^ Scripture cail'd Gods^ becaufe they are to ''^'tliem in the fame relation of Worlliip, as the True God is to others: But the Pow- tv of the former does no more make them XT^^ 2Lnd frofcr Gods^ on the account of their Likenefs to God, as to Government^ than the Re;fped fhew'd to the latter could make tfa^em true and ^roff^r Gods^ oxx the ac- . . count 12 The Deity count of their Likenefs to G o d with re- fped: to Worlhip. The Notion of Godhead as confifting in Power only^ (feparate from the Infinite Per- fections of the Divinity) has^ as far as I can perceive^ no Foundation eitner in Reafon or Scripture. And tho' it is pofitively afr fertcdj that when the Name of God is ah[o^ lutely taken^ it h always meafit of the Per- fon of the FathtVy yet A fhould think it more prudent^ true and I'afe^ to fay_, that it is fo fre- quently. That is fafficient : And to fay it i^ fo univerfahy^ will net held ,- for the two no- bleft Defcripcions of Go d in all the N^w Tc- fiamenty are thefe ^ That He is Dght and Loye : which are as true of the Son and the Sprity as of the Father. And then as to the Supreme or Molt High GoD^ it deferve§ to be obferv'd and re- member'd^ that tho' the Mnjl Hlgh^ is fome- times added to the Name of God under the Old Tefiamenty yet in the New^ 'tis always nfed as a Name of Goo itfeif, and is not added to the Name of G o d above four fe- veral times ,* one of which is by the Apo- Hcb. vii. ftle^ when he calls our Saviour r^tr Trkft of I. the Mo fi High God '^ and the other three times are by the Devil^ who even when he con- *|iark V. fg^gg ^j^^ 'Yl^:,xh, does it with an Ill-will. Luk. viii. And the Reafon hereof perhaps may be this ; 28. ^ becaufe under tht Old Tt ft ament the Name of Aas xvi. Gfl^is fometimes afcrib'd to Angelsj nay^ to ^^' Judges^ who were a fort of inferior Gods under the Supreme ; But under the Nevj^ the Name of God is appropriated to Him that is Lord of Heaven and Earth ; even as it Ifa. ii. 17. ^s foretold^ That the Lord alone fnould be exalted in that Day, Upon of the ¥ AT HER. 13 ' Upon the whole I think we may fafely fix Serm. on this as a Principle^ That whenfoever the j^ Word God IS ufed in a proper Senfe in Scrip- ,,^y^>^^sj ture, it intimates to us a Being that is infinite in all Perfedlticns_, and that is a proper Objed of Worfhip^ on the account of inherent Ex- cellency. And fuch an One^ the Father is reprelented to us in the Text before us ; And therefore I go on_, . II. T o give Proof of the Father's Deity. Some perhaps may think this a needlefs Attempt^ becaufe the Faiber's being Go d_, is To readiiy own'd by thofe who are the freed in arguing againft the proper Deity of the Scn^ or the Holy Sph-it : But I think it may not be amiis^j briefly to fct before you thole Proofs of his Deity which the Father himfelf has groduc'd in Scripture^ becaufe they may be of Ufe to us when we come to confider the Deity of the other Two. Now the Proof which the Father hath, by Himfeif and his Agents, given us in Scrip- ture cf his Deity, lies in aeclaring and pro- claiming his hrfeci'ionsy which are fuch as can be afcrib'd to none but God^ in his appealing to his JVorksy which are as peculiar as the Perfections from which they proceed, and which they difplay ; and in claiming Worjl'jip as his Due, with an Ingagement to treat People like a God, either in a Way of Favour or Difpleafure, according to tneir Carriage to Him. I. The Proof which the Father hath gi- ven in Scripture of his Deit^^, lies in his de- claring and proclaiming his own infinite Fcr- fe^ionsy which are fuch, that they can be afcfibed to none but God. Not tiiat every one She Dei ty <5ne mUft neceffarily have all the Vtrhdikyrip, which he afcribes to himfelf : But . when he ^ _ whom v/e Chriflians own for the Father^ Hcb7i. a. and whom we acknowledge to have ffchn to m in thefe lafi^ Days by his Sm^ ]^ found Upon Search^ m his Addrefles to Mankind^ which we have good Evidence came from Him^ to i tell us with great Freedom in fo many AVords^ " that He has fuch and fuch infinite VcrfeEHons^ and that th'-y elTentially belong to Him^ who is he that fliail dare to gainfay^ oppofe^or centra- did? Now this He has done abundantly. There '^^ is not a Ptrficrion can be mention'd^ that could become a Divine Beings or be upon any ac- count neceffary for fuch an One^ but He afcribes it to himfelf^ or has others afcribing it to Him_, with his Approbation and Allow- ance. To Him belongs a proper Eternity ^ for Pfal. XC.2. to Him it is faid_, From e^^jerlafiiTig to e'verlajf- ing Tboii art God. To Him aljfo belongs Ow«/- I Kings ^cimce ; for to Him it is faid^ Thou^ t^jen Ihou viii. 39- oyjly knoweft the Hearts of all tl>e ChtUren of Men : Jer. xvii. And He fays of himfelf^ I the L o r d fearch the ^°' Hearty I try theReir.s. YIq claims Ommpre fence ^ Ter xxiii. ^^^ Cries Out^ ^m I a God at hand^ and not ^h ^4- ^ ^^^ ^f"'^ ^ff^ ^^^ ^^'^y ^'^^'^ hlmjelf in fecret Tlaces that IJhali not fee him ? do not I fill Heaven and Earth ? To Him belongs Omnifotence ,• and Jer. xxxli. therefore to Him it is faid^ lloere ts nothing too ^7* hard for TjJee : And^ He doth according to hts iVlU^'^ in the Army of Hcave'rj^ and amO'ng the Inhabitant t:: Dan. Iv. of the Earth. None can flay his Hand^ or fay un^\ 35- to him y What dofr Tl)ou, To Him belongs /w- Mal. ill. mut ability ; I (fays He) am the Lord^ / change ^- ^ not: And He is declared to 'be the Father of J*^-i'i7- Z,i^ re6Hon and Afcenfion^ was not as requi- ^"'^'^ fite in its Place as that of his Crucifixion. And when our Lord Himfelf fays_, This Joh. xvlt is Life Eternal y that they might know Thee the 3« only True God^ and Jefus Chrifi whom Thoti hajt fenty we han't the leaft Reafon to lup- pofe that the Knowledge of the Holy Spirit is difcarded ; or that Love is not in its Place as neceflary as Knowledge. Such in- Itances make it plain^ that we are not to fuppofe that that is always excluded in Scripture^ that is not particularly exprels'd. And therefore St. Paul's here faying^ That to us there is hut One God^ the Father^ is no Argument that the Father only is the Chri- llians God^ fince it appears from a great many other Texts^ that the Son and Holy Spirit are joint Sharers with the Father in the moft Effential Perfections of the Deity^ and joint Objeds of Adoration. And be- fides^ the Son being in this very Text^ re- prefented as the One Lord^ hy whom are all Things y and we hy him^ is that Way as tru- ly pomted out to us as the One only God of ChriftianSj as the Father Himfelf^ of whom are all Things ^ and we in Him. Nay unlels Christ was One God with his Father ^ he could -not be the One Lord of Chriftians^ whom we were to invocate and worihip. And if the Apoftle's reprefenting the Fa- ther in the firft Part of this Text^ as th.e One only God of Chrifl:ians_, is an Argument that the Son and Holy ' Spirit is not that One enly God as well as He^ it will follow that when he in the latter Part of it reprefents Christ a^ thq Qn^ only JUord^ neithejf the • " ' - \ Holy 26 The Deity Serm ^^^y ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ Father is Lm-d as well as y * He^ which is very abfurd. Nay^ I think ^^^V^ we may very juftly lay our Argument thus^ ^^^"^^ and fay^ that as tho' 'tis here afferted that there is but One Lord^ yet the Father having naturally an Univerfal Lordihip can- not be excluded ,• fo tho' 'tis here declar'd that to us Chnftians there is but One God^ yet the Son being by Nature G o d^ cannot be excluded_, tho' the Father only is mention- ed. How fiiould the Son be excluded in this Cafe, when we are fo exprefsly told_j That the Son is in the Father ? 4. 'T I s query'd. Whether when it 5s de- clar'd^ that to us there is but One God the Father^ it was intended to be intimated,, that the Father had any proper Supremacy ? Some con- tend for this with great Vehemence, and are as warm upon the Subject, as if nothing were more certain, or had more depending upon it, which is a thing not eafily to be account- ed for. But for my Part, I mult own, I can- not fee any proper Supremacy of the Father here intimated. I take the Son to be as truly, and in all refoeds as much our One God sls the Father himfelf, and not inferior to Him as God; the Proof whereof will hereafter follow in Courfe. And I mult own I am the more backward to give in to a proper Supremacy of the Father y tor fear of laying a Foundation for an Inference of the Inferiority of the Son ^. I am not indeed infenfible that We * J muji own myfelf the more confirrr^d, hy ohferving how profef/d Arians infuh, upon its being granted 'em, that the Father is fo the Origine and Fountain of the Son, ns that he has a Sort 0/ Supremacy, tho on the Son's Party there be not a proper Infcrioricy. Cui . bono of tie F A T H E rJ 27 We have had^ and ftill have^ among us Per- Serm, Ions of great Worthy that have been and are j for a Supremacy in the Father^ as a Father^ and ^^>^^-^^ a Subordination of the Son^ as a ^Si?;/ to the Fa- ^ ther^ declaring in the mean time^ That the Sup-ewacy and Subordination intended^ is only . that of Order y and not of Nature^ and with- out allowing any effential Dilparity or Ine- quality. This was the Way of Bp. Vearfon and Bp. Bull formerly^ and Dr. I^Vaterlani more lately. But tho' by the Guard which they fixj 1 think they go a good Way to- wards preventing the Danger of which I am fearful_, yet can I not fay that I am fat if- fied to fall in with them^ nor can I fee any Neceffity of going fo far. I am lefs in- clined to itj becaufe 1 obferve Dr. Clarke f makes a greater Advantage of this their Con- ceflion^ than I can be willing to give liim_, unlefs conftrain'd to it. And whether I am not able to give a tolerable Solution to the fever al Texts that are brought in Proof of this Supremacy^ will belt be judg'd of by the Sequel. 5-. 'Tis query'dj Whether any Inftaaces can be given of Texts in which God is Ityl'd Father^ where any good Realon can be al- ledg'd to prove the Son and Holy Sprit to be included ? I anfwer^ There are Texts in which God is llyl'd Father^ in which the Son and Holy Spirit bono (obfecro) eft ifta Orlginalitas, quse nihil realls Superioritatis vel Inferlorirads ponit in Perfona five priginante, five orlginata, prserer merum notlonalem aliquem conceptum, ordinis alicujus causa ? Gilb. Clerke. Tractatus Tres. fag. 72. t I^i his ^epl^ ta Mr, NelfonV Friend^ mi oft elfevphcr?. 28 rif'^ Deitt Spmt are evidently included. Thus when the Apoille fpeaks of our callmg on the Father^ who without refpe^ of Perfons^ judgeth according to e^ery Man's Work ; 'tis not a tiling at all lup- pofable that Christ fhould be excluded^ fince we are plainly told_, That the Father judgeth no Man^ but hath committed all Judgment to the Son. Heb. xli. And when the Apoille fays_, We ha^je had Fa^ §• thers of our Flefi) which corrected us^ and we gaue them Reference ; and thereupon queries^ Whe- ther we fhould not much rather be in Subje^ion TO the Father of Spirits a-nd live ? It cannot by any Means be fuppos'd^ that the Father alone corrects^ and not the Son ; lince our Lord Rev. ui. himfelf has fo pofitively faid_, As many as I "^9* love J I rebuke and chafien. 6. 'T I s query'dj How may we bell come to know this One God the Father i I anfwer^ The beft Way we can take^ is to apply to the Son^ who came from his very John xlv. Bofom. Let us look to the Sen ; for he that I* ^ hath feen the Son y hath feen the Father. The ivr- 2tStth xi ^^^"^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^- " * ' Father, And no Man knows the Father but the Sony and he to whom the Son jhall reveal h'm, John X, Nay^ the Son and the Father are One *. And ja now it only remains_, that y. I add a few Reflexions that may be of common Ufe. We fhould confider God's being a Fa- ther as an Ingagement to pay Him the Jiigheft Fearj Honour and Obedience^ and to * Pater & Fillus unum funt fecundum Deitatem, non unus fecundum perfonas. Hac una voce 8c Sabel- lius excludirvir, 8c Arius confutatur. Faujiintis ds Trinitate* of the Father.' 29 to put cur Truft and Confidence in Him. Serm, The Nominal Gods of the Heathens deferv- r cd no Homage nor Regard : But our Com- v^/-v^>^ mon Parent deferves alt the Refped: we can ^^^^ pay him. Tis the Duty of all Children to honour and obey their Parents ,• but our Obligation to our Heavenly Father rifes much higher than it can do to an Earthly Parent. God argues upon this by his Prophet. A Sen honour eth his Father. If /"Mai. l^' then be a Father^ 'where is my Honour ? With- out Care about this_, the Relation is dif* own'd. G o d's being a Father jQiould in- fpire our Devotions with Life^ and encou* rage us to hope that no proper or becom* ing Petitions fliall remain unanfwer'd. Our L o R L. bid His Difciples when they pray'd fay^ Our Father^ and we are all to do fo. And the G o D we apply to being our Father^ we may conclude he wont be backward to hear and fupply us. That Argument of our S A V I o u r's has great Force in it ,• If ye being MattK Fvil^ know how to gi've good Gifts mito your ^^^ ^^* Children^ how much more JJjail your Father which is in Hea^jen give good Things to thern tlmt ask him ? We fhould from hence alio forti- fy ourfelves with Patience under all Affli- «<&^, has that Signification in profane Authors. Buttho' that fhoujd be own d, yet the word tt^-TTcLyuo?, plainly has another Senfe.For af-^^^^*, figni. ii^es paiiiveiy, tbmeching taken as a Prey : Buc dfrf^yy-ou of the Son. That his being thus equal ivlth God^ was what He thought no robbery. He had an un- queltionable^ indifputable Right to it. 'Tis the higheft Injuftice to call it in queition. D 2 'T IS ctfTcr^H, intimates the very Adlon of Plundering and Robbing. So that tho' AfTctyixA ^yel^Ky may (ip.nlfy to arrogate or afTume, yet el^-srctyij.oi' tiye!^, will not admit fuch a Senfe ; but according to the Genius of the Greel^ Tongue is rightly render'd, He thought it no robbery. On our Side in this Cafe, are the moft an- c"ent Verfions, and the Fathers, both before and after the Council of AVc^; as Si.Irencefn, Origen, Theodoret, St. Atharwfiw, Jerome^ Aujiin, Chryfoftom, Thccpbyi^c}, and Oecumenius. Juftly therefore may we adhere to the Interpretation that has been moll commonly re- ceiv'd, and that Equality of the Sen with the Father, which this Text afferts, let the Cavillers againfl us be ever fo anjrry. Bifhop Bull Def. Fid. Nic. Sed. If. cap. ii. p. 37. fays; That this one Text, if it be but rightly conlider'd, would be futficient to beat down all Herelies concern- ing the Perfon of the Lord Jesus Christ. See his particular Explicadon of it. Contra ^ickerum, p. 38. Seealfo Dr. iVaterlnnd^s Defenfe of feme Queries, p. 16, 17. And his Volume of Sermons, Sermon V.' And Placci Difputat. de Deitate Chrijii. Vol. I. p. 46, (3c, And Bp. Pearfon on the Creed, p. 121, (3c. And Bp. . Burnet's Expojit. of the XXXIX Articles, p. 45. Mr. PVhiflon, in his Account of the Primitive Fnith^ pag. S6. endeavours to argue away this Phrafe, Equal with God : And then, />. 87. fays^, That this being the only fret ended Text, which lookj at firjl leiw, in cur common Verfions, as favouring the Sous Equality to the' Father, that firange and modern Do^rine ynujl vayii^j with that Interpretation. Whereas I think we may on the contraiy fay with fafety. That our Interpretation of this Text being fo well fupported, that truly ancieru Dodlrine Hands firm, and they that oppofe it, are nei- ther like CO get Comfoi't nor credit bv fo doine. To "Mr. The D E I T r 'Tis declar'd^ as to Jobnthe Baptlfi^ That rnanj of the Ch)ldre Great God^ is by Clement of Alexandria un- par'd wth derftood of G(7^ the .Sow alone * ,• and 'tis the ^"^^^tth. i. fame as to Gregory NyJ]ef:e f^ and others of the i?- .. Ancients *. And Dr. Clarke owns^ 4. that the ^^'^' ^^' ^rJy U7*^ bear this Covfiruclion : But then he fay5^ it ts much more reafo?iable^ and more agree- able to the whole Tenoitr of Scripture to tmderjtand them to relate to the Father. And he elfewhere af- firms^ that thefe Words^ the Great God, are in the .Old Teitament the Character of the Father^ and in the New Teitament never ufed of Chrift^ but of the Father only \.\. To which it has been re- ply'd^ That the Son ts not excluded out of the Great Gody but as the Father and He are the One God, fo are They the Great God t^t ? which is confirmed by a variety of Citations from an- cient Writers. And at the fame time 'tis plain from the Conftruclion of the Words themfelves. For it is Christ that is at lalt to appear y as the Judge of Quick and Dead. And there being no Article preiix'd to 6"^- floury it follows^ that the Great God^ and the D 5 Sa'viour * Clem. Prorreptlcon feu admonir. ad Genres. />. 3. t Contra Eunom. p. 165. * Among them we may reckon St. Jercm. And up- on Occafion of his applying this Text to Christ, Father Simon freely owns Hift. Crit. des Comment, du N. T. p. 255, that this is one of the plaineft Texts we have, to prove the Divinity of J e s u s C h r i s t. t Scripture Dodrine, N^- 541. tl Comment on Forty Texts, p. 86. t-i-t True Script. Dodrine of the Trinity continued, ^ng. S4, ^c% 38 The Deity Serm. Saviour fpoken of, muft be the very fame^ jj^ even Jefas Chrlfi^ v^ho is mentioned. s,^r\/-Kj All the Fuhefs of the Godhead is faid to Col. il 9. have dwelt in Him hodtly. Where the Apoftle fpeaks not of C h r i s t's Dod:rine^ but his Perfon. And he does not fay that God was in C H R I s T^ or did abide or dwell in him^ as He was faid to do in Stony and in the Samts ; but that all the Fulnefs of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily ; which Was ne- ver faid of any other. And this Godhead cannot bur il!?;nify the Divine Nature and Eiicnce ". Rom. ix. He is declar'd to be God o'ver ally hlejjed 5» for euer. Dr. Clarke fays thefe Words are cf ambiguous ConfiruBion t- But the Pretence for it IS really weak. The Father cannot in this Text be referr'd to^ as God blejjed for e-ver^ without manifeft Force. And fuppo- fmg the Son to be referr'd to^ to bring in an Exception of one above him^ when He is expij^fsly declar'd to be God ouer ally is fo plainly calculated to ferve an Flypothefisy that I can't imagine it fnould at all aifed fuch as fearch after Truth with Impartiality. When with the ApoMe^ we affert the Sen to be God over all blefj'ed for ever^ we don't pretend He is above the Father : All that we mean is^ that He \s infinitely above all Creatures^ and in that Superiority equal to the Father. ^ The fame Writer elfcwhere fays * See Pl^ithy de Deitate Chrijii, p. 48. f t Scripnne Dodlrine of the Trinity, N®* 339. \- This Text, Ilpm. ix. 5. is quoted in Proof of the Eternal Delry of rhe Son, in the firft Council ac Anrlcch^ againft: P/itd of Samofntum. Concil. Paris. tTorn. X. rag. 545. 'Tis quoted in the fame S^nfc of the So N. 39 alny •yuhether the v:crd God Text 5* and if It wasy whc- D 4 ^/-^^^ fays th?lt It h uncertain^ whether the wcrd God SsRM, war or 'finally in this Text ; and if It wasy whe- JJ^ h^ Ircn^tw, Lib.- 3. cap. i8. And with him agrees Tertullian, Lib. conr. 'Prax. cap. 8, & 13 , 65 15. Kovntiati de Trlnir. cap. 13, 8c 20. Cyprirtn. Lib. 1. Teftiinon. cont. Jud^eos. Origen. ad ^om. ix. 5. A- thmnf. Orar. 4 & 5. conr. Ariano*?. Hilfir. Lib. 4, & 8. Greg. KyJJen. Lib. 10. cont. Eunomium ; and many others of the moft celebrated Ancient Writers. And among Moderns, fee iVhithy de Deittite Chrifii, p. 47. &c. and Piacvi Dlfputr.t. de Chr.Divln. Par. III. p. 210. Mr. iVhiJlon in his Account of the Primitive Faith, p. 13. tells us, That he inclines to i?itcrpret thefe M^ords of God the Father^ contrary to the common Ex- fofition : And I done fee that we have any occallon to wonder at It, confidering that without doing fo, the Scheme which he is fo vaftly fond of, tails to the Ground. But when he fays, he does 7wt expect that any Admirers of Modern Notions fiOOuLl embrace his Expofition, He mfults a little too much. In my Appre- henfion he would have talk'd more rationally, had he intimated the little Ground there was to expedl, that any but the Admirers of Modern Notions fhould embrace his Expofition. He pleads that On>e?i. conr. Celf L. VIII. p/387, 388, will not allow our Saviour to be G o D over all. But had he been at the Pains to look into Origen, in E^m. L. 7. c 9. he would have found him exprefsly affirming that Christ is God over all ; and adding, that he that is over allj has no one above him. However it may not be amifs to put Mr. pyJoiftcn in mind, that when Father Simon had mentioned Erafmms explaining this Text of the F A T H E R, he fays that that Refledlon of his in Favour of Arianifm, is a Subtlety of Grammar, unknown to all Antiquity. Hift. Grit, des Comment, du N. T. p. 319. And that the fame Writer, pag. 406. quotes this Glofs of TheophylaB upon this Text : Ariui (fays he) is confou?ided by this Teftimony of St. Paul, 0? JO pofitively ajfures that Jefus Qhrifl is God over aU Things, UpoJ^ The Deity ther It he not fpoken of the Father. * But at this Rate we may make the whole Scripture^ or any Part of it uncertain^ and it will be no eafy Thing to know where we fhall fix at laft. I hardly think any Man that has not a Turn to ferve by it^ can after re?.ding Dr. Ailll upon this Textj either imagine or reprefcnt it as tmccrta'n^ whether the word God was in it orlghiaUy. And as to its be'vg Jpoken of the Father ^ 'tis agauilL the whole Stream cf Ancient Write rs^ who re- prefent it as belonging zc the Sen : . Ot which by way of Addiciju to Dr. M:ll^s Isiotes^ tiiis has been added as a farther Proofs that Et ^^> i-- afterwards to have been the Father's Agent in creating the Univerfe^ run into a manifeft Inconfiftency^ in al- lowing a Creature the Power of creating, which is a dired confounding the Creature and the Creator. And in Reality the great, the true, the S/iprcwe God^ will have no di- Itinguifliing Mark or Character at all left, if the creatmg the Heavens and the Earth, be not allow d to be, and to pafs for fuch. As St. Paul reprefents the Order and Frame of the Vifible World as an evident Demon- itration of the Eternal Power f.nd Godhead cf |^qj^ T him that created it, )lO is it by Confe- 20. quence as evident a Demon fir ation that none could create it but the Eternal God f- But then there are yet other Works that are manifellly pe^^iar to the Divinity, that belong to the Son. Thus 'tis proper to Go d alone to be the Prefer ver and Upholder of all Things that are. Now the Sen has this alfo afcrib'd to him. By him aU Things ccv-Coi.Li7- [if. Dr. Clarke himfeif owns, that nothing can he ryiore forcd and unnatural^ than the Sc- cinians Interpretation of this Vajjhge ,* 7vho ttn- derfiand it figuratl'vcly of the Neii' Creatiojt by the Gofpel *. And we are told. That He up- holds t Of this Argument for Christ's Deity from the Creation, (tt WlMy de DeitnteChriJli, t?. 24, &c. * Scripture Dodrine. No. 550. 4 tree difclaiming thQ Knowledge oi the Day of Judgment*:^ that will come in courfe to be conlider'd hereafter. Another Divine Attribute that is afcrib- Rev. L8. ed to Christ^ is Omnlfote7ice, J^ fays He_, am Almighty. The original Word is h 'TrctvjoK.^c/Ta^f than which no Word can be mention'd that is more peculiarly appropriated to the Divi- nity. Mr. WhlftG?i therefore will have it to be the Father that is, meant tt- But it fhould Rev. i. I. be remember 'd^ That it is the Rc-vdatlon of Jcf^'S Chrlfiy fignlfed by hps Angel to his Ser- 'vant John^ of which we have an Account here given us -^ and that it is Chriji^ who by John here addrefs'd himfelf to the Seven Ajian Churches^ and whofe future Coming is the thing diredlyt fpcken of: And theretore no- thing can be more likely-, than that He lliould See alfo the Senfe of the Ante-Niccne Fathers as to the Son's Omnifcience in Dr. PV^nterlnnd\ Defence of fome Queries, p. 109, no. t Account of the Primitive Faith, f. 109. 4 Trads, p. 24. tt Account of the Prlmid', e Faith, p. 88. of the So N. fliould in this Cafe be the Speaker. And the Thing fpoken if it be apply'd to him^ is but agreeable to what we elfe where meet with : For we are told that He has fuch a Power and Energy^ that He js able even to [uh- p^ii^ iij^ due all Things unto himfelf "^. 21. A third Attribute proper to GoDj is Eter- nity : And this alfo is afcrib'd to C h R i s t. For behold^ He is t/je e-verlafilng Father, Tho' Ifa. \s. 61 He is the Son of G o Dj, yet He is a Father to his Churchy and fuch a Father as never began^ never will ceafe to be. He is fo eternal^ as to exift neceifarily. He is the Brightnefs of Us Father's Glory. And. therefore Heb. 1. 3', unlels Glory could be witnout a Brightnefs_, and Light without any cf7rcLvydL(Tyt.dL or iliining forth^ 'there could not have been any In- ftant when He was not. So that He was not from the Father^ or of the Father^ by any fuch A<5t of Will intervening^ as that it might have been pollible He fhould not have been ; but by natural^ necelTary^ eternal Pro- manation. And therefore to him it is faid. Thy Throne y O God^ is for e'ver and ever. And_, Thou^ Lord^ in the Beginning hafi laid the Foun- Keb. 1. 8. datlon of the Earthy and the Heavens are the ver. 10, Work of thine Hands. They Jliall perlpy hut Thou ^^» ^^* remalnefi^ and Thy Tears jlmll not fall. Inwhich Words He has an Immutable Exlfience afcrib'd to him ; and it is intimated^ that fmce He e- ver continues the fame^ before the World v^^as created^ and lifter its Deltrudtion^ He is eter- nal. He has neither Begl/mlng of Days^ nor Keb. vll E End3' ■ * Of the Argument for Chris t's Deiuy from his Omnipotence^ fee P0nthy dc Deitate Chrlfti, p. 50. And on this Text, I{ev. i. 8. fee Dr. fVaurUrnTs Defenfe of fome Qvieries, ^-451. ^o The Deity Serm. ^'''^^ ^f L'-fi' Tho' it is Melchlz,edeck that h jj^ there directly fpoken of, yet are we thereby ,^^ -'-^ ■ pointed to ViiQ Son of G o d^ who is that tru- CoLi.iy. fyj> ^h'^- Melch'z.edeck was but typically. He Rev. i. S. is faid to be before all Tfomgs j and to be Alpha , the very Beginning. Nay^ to him it is faid |, ^ .by the whole heavenly HoUy We gl've Thee " _ * ' ' 7 hanks J O Lord^ God Almighty ^ which art^ and wafi^ and art to come. And if the Son was eternal^ He could not be a Creature : Which is as evident^ as that if He was a Creature^ (tho' He in other ref]De6ls was ever fo excel- lent) He could not be eterjtal '^. A fourth Attribute proper to God^ is^ "Heh.]. 11, XJnchangeahlenefs. Thou art the fame^ a7id Thy Ih. xlii. 8. Years pall not fall. And He Is the fame ^ Tefierdayy to Day^ and for e^er. Dr. Clarke tells us_, that the meaning of that celebrated Text is this^ That the Doclrlne of Chrifi once taught by the yipo- files y ought to be prefer^u^d unchanged f. Which is a very great and awful Truth^ that de- ferves to be well confider'd^ and the bringing in and fpreading Innovations in any capital Articles of that Dodrine cannot be without its Hazard : And yet it does not follow but that that Text may rather referr to the Dig- nity of Chrlfi^s Perfon^ than the Stability of his Dodrine^ and be defign'd to repreient it as a great Duty conftantly to adhere to Jefm Chrifi y who is not a mutable Beings Ca- pable of faihng^ or difappointing the Expe- • Nations of his Servants^ but is ^the fame eter- naHy_, and unalterably ^ fo that He never " can * Of the Argument from Christ's Eternity, fee Plac^ii Dlfpitnt, Part I. p. 362, and -^66. And Dr. PVaterlancts Defenfe of fome Queries, V, I2i, ^c. t Scripture Dodtrine, lN^« 66i. of the Son. 5 i can difappoint fuch as regularly put their Serm, Truft in him. ^ jj^ A fifth Attribute proper to G o d^ is;, On7- ^^^->^ niprefence : And this alio belongs to C/jr^T?. John iii. For He was m Heazietiy even while He was 13. on Earth. He not only was {o^ before He came dow^n into this lower World ; but He was there even during the Continuance of his earthly Abode. And He promis'd^ That if Two or Three 7vere gathered together In his Mctrh, Name^ He ivotdd he In t/je mldfi of thc?n. Now xviii. ic. He that could at one and the fame time^ be both in Heaven and Earthy and that could ingage to be in any Place^ (be it what ic would) where any Perfons fliould meet in his Name^ mull be Omniprefent. He has promis'd to be with his Church and People j^.^.tih. (ilway^ e^uen unto the End of the World : And we xxviii.20. are told^ that He fdleth All In All *. Eph.i.23. In fliort^ we may fay of the Son^ That aU Things jvhatfoeuer the Father hath are his -^ and John xvi. therefore all the Perfections that the Either i'^. hath^ belong to him. And tho' fome vv^ould willingly except Independeitcy and Necejfary Ex- ifiejice 5* yet if they belong to the Deity, as fuchj it follows by a necelfary Confe- quence^ that they alio mult belong to the Son as well as to the Father^ if H^ is truly God. And in Reality^ an inferior and de- perrdent God^ is no God at all : At moft^ he neither is nor can be more " than an ex- alted Creature. Since the Son is J e h o v a k as well as the Father^ Fie mull exiil neceffa- rily and independently as well as the Father himfelf • fmce the Name Jehovah^ intimates E 2 One * Of C H R I s t's Omnlprefence, fee Jf1:ithy ds •Pehjtte Chrifli^ P* 51. The Deity One that has independent or necefTary Ex- iltence. So that when Dr. Clarke fays^ That dllDlijine Towers are communicated to the Son^ except abfolute Supremacy and Independency "^ j he makes an Exception in which I cannot fee that he has either Scripture or Reafon ac- companying him. He has not the Scrip- ture with him ; becaufe that tells us^ That the Son hath whatfoe^uer the Father hath. Nor has he Reafon to fupport him : Becaufe who- foever is truly and properly God, muit have every Thing that is effential to the Deity belonging to him. Now it appears from the whole Current of the New Tefiament Writings^ that the Son of G o d has every Thing attribu- ted to him^ that can tend to raife our Ideas of his Dignity^ and to denote a Perfon ftri- 3i\y and elfentially Divine. He has all that the Father has^ except his being a Father. Once more,- Dl^'me Wbrjhlp is alfo very diftindly afcrib'd to Chrlfi^ and therefore He muftbeGoD t- Religious Invocation alone IS an unanfwerable Proof of Divinity. For it evidently implies Ground for depending upon obtaniing what is regularly fought for ; and a Knowledge of our Hearts^ and an Omniprefence in him_, that is fought un- to. And yet nothing in all the New Tefia- ment is plainer^ than that Chrlft is to be re- ligioufly fought to^ and call'd upon. For Rom. X. He is Lord o-ver all , rich unto ail that call upon *2.. hhn : And Salvation is connected with the calling upon him^ when it is added^ That Ti'hofocver * Scripture Doclriney Part II. ^. xxvii. t Of the Argument for the Deity of Christ from his being the Objed:of Worfliip, fee Vf^at cr land's DQr_ fenfe of fome Qiienqs, /. 22.9, ^c. of the S o N. 53 Tvhofce'ver jlmll call upon the Name of the Lord^ jliall Serm* he faved. And this is the genuine Character jj^ of Chriftians as fuch^ That they called upon ^r-^J-^^ the Name of the Lord *. Ver. 13. All the ylngels of God are bid to worjhlp kdisix. ^: Him f. And He was vvorfnipp'd by theHeb. i. 6. Saints of God under the Old Tefiame^it^ In. the Form of an Angel^ in which He appear- ed \. frequently to them. And we are all under the Goipel charg'd to hoyiour him^ \eve7i as 7ve do the Father j and yet the do- ling of it would be Idolatry^ if He were not 'as truly and elTential God as the Father himfelt. For it is a fix'd and ftanding Mea- furewith God^ That his Glory He will 7;or Ifa. xlil. 8. gi've to another '^. And we may yery fafely fay^ That He neither could nor would have re- quired or allow'd divine Worfhip to have been given to the So??^ if any ellential Divine Per- fedion on which Worihip is founded had been wanting. Often do we find the Son diHindly and perlbnally invocated in a way of Adoration. Grace^ Mercy ^ and Veace^ or Grace and Teace^ or Grace Only ^ are in twenty feveral Places of the Neiu Jeftament implor'd of him together with the Father, He is wor- ^^^'- ^^'-9? E 3 ihipp^d^'* * I muft own I take Novntiaris Argument for the Deity of Christ, to be ftrong and unanfwerable, which he has thus exprefs'd : Si homo tantiimmodo Chri- JiuSj quomodo adefi ublque invocntus ; cum h£C homiiii^ iiatura non fit fed Dei, tit adejje omni Icco pojjit, (^c. Lib. deTrin. C4/?. xiv. t See oti this Text Plac. Diffutnt. de Chrifli Divin. Far.II. /». 118, ^c. \. See Ahndie Trahe de la Divin. de Jefu Chriji. SqH. II. cap. v. p. 107, 108. ^ On this Text, fee Placvi Dlf^utnt. de Div. Chrifii BJfentia. Par, 11. p. 109, 54- The D E I T r SeRm. ^^PP'^ in Heaven by the Church triumphant '^jj with a VVorfhip that is common to him with the Father. And whereas it is faid by fome. That firce Cbrlft as Man is own'd to have' been a Creature^ we in Worfhipping him^ pay Worfhip to a Creature. I think Athanafi- m has return'd a fufficient Anfwer^ when he fays^ Let them know^ that we that ivorjlji^ our Lord in the Flejh^ do not worfinp a Creature^ but the Credtor^ cloathed ivlth a created Body ^. Matth. V*^ E ^^^ ^"^^ baptlz^'d in the Name of the xxviii.19. ^^?^j as well as of the Father ^ which In my Apprehenfion carries Divine Worfhip to the utmoft Height. And we are allow'd to fwear Rom. ix. by C H R I s Tj, as did St. Faul. Now Crea- ^ ' ' ' ture-worfhip is oppcs'd and difciaim'd both bv Law and Gofpel. And nothing can be tth.iv. plainer than that fix'd and unalterable Rule Ma that is given^ Thou jlialt wcrjh/p the Lord thy T^' Gody and him 07ily jlmlt thou Jer^ve. The Ido- latry of the Heathens lay in Worfiiipping the Creature. And the Keafons which Gjd infifts on \n the Old Ttftament^ Why He^ and He aione^ in Oppofition to all others^ was to be worfliipp'dj are fuch as exclude ail Crea- tures. They are his being Jehouah ^ the Creator^ Suftainer and Prelerver of all Things^ and having no G o d before nor af- ter him 'j as appears from the Texts cited in Ka. xl.26. the Margin. And Creature-worfliip is as J^.xlv. 5, real Idolatry now as ever. And therefore ^, 1\ the Anfwer that was made by St. Bt^fd to Mo- 2 Kings j^p^^ the Arlan Preie(5r^ appears to me un- XIX. 15. anfwerable. l^or can I^ lays he^ be e'ver brought \j [2 ' ^^ 'ii^orjhlp a Creature y when 1 77^yfelf am God^s Crea- ture ; or one that is a made God^ when I myfelf am co'tnma^ided to become a Fartaker of the Dl^jine Nature, And * S.Ath^.n.Epift. adAdelphium Epifc, & Ccnfejforem, cent. Arrinnos. of tide Son. A K D I niuft confefs I cannot help think- ing the repeated Commands we have in Scripture to worfhip Chuist^ and pay him Divine Honours^ a much better Argu- ment to prove He is G o d., than to jultify the Worfhip of a Creature^ tho' ever fo ex- ceJIcntj which is a Ihing that God uni- verfally prohibits^ and which would evi- dently be a much greater Contradiction to the Principles of natural Religion^ than a Tr'm'ity in Unity can be pretended to be to natural Reafon. And now^ do but put all this together^ and carefully obferve how exprefsly Chr'ifi is called G o d ^ what Divine Names and Titles are given him^ and how freely the pe- culiar Works and Perfedions and Worfliip of God are afcrib'd to him^ and I fhould think you could not forbear concluding with me_, That if He was not true and proper G o d^ and effentiaily fb^ both He and His Apo- ^\qs were very much to blame^ and we may^ be excus'd in laying afide our Bibles_, as of little ufe.: As aifo that it would be unrea- fonable in us to run-down the Jeivs^ who call'd him a Blafphemer^ and punifli'd him as fuchj becaufe He made himfelf the Son of John xls God. The Apofdes mult impofe upon us at 7. a Itrange Rate^ in taking fo much Pains to make us beheve He was G o d^ if He really was not fo in a true and p-o^er Senfe^ but was at belt no more than a made God^ an inferior and a fub ordinate God^ which is a Notion to which they appear to have been utter Strangers. I N a Word j If the Evidence from Scrip- ture that proves the Son to be God in the Itrid and proper Senfe is defedive^ I doubt we fliall upon Search find that we are hard E 4 put \\ The Deity put to it to prove by fatisfadiory and con- vincing Arguments^ that the Father himfelf is God in the Itrid: and j)rofer Senfe : For the So?t plainly appears to be God in the fame Senfe with the Father. And thus having given Proof of the Son^ Deity from a Variety of Texts^ I proceed to draw an Argument for it from this Text in particular ; which I take to be Itrong and cogent. This is the true God^ and Eternal Life. 'Tis Chrifi is meant^ who is fpoken of in the Words juft before. 'Tis pleaded^ that the true God is here fpoken of with an Article prehx'd ^ and therefore we can only under- Itand it of him to whom that Title belongs in the higheft Senfe ^. But tho' this Criti- cal Remark has made a mighty Noife^ yet it deferves but Httle Strefs. For^ I. The Article may be wanting^ and yet the word God^ may lignify God in the very Q^^ highcil Senfe. W'lien St. Fatd fays^ That ii A* there is none other God but one ,• and that to Ephef. iv. tfs there is hut One God j and fpeaks of 07ie God 6. and Father of all; and again fays^ There is X Tim. ii. One God^ tho' no Article at all be us'd^ yet 5- not the leafl Shadow of a Reafon can be gi- \ ven^ why God in the higheft and compleateft Senie fliould not be underftood f. And^ 2. T H E viii. 4 * Sr. Chryfoftom,Hom. 4. in Joan, declares. There's no proving the Son to be inferior to the Father, from his having the word God apply'd to him without an Arr tide. t Sl Chryfcjlom l^om i. in Epifi. ad Gnl obferves. That vi'hen in the firft Vcrfe of that Epiltle, Paul is faid 10 be an A-poftlc, by Jefns Chrift and God the Father, J^id 'Imck Xe^ra r^ 0£k tolJo^ j the word ©sS* is wich^ ovLu an Article, tho' 'tis appiy'd to the Farh^r^ of the So N. 2. T H E word God is fometimes us'd with an Article prefix'd^ and yet he that is meant is not truly and by Nature God, Thus we read of the God of this IVorld^ who bhnds the 2 CoV. iv. Minds of Unbelievers^ and an Article is pre- 4. fix'dj and yet it is plain that the Devil is meant. And it is laid of Idols that they by Nature are no Gods^ and there is an Article GsAAw.^^ too. So that the having an Article cannot deferve fo great a Strefs as is pretended iii this Cafe. I doubt they that would make a Trial^ would find it hard to give a good Reaion why an Article prefix'd in the Greek to the word Lord, or to the Words Holy and Trucy when apply'd to G o d^ Ihould not have the fame Force^ as when it is prefix'd to the word God. The Article can't be fuppofed to borrow its Force meerly from the word God: And if it has any real Force of itfelf, I can't fee how it can be alter'd or lelfen'd by its being join'd to other Words. New Chrlji is fometmies called the Lord^ with an Article Rom. 1.4; before : And He is alfb called the Holy One^ and the True^ with an Article before. And if i Cor- L He really is the Lord^ and the Holy One^ and 2. the True^ in the higheft and compleateft SeniCj, I cannot fee wh]|||ffe is not God alio in the higheft Senfe. "^ 'T I s the Son that is the True God and Eter- nal Life. Many Confiderations concurr to prove it. We may argue from the Pronoun 2l>/V, which might have been tranflated He^ or Whoy and had it been fo tranflated^ the En- gltfl) Reader would have found no room for a Demurr or Debate. Had the Words been render 'd thus j And we are in him that is true^ ivtn in his Son Jefus Qhrifi : He is the trite God (ind The Deity and Eternal Life ,• or Who is the true Gcd and Eternd Life; it would have been obviouSj^ that it is ChrJfy who is the true Gody the knowing whom leads to Eternal Life. How- ever^ taking the Words as they ftand^ This is the true Cody and E-ernal Life^ 'tis moil natural by this to underftand the Perfon lail nam'd, who is jefus Cbrifi^ the Son of Him that is Jrwe. Tis pleaded^ That i^^/^^ii;^ Pronouns do not always referr to their neareit Anteudmt^ but to the chief Subjed difcours'd cf^ tho' that may fometimes be remote. Thus St. Faul z Thefl* fp^^king of one ivhofe coming Is after the work- ii. 9> ' ^^S f^f ^(^^^^"^3 does not refer to the Lord J e- 3 u s^ the Perfon lait mention'd_, but to An- tichrift that is fpoken cf a little before. And jl^Tj .^r - \vhen the Apoifle fpeaks of one_, -who in the Dap of his Flefiy offered u^ Frayers and Supplier^-- tlons^ &c. the Word 7vho does not referr to Melchlz>edeck (tho' he vv^as laft nam'd) but to Chrlfi^ whcfe Priefthood was there the main ijoh.vii. Subje^i: of Difcourfe. So aifo "tis faid^ M^^- ny Decelx'ers are efitred Into the IVbrldy who con- fefs not that Jefus Chrlfi Is come in the Fkjli. This is a Decei-ver^ and an Antlchrift ^j and yet the Pronoun this cannot be fuppos'd to re- ferr to Chrlfi^ the next ant^dmt^ but to one more remote^ tho' of aWlifFerent Number. And like Inftances are frequent. This is a fubtle Plea of Sochms'Sy but it need not move us. For in fuch Places as thefe^ the Senfe fo plainly direfe to the Reference of the kelatl've Pronouns us'd^ that there is no great Danger of a Miftake. But Twenty fuch Inftances as thefe would be nothing like a Proofj that when 'tis here faid^ Tms is the true God J we are not to underftand it of Chrl(i our Saviour. I of the S Q N. I can't fee any good Reafon to referr it to the Father^ who is not pointed at in all this Verfe^ except it be^ when Cbrlfi is ftyi'd the Son of God^ or when we are fa id to kmju hm that is true. No notice is here taken of the Father^ but with a Regard to Chr'ift^ who is defcrib'd with Exad:nels^ and twice ItyPd Son in the Compafs of this fingle Verfe. Both his Name and his Office are mention'd^ and He is call'd Jejits Chrlft. And then^ a double Adion is alcrib'd to him. For it is faid^ The Son of God is come^ and that upon the nobleft Defign imaginable ,- JrJ hath gi^en us (in Under fandmg in Things Divine^ which is a vail Ad\^antage. 'Tis added^ a^rd we are In him. And He is farther alfo defcrib'd as One that is true. So that there is a great deal more here faid of the Son than of the Fa- ther. And therefore Chrijl being both the Perfon iaft namfd^ and chiefly fpoken of in the whole Verfe^ is the more likely to be the Perfon meant by the Pronoun thJs^ when it it faid^ Ihis is the True God. And thus underltanding the Pronoun this the Senfe is plain and fmooth. But if we re- ferr that to him that is true^ that is before fpoken of^ then the Subject and chePredicate^ the Perlbn fpcken of and the Thing fpoken^ will be exactly the fame^ and all that will be af- ferted3 will only be^ that he that is the true God ; is the true God ; which is a Sort of a Tautolo- gy ^ cf which we have no Reafon to fuppofe the Apoftle fo weak as to be guilty. Besides,- either we muft hold that it fig- nifies little or nothings whether the Pronoun this be referr'd to Father or Son^ or that it is of fome Significance. If we hold that it real-^ ly fignifies little or nothings whether of the tvv^o we referr it to^ then ic mult be a Truth^ thac 6o The D E I T r that the Son is the true God ; for elfe it would be a Falfhood to r^ferr it to him^ and a Thing that would not be by any Means to be allow- ed. And if (on the other hand) the Thing here depending be really of fome Significance^ it muft be of very great Concernment, and the Apoftle could not but know it too ; and it highly became him^ both in Prudenge and Charity^ to prevent the Panger^ and take Care that fuch a Pronoun as this^ might not give Occafion to any^ to have much higher Thoughts of CbrlJIr than they ought to have^ and than could be juftify'd. And when it is here faid^ jTjd hath gi'ven . »J an JJnderfiandlng that 7ve may know him that is true^ J query^ whether it referrs to the Father only excluding the Son^ or takes in Father and Son both f It^can t I think well be fuppos'd^ to referr to the Father ^ to the Exclufion of the Kev. lii. So?i, For if the Son really be He that is trm^ 7* which He has declared exprefsly of Himfelt^ and He has gi-ven us an JJnderfiandlng to knonv blmfelf^ He may that way be as properly faid to have giuen us an Undcrfianding that -we may know him that is true ; as by helping us to know Johnxvii. the Father. And withal^ Life Eternal is exprefs- ^> ly declared to lie in the Knowledge of Father and Sen both. And our Sa-inour giving us an Underfiandi?7g to k?iow him[elf\ hath given u§ an Underftanding that we may know the John xiv. Father alfo. For as it is declar'd^ That /c 9. that knoweth the Son^ knoweth alfo the Father^ J^.xii.45. and that he t\\2Lt feeth the Son^ feeth alfo the Ibsm.K^. f^j-^^j, , fo is it plain 3 that the Son in iliewing himfelf^ fheweth alfo his Father, The Father therefore that is true^ being then known^ when the Sen that is true^ is known^^ and the Knowledge of the Son being in QUI Csfe a§ confi4erable a Benefit even as the of the So N. 6i the Knowledge of the Father^ it is not to be fup- pos'd^ that when it is here faid^ That the Son of Gff//upon his coming ^h ath ginjcnus anJJnderfiandin^ that we may know him that is true^thQ Father fhoul be meantj to the Exclufion of the Son. And if He that is trnCy does not fignify the Father to the Sm's Exclulion, but together with him^ and the Pronoun this referrs to hl^ that Is truej, Qjj whom alfo we are^) the Father only can't be pointed to without the 5^?;^ but both muft be taken in ; and it muft be the Son as well as the Father, that mull be here affinn'd to be the true God, It alfo well deferves our Obfervation^That Eternal Life is here exprelsly added to This is tb<; true God. And if the Pronoun thls^ were not to be referr'd to Chrifi, but to the Fa- ther only_, as it would evidently follow that Chrifl was not the trae God, fo would it alfo as plainly follow^ that He was not Eternal Life: For both thele Charaders^ of being the tru^ God, and Eternal Life, are here afcrib'd to one and the fame Perfon. If then the Father is here faid to be the true God, to the Exclufion of the Son, it moit certainly is the Father without the Son, that is faid to be Eternal Life : And this being abfurd, we may very well concludej that fo alfo is that. We muft own^ that Chifl truly is Eternal ^ 1°^^ ^* Life. He is often fo ftyl'd by this Apoflle. ^' ^"^^. And He is alfo faid to giue unto us Eternal Life. ^ ^ ^^ ' Often does He promife Eternal Life to fuch as 1q^^ ^L believe in himfelf^ but never to fuch as believe 25. in the Father, while He is excluded. And xlv. fo infeparable is the Son from Eternal Life, 6. that it is exprefsly declared in this very Chap- ^• ter^ That he that hath the Son, hath Life ; and he ^^* that hath not the Son of God hath ?70t Life. And ""^ ^^^' yho then can belicve_, that the Father fiiould y^j.^ ^^^ in * ' 62 The Deity Serm. i^ ^^^^ Verfe which follows fo quickly after^ II. be faid to be Eternal Life^ to the Exclufion of the Son ? And if He is not faid to be Eternal Life to his Exclufion^ neither can he to his Exclufion^ be faid to be the true God. And therefore we mull fay^ that the So7i as well as the Father^ is the true Ucdy and Eter-aal Life, And we may yet farther argue from the word true. For when 'tis here faid_, This is the true God^ the word true, is either opposed to what IS falfcy or to what is impe-rfefL If true is here oppcs'd to falfe^ then if the Son IS here deriy'd to be true God^ He is excluded from the real and true Deity as oppcs'd to a falfe one. And fo the Son mult either be no God^ or a falfe God, But if true be here opposed to what is iwperfecl^ then the true God being here oppcs'd to Idols^ He will be op- pcs'd to them not as to falfe Gods^ but as to lels perfect and excellent Gods ; which will not fimply take the true Deity from Idols^ but rather feem to afcribe it to them^ which may be eafily difcover'd to be abfurd^ and very remote from the Apoftle's Deiign and Intention. Nor is it an eafy Thing to imagine^ with what Defign the Apoftle Ihould here repre- fent the Father as the true Gody and Eternal Llfe^ to the Exclufion o^th^Son^ and with a defign- ed Oppofition between him and Idols.Where- as let the Pronoun this be taken as referring to the Scn^ and his Defign is very plain and wife. For then he wiil this way teach us^ That Christ may be both efteem'd and worfliipp'd as God^ with ail imaginable Safety : And that Eternal Life (than which nothing can be more valuable) both may and ought to be fought in him : And that whatever be- fides him^ is propos'd as an Objed of religi- ous of the Son Ous Worfliipj or as capable of afFording Eter- nal Life ^ ought to be eitecm'd an Idol, of which we are to beware. And if it Ihould be faid, that this way the Son only would be the true God^ to the Hxclufion of the Vather^ and the Holy Ghofl ; I reply. That the Father and Holy Ghofi are One God with the So?i : And we are exprefsly told. That whofoe^er denl- eth the Son^ the fame hath not the Father : But ^ J^*^^ ^' that he that acknowledgeth the So?j^ hath the Father alfo. And fince the true God is in this Text plainly oppos'd to Idols, I farther query, whe- ther He is fo Oppos'd hmmd'iately or medlatly ? It cannot I think be faid that there is a me- diate Oppofition. For then there would be fome middle Being that would partake of both ; whereas it is flatly inipoflible that there ihould be any Thing that fliould be partly the true God^ and partly an Idol^ or that fhould include in it the Na'ture of both, fo that compared with the true God, k might be faid to be an Idol, and compared with Idols, it might be faid to be the true God. And if the Oppo- fition be immediate y it is neceffary that Christ who is to be religioufly worfliipp'd, fhould ei- ther be the true Gody or an Idol, there net be- ing a middle Being between both. But He cannot by any means be faid to be an Holl- and therefore He mult be the true God. And finally ; If the Pronoun Th^s is re- ferred to him that zs True^ who is opposed to the wicked One y fpoken of jult before, and true Believers are m him that 2s True^ while others are in the wicked One^ it cannct have a Refe- rence to the Father y to the Exclufion of the Son : For the Son is He that is True as well as the Father. And no other Senfe can be fa- ften'd^ without running into Abfurdities. To The Deity To comproniife the Matter^ it is faid^ that this Claufe^ This is the true God^ and eter- nal Life^ referrs to the whole PafTage forego- in^y and intimates to us^ That the Know- ledge of G o D in C H R I s T^ is the whole of Religion. This is Dr. Clarke's Glofs. This- Knoivledge of God (fays he) in his Son Jefus Chrilt 3 is the trije Religion ^ and the Way to Eternal Life ^. But methinks ^ fome Dif- ference fhould be allowed for^ between the true G o Dj and the true Religion f. There appears a plain Violence in this Interpreta- tion^ upon federal accounts. There muft be Ifrange chopping and changing _, be- fore there can be Room for any fuch Senfe as that. For in order to the applying this laft Claufe^ to the whole Sentence toregoing^, the Pronoun Thls^ mult be chang d into the Ad- verb Here; and inltead of its being faid, TIols is the true God^ and eternal Life j we muft fup- * Scripture Dodlnne, N^* 410. •f For the farther clearing of this Text, I referr to the Scripture Dodtrine of the Trinity Vindicated, f. 28, (3c. compared with Dr. Clarke's Commentary on Forty felevft Texts, j>. 96, (3c. And the True Scrip- ture Dodrine of the Trinity continued, j>. 106, (3e, Together with the Letter to the Author of the True Scripture Doctrine of tiie Trinity continu'd, ^. 258. (3c. And can freely leave him that will compare all together, with what is here offered, to judge for hitK- felf. Tho' after all, I (hould think it might not be ami (s If he coniulied P lac c£us's Difpit at. fro Div.Jefit Chrijll EJfentia^ Part III. Difputat. xin. f. 103, &c. (from whom I am not aibam'd to own myfelf to have been a Borrower, both here and elfewhere.) And alfo Dr. Fiddes's Body of Divinity, Vol. I. /. 380, 381. where the moft material Objedlions, againft the Appli- cation of this Text to the S o N; are fairly ftated, and briefly aafwer'd. of the S o N". 6^ fappofe it to be faid_, here^ or herein is the true Serm. God and eternal Life. And then we mult fiib- JJ^ ftirate a vojjljjlve Verb^ in the room of a ftrb- ^^/-s^^X^ fianti've Verb^ and change i^ into ha^jc^ that fo it may come out thus^ Here or herein we have the true God and eternal Life : And yet even this won't do^ iinlefs we alter the Claufe forego- ing^ and inftead of faying^ and ive are in him that Is True^ c'ven in his Son ^efus Chrifi^ render it thus^ and ive are m him that is triiej by his Son Jefiis Chrlfiy which is what Dr. Clarke vehe- mently contends for 1. Which methinks car- ries in it fach Licentioiifnefs in racking and torturing the Scriptures^ as Men of Senfe may be well afhamed of,* and is fufficiently cxpcs'dj by being barely mentioned. But when Men have (Hifted^ and quibled^ and caviird ever [o long^ the Son muft either be a Creature^ or the true God. A Creature He cannot be ; becaufe feveral Things are iaid of him^ and afcrib'd to him in Scripture^ cf which a Creature is not capable. He muft therefore be the true God. A God without in- finite PerfedionSj is only a nominal God. And to fuppofe G o d to produce an Infinite Creature^ carries m it more of Abfurdity, than the greateft Difliiculty which the Do- ctrine of the Trinity nas attending it^ can be juftly charg'd with. And now I am II. To make a few Remarks upon the Deity that is afcrib'd to the Son m the Holy .scriptures. And as to this^ I obferve^ I- That it carries in it more than bare Pow- Macth' er and Authority. He fays, indeed. All Po7ij- xxviii*t8. cr * Comment, on Forty Texts, /». icj. 66 The Deity SeRM. ^^ ^^ glt'en unto me in Heauen and In Earthy and Jl^ that may very well be alledg'd as a Proof of ^^^ry^ his Divinity^ in as much as He could not be the capable Subjed of fuch a Power^ if other divine Perfections were wanting : But his Deity does not lie barely in that Power. For that would not make him the True God, if infinite Wifdom and Goodnefs, and all other effential Perfections of the Deity, were * not joyn'd with it. 2. The Deity afcrib'd to the Son in Scri- pture, isfomething that is widely diiferent from his Medlatorjhip. There mult be a great Difference between thefe two, becaufe the one is natural and effential to him, and the other fuperadded ; the one will ever be retai- n'd, whereas the Time will come, that the o- ther will be quitted and laid down. To afcril^e therefore thofe Things to him as God, which are fpoken of him as Mediator ^ and to draw In- ferences with refped to his Deitj^ from what relates to his Mediatorial Office, Is very falla- cious, and mftead of helping to clear Mat- ters, tends to nothing but Confufion. 3. To fuppofe the Deity that is afcrib'd to the Son in Scripture, ever to have had a Beginning, is moft miferably to detrac^l from and leffen it. We may be affur'd that if the Son had not been the true God from the firft. He would never have become fuch. He could no more ever begin to be God, than He could ever ceafe to be God. If there ever was a Time when He was not God, there might alfo come a Time when He Ihould no more be God. And fuch a God as this, would not be able to command that Fear, and Love, and Truft, and intire De- pendence, which the trt4e God always claim'd. "THo' the Son was truly G 0 d^ yet He was not of the Son. 6j not a made God. We read indeed of his SfrmJ being wade Flefi^ made 'in the Likevcfs of Men ^ tt made of the Seed of David according to the Flejlj^ v^^^VvJ and made of a Woman ,• but never of his being made God. 4. T H E Deity of the Son of God is not weakened or lelTen'd^ and yet much lels overthrown by his Incarnation. The Word was made FleJJ} ; but did not thereupon ceafe to be G o Dj, or become lefs God than He was before. ' f . The Deity afcrib'd to the Son^ in Scrip- ture^ carries in it an Emallty^ to the Father in Nature^ Attributes^ and Pcrfedions^ without any Inferiority to him in either : JNay it car- ries in it fuch an Equality ^ in every Thing el^ fential to tlie Divinity^ as to leave no Necef- iity for that Subordination as He is G 0 Dj, for which fome contend with as much Vehe- mence^ as if the whc4e x)f Chriftianity de- pended upon it ; the Proof whereof will be contained in fome fubfequent Difcourfes. But upon Occafion of what has been offer'd^ I move^ That fince the Scri- ptures are Co plain^ that Christ Jesus^ our Bleffed Saviour ^ is the trtie God and Eternal Llfe^ we without being ihaken with the Sug- geftions of Cavillers and Gainfayers^ may own him as fuch^ and exped: Eternal Life in and from him alone. Let us dread the Thought of denying his Divine Na- ture^ without which He could neither give eternal Life^ nor hear and anfwer our Pray- ers^ when we call upon him ,* nor fearch tlie Hearts^ and try the Reins of the Children of Mcn^ nor be prefent with us in all Places, nor raife the Dead^ and judge the World, nor fave loft Sinners. Let us heartily rejoyce andbeglad^j that as it is here intimated' by V z the The D E I T r the Apoftle^ Tloe Son of God is come ; and "be thankful^ that iince his comings He by his heavenly Dodrinc^ and quickning Spkic has fo nilighten'd us^ as to gi've m an Under- fiandmg^ that ive ?nay know him that is true^ while a great Part of the World worfliips falfeGods^ nay^ adores the Devil himfelf. Let us take Care to be found of the Number of thoie^ that are in him that is true ; not only vi- fibly adhering^ but vitally united to him. Let it be our earneft Requeft^ when we are look- ing upward with the greateft Serioufnefs^ That we may by Faich be implanted into Christ Jesus^ who is the Author^ Pur- chafer^ and Donor of Eternal Life^ and who therefore^ and upon that Account^ neceffc;- rily mult be the true God. Let us chearfully glorify and confide in him as our GoDj, ex- peding Eternal Life from his Hands ; with full Affurance;, that continuing faithful to him^ we cannot mifs of it^ if He be able to help us to it. Let us the more heartily honour and rejuyce in our BlelTed Saviour^ becaufe He is the^rue God^ a7id eternal Life. And fmce He is the true God^ let lis not attempt to make a mere fuhordinate God of him^ on the Account t)f his Subordination as Mediator. And Iince in him is Eternal Life^ let us not exped: that from any other Quarter. Let us but take Care to be truly as well as profelTedly his> and we need not tear but eternal Life in the final IlTue fiiall be ours^ to our compleat and never-ending Satisfadion. S E R Mv of the S o N, 69 SERMON III. John V. 23. That all menjhould honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. f^^ A V I N G as was propos'd^ given Scri- Salrers- H^M ptural Proof of the Son's Deity ^ and made hall,Tw^/l "^^^ a few Remarks upon the Deity that is ^^y ^■^^- afcrib'd to Him in our facred Writings^ I now '^^^'^ '•>^'^P* proceed^ ^3- 1719- III.. To offer fomewhat m return to the Pleas of thofe who iT.ake Him a meer Subordinate Deity, There being fome that own the Son to be God, that yet deny his Equality with the Fa- ther in Nature^ Attributes^ and Perfections^ I delire thefe Words may be well confider'd^ which reprefent an eaiual honour as due to the Son with the Father; which is a thing not to be accounted for_, but liippofition of a proper eftalityy thing that is eiTential to the Deity. it is my intention^ F, upon the in every And here I. To The Deity I. T 0 ftiew the Aptnefs of this Text to ferve the Purpofe for which it is pro- duced ; ^ulz: to prove an ^^W Honour due to the Son with the Father, II. To point to the Confequences that will follow.^ upon denying the fame Honour to be due to the Son that is due to the Father. III. T o reply to what Arguments I have met with^ in Proof of a proper Subordl^ nation^ or Inferiority of the Son to the Fa^ ther^ in Nature^ Attributes or Perfedi- ons. And then_, IV. T o fubjoyn feme fuitable Refledions. I. M Y Firfl: work then^ will be to fhew the aptnefs of the Text propos'd to ferve the pur-^ pofe for which it Is produc'd^, which is to prove an equal honour due to the Son with the Father, In order to our difcerning this the better^, 'tis requifite we fliould diftindly con- fider the Connexion of the words^ which Hands thus : The Chapter begins with an Account of a wonderful Cure which Our Lord Jesus wrought at Jerufalem^ upon one that had been a noted Cripple for Eight and Thirty Years. The malicious Jews^ wno dreaded any thing that tended to make him famous^ were the more enrag'd at this Cure^ becaufe it was wrought on a Sabbath-day^ at which time „ . they told the poor Man it 7vas not laivful for Join V. ,,-.j^.^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ Q^^ Lord anfwer'd them -■ ' with a very remarkable Declaration^ faying^ Ver. 17. My Father worketh hitherto and I work. q. d. My father and I having the fame Perfeclions^ our Operations of the Son. Operations are the very fame^ and under no confinement or limitation^ as to Time_, or o- ther Circumftances^ any farther than we think good. He does not now as_, at other times,, plead neceffity^ nor does he declare (as he might have done) that this was a Work of fuch a Nature as not to violate the Sabbath j but He takes Occafion to Ihew forth the Glo- ry of his Godhead, and plainly tells them^ tnat as his Fathn- had been continually Work- ing at his own Pleafure^ from the Creation till this time^ without any Intermiffion ^ fo had He^ who was om with Him^ been continual- ly Working alfo ^ and that one Time was as , proper as another^ for any Work^ by which his Glory would be fhew'd forth^ and made confpicuous. At this we are toldj they were but the more confounded and inrag'd^ ^f c^^/^ Joh. v. i C. He not only (in their Apprehenlion) had hroktn the Sabbath y but fa id alfo that Qod-u^ai his Father ^y making himfelf equal with God. • Our Lord does not hereupon charge them as miftaking or calumniating him^ in fo interpreting his Irank Declaration : He does not^ hke a modern Writer '^^ accufe them of fer^verfly ftr etching y but goes on to clear and confirm what he had advanced. He tells them^ That ivhatfoeuer Ver. 19. Things the Father doth^ thefe alfo doth the Son like- -ivife : And intimates^ that they Ihould have yet farther Proof of his Equality with his Ver. 20. Father ; and that He wrought jointly with the Either in raijing the Dead at Pleafure. And then Ver. 21.' He declares^ That all Judgment was committed Yq^ .2.1, unto him ^ i. e. that an abfolute Dominion and Sovereignty over Men and all other Crea- ?ures_, was therefore put into his Hands as F 4 Mediator^ J Bml)n% Trads ^ng. 1 0, ThQ Deity Mediator^ That Men m'ght gh>e the fame Ho- nour to him the Son^ as they did to the Father himfelf^ in the ulUal and proper Inflances and Expreffions. So that now_, no Honour can be due to the Father from any of the Crca- rures^ that is not equally due to the Son ^ and to pretend to With-liold any from the cne^ that is given to the other ^ is to diflio- nour both. B u T as plain as this is^ they that cut of Zeal for the Father leek to ieffen the Son^ are not out of hope fbme way or other to obicure it. Wc arc to hcnour the Sony e^ven as we honour the Father ^ that is^ fay they^ as truly ^ not as greatly. \. But this methinks is very Mat. We are to honour Saints and Angels^ as truly as the leather himfelf ,• and it is as real a Duty in its proper Place. And if this be all that can be faid as to Hofmrr due to the Son com- par'd with the Father^ there is nothing that is peculiar; our Lord could net be charg'd with alluming, ncr had the Jews any Occa-r ilon to be difturb'd. This would not leave the leaft Room for that Equality with God^ which they thought to have been afferted by him. Another tells us^ That K^tQ^y^ which we tranflate ^x_, often fignifies ^ ^e^/^r^/ 5/wi/.- ttide or.ly^ not an cxaci Equality : f Which is what we have neither Occafion nor Inchna- tion to deny. And it mud be cwn'd this would have been much to the Purpofe^ had we laid our whole Strefs on that Particle as. But as Dr. Waterland ^ has very well obferv'd^ What 1 Emiyns Trads, f. -^J. t Reply ro Mr., Ne!fo7i, 8cc. f. 260, f DeVenie of foQie Queries^ v. 23 1.- 1 of the Son. 7^ What ive Injifi on^ is, that our Blejftd Lord in Serm. this Chapter, drav^s a Parallel between the Father jjj^ and himfdf, hetvicen the Father'/ Works and his ^^y^-^^^ own, founding therecn his 7 irle to Honour -, which fujficiently i7isimatcs what KaO^jV means ,* ejpecially if it be conjider^d that this was In anpver to the Charge of waking h'lr/ifelf equal ivlth God. But 'tis faid_, That f our Lord had fur pofc- ly defign^d. In the mofi exprefs and emphatlcal wanner, to declare his Real Subordlnatioit and Dependance on the Father^ he ctuld not ha-ve done it 7^ ore fully and clearly, than he hath in this wholt Chapter f. Whereas I fliould have thought He might with a great deal ot Eafe have done it much more clearly. It had been but his declaring^ that he abtiorr'd the thought of an Ecjuality v^ith G o d^ and really was no more than a Creature^ and He would have much more efFeduaily quieted them^ and given tnem much more Satisfad;ion^ as to liis Dependence and Inferior ity_, than He could be fuppcs'd to do^ by telling them that Things were io ordered on Purpofe^ that He inight be honoured even as the Fa- ther ; and tnat Fie therefore had all Power lodg'd in his Hands^ leait the World fhould not be fufficiently lenfible of his Original Worthy Eminence^ and Dignity. And in Reality^ lince our Lord Jefits in this Context claims to himfeif the fame Rights Pcwer^ and Authority which the Fa- ther hathj and allerts that He is able to do whatfoevcr the Faher dceth^ and that the Exercife of thefe Pov/ers is left to him^ for this very End and Purpofe^ That all Men may honour ttje Son, e-veji as ihey do the Father, if this •j- Colle(3:icn of?' QiierleS; p- ^6. The D E I T r this does not prove his being equal to the Fa- ther^ I think 'twould be Itrange and unac- countable. I proceed then_, : ' 11. T o fliew what Confequences will natu- rally follow^ upon denying the very fame Ho- nour to the Son J that is given to the Father, We are to honour the Father ^ in the E- Heem and Veneration of our Minds^ in the Subjedion of our WilLs^ and in the Afcent of our AiFedions to hini^ as their chief Ob- jed. We are to honoto' him^ by having an intire Faith in his Word^ a firm hope in his ProniifeSj an holy Jealoufy about what peculiarly concerns hira^ and a Religious Care in his Service : And by expreffing our Reverencej Love^ and Dependence on hinij in our Prayers and Praifes. And the Scrip- ture requires us to pay the very fame Honour to the Son m every Inltance. W E are ordered to honour the Son by hdie- *vmg In hlniy about which our Lord hirnfelf gives us an exprefs Charge^ faying^ Te helieue John xlv. in God ; belle-ve alfo in me. We are to honour ^' him by adoring him : For to him is every Phil. ii. ^^^^ ^0 bow^ which does not fo much re- io. ferr to the Proltration of the Body^ as to the Veneration of the Heart. And we are alfo to honour the Son by cbc^'ing him. For fays he^ if je love me^ (and that Love ne- ceiTarily takes in Honour ) kee^ my Command- John xiv. ments. In all the requifite Inft ances of Ho- 15, nour there is a plain Parity ^ and the very fuppofmg an Inequality _, runs us into Confufion. The Honour that is requii'ed to be given both to Father and Son^ hath, a Foundation. And the Foundation of the Honour that is req^uiT ■ ■ 1 - of the So N- requir'd to be given to both^ is either the fame or different. If the Foundation be different 3 the Honour requir'd could not be the fame^ when yet there is no Inftance of it reprefented in Scripture as due to the onCj that is not due alfb to the other. And if the Foundation of the Honour that is due to them be the fame^ then the Honour that is requir'd cannot be different. The Foundation of the Father's Honour is infinite Perfedion. And there muft alfo be the fame Foundation for Honour in the Soris Cafe^ if he is truely and by Nature God: For He could not be fuch^ if any Thing that is requifite to infinite Perfection were want- ing. The Honour of the Son \s indeed in Scripture often reprefented as bottom'd up- on the Work of Redemption. This is the plain Language of that Heavenly Cry^ Wor- Rev. vj thy is the Lamb that was Jlain^ to recei'ue Power ^ 12. and Riches y and Wifdom^ and Strength ^ and Ho- nour^ and Glory ^ and BleJJlng. But that is as Me- diator. And yet He would not in that Capa- city^ have been worthy of tr uly Divine i/o»^Afr_, the fame Honour with the Father ^ had He not been by Nature God as well as He. He that ha'v'mg by him (elf purgd our Sins^ fat down^ on pjej^. \^ , the Right-hand of the A^ajefiy on High^ is faid tO i, 3. be the Son of God, by whom alfo He made the M^orldsy and the Brightnefs of his Father's Glory y who ufholdeth all Things by the Word of his Pow- er, So that we have fuch noble and rich Benefits accruing from his Office as Media- tor^ that that is defervedly reprefented as a powerful Inducement to us^ to pay him that Honour and VVorfhip^ which the Ef- fential Excellency of his Perfon^ and his glorious Works demand. And that^ as far as I can perceive_, is the molt we can make ot it. But The Deity Bu T if after all^ we are to give one Sort of Honour to the Father^ and another to the Son^ we fliOLild be miferably confounded in our Faith^ Worfiiip and Obedience j and left in Perpetual doubt whether we don't ex- ceed in each to the one, or fall fhort to the ether : And I don't fee whieh way we Gould be reiitv'd. And befidesj if we Honour not the San ss we do the Futljr^ we truft in one for our Salvation, who is wholly under Superior con- croul, and who for any thing we know^ may have undertaken what He may not be able to acccmplifli. If the San is not worthy cf the fame Honour with the Father^ it muii be becaufe He falls ihort of him in Perfedion : And in Proportion as He does fo, mult our Hope upon Confideration be abated, and our Fear rais'd, with refpect to the IfTue of his Great Undertaking. I F the Son is not to have the fame Honour with the Father y it muft be becaufe He is not One God with the Father: At leait that will follow from thence by a necelfary Con- fequence. For if the Son be Ont God with the Father^ He mult have the fame Honour with Him : The Honour being due to the Godhead, rather than to the Fatherhood or Sonjinp. If then the Son is not to be honour d 2t?> the Father y it mult be becaufe He has not the fame Godhead with the Father, And if He has not the fame Godhead with Him, He has no proper Godhead at all , He is at beft but a digmfy'd and exalted Creature ,• Fie is undeify'd, and Contempt and Contumely is pour"d upon him .• which cannot be a hnall Crime, nor unattended with con fidcr able Hazard. AR= of the S o N. fARTHERj, if the fame Honour was not given to the Son as" to the Father ^ they would be TwOj and not One^ as they are re'preient- ed. The Son would not then be in the Fa- ther ^ nor the Father in the Son^ tho' that be "26. alfo our Lord's own Aflertion : Whereas John xlv. if they are in one another^ the one cannot be ^^' honour d without the other , the Father cannot be honour d^ but the Son will be honour d even as He. Nor could our Lord then have faid with Truth^ in any Senfe_, He that has feen me John xiv» hath feen the Father : For if their Honour was 7- different^ they that favx^ the one might be fo far from feeing the other^ that they might fee and Honour the one^ and yet not fee but defpife the other. jNor could it without this have been faid by our Saviour^ ^//John xvL Things that the Father hath are mine *. For i5- then the Father would have an Honour that the Son was a Stranger to. And thefe are fuch Confequences^ as I think it becomes us to take any Steps^ by which they may be avoided^ provided they are but fafe. But, IIL I go on to the Arguments for that Subordination or Inferiority ot the Son tO the Father y in Nature, Attributes or Perfections, which is pleaded for by fuch as are not for honouring the Son^ equally with the Fa- ther. And^ I. It is faid. That our Lord plainly owns another above him, and acknowledges his Subjedion to his Father. He fays in I fo * See on this Text, Dr. TVrjterhfuT^ Eieht Sermons. 1S6, 235. The Deity fo many Words^ My Father Is greater than L t And if fo^ how then can the Son be equal to the Father i Johii^xlv. ^ ^ T let it be obferv'd^ our Lord does 2,8. * ' not fav^ God is greater than I, but my Fa- ther is io : For which Reafon^ he plainly Phil. li. referrs to his Mediatorfhip. Tho' being in 4 7. the Form of God^ he thought it no Robbery to he equal vjith Gody yet maktJtg himfelf of no Re^ putation^ and taking upon him the Form of a Ser'uanty on Purpole that He might ad: the Part of a Mediator^ between his Father and iinful Men^ He in that refped^ without any Impeachment to his proper Divinity^ might fay his Father was greater : But ftill as to Godheadj there was an Equality. Tho' the Son^ in the Text cited^ owns the Father Tohn X. gy^^^^^y He yet fays elfewhere^ I and the Fa- ther are One , which Declaration St. Hilary op- pofes to the other^ and that very juftly ^. There can therefore be no greater Inequality between them^ than is confiltent with an One- nefs that is every way pecuhar. Father and Son are not barely One in Agreement^ ading by Concert^ but One in Power^ and all confe- quent Perfed:ions which the Divine Nature has belonging to it. And had not fuch an Onenefs with the Father been there meant^ the 7^ W could never have thought He made him- felf God in pretending to it. Now the Son could not be thus One with the Father ^ and yet the Father h^ greater than He was_, as Go D. OvK t St. Hilar, de Trinit. Lib. 9, thus explains this Text. The Father (fays he) is greater than the Son, confider'd as Man and Mediator. t ^c Trin. Lib, IL pag. zi. 30 Ver. 33- of the Son. xu. Our Lord alfo fays^ All things that the Fa- ther hathy are mine f. So that He has ail the Pertedions and Rights^ the fame Nature and _ Godhead^ the fame Honour and Glory with John'' xvi. x.\it Father. Confider him as G o D^ and the 15, Father hath nothings but what the Son hath too : In that refpe^d: therefore the Father is not greater ,* nor can he be truly faid to have more Power^ Wifdom^ or Goodnefs_, or more Excellence than the Son, But as for the Of- fice of Mediator^ that the Father hath not. And therefore all the Difference between Him and the Son^ belides what is Perfonal3 arifes from that. It is alfo faid in this Context^ That -what Things foei;er He [the Father"] doth^ John vJ thefe alfo doth the Son likewife. It is iOy not only *9« as to fome^ but all Things. And again^ our Lord fays_, He that feeth me^ fceth him that /^^ John me : Which could only be^ becaufe their Na- ^^. ture and EiTence^ Excellencies and Perfecti- ons were the fame^ notwithftanding the dif- ferent Form afilim'd in order to our i5alvation3 in the Oeconomy of which^ He that was fent aded the Part of a Mediator with him that knt him^ and in that refped was io far inferior^ as that the Father might be faid to be greater. Whereas if C h r 1 s t as G o d was lefs than the Father^ or had lefs of real Per- fedion in him or belonging to him^ then might the Father do feveral Things that the Son neither did^ nor could do ; and then alfo might People fee the Son that was fent^ with- out feeing him that fent him. They might fee only that which was lefs^ without fee- ing what was greater ^2Lnd infinitely repleniih'd. Our i: "t See Dr. H^tcrUnd's Sermon on this Text. Serm, yi. pag. 195. 8o The Deity Our Lord ufing great Freedom with his Dil^ ciple ThU:^y upon Occafion exprefs'd himfelf thus j Belk^je we^ that 1 am in the Father^ and the Father In me : Thereby intimating^ that the Father and He were lo in one another^ that he that had {q^ti the one^ had {ccn the other as to all Things that were elTential to either. Should he then declare prefently after^ that his Father 7v as greater than He^ as to any e&n- tial Divine Excellencei, any thing but what related to his Office as Adcdiator^ Fie would lay and unfay^ and fo his Office and Divinity both would be overthrown at once. And the Harmony which this Way appears be- tween the Text objeded, and other Texts of Scripture^ beyond what can be made out up- on any ether Bottom_, is to me a very good Argument that this is the true and proper Senie of it. But J, fays Dr. Clarke ^ the plain Adeaning of the Words ^ my Father is greater than Jy isy Tuat , God the Father is greater than the Son • that He that begat y mufi needs ^ (for that Reafcn^ aitd upcn that ijery Account) he greater than be that is be- gotten of him *. Flowever, it deferves to be obferv'dj That our Lord is not there fpeak- ing of his Generation ^ but his Mjfion^ nor does He drop any thing that intimates any parti- cular reference to his Father's begetting him^ but diredly referrs to his own ading by his Commifiion as Mediator ^ which is the refped in which his Father is greater. Among Men in- deed in the very ISiame of Father^ there is imply *d lomething o-r^^rer than in that of Son : But it does not follow that it mi^fi needs be io in the Deitj^ where the Son no more had J Scripture Dodrine. N^f 830. of the Son. 8i had any Beginning of Being than the Fa- ther ; nor could in any Inllant not have been ^ any more than the Father himfelf could not have been. I don't fee how we can with Safety pretend to draw any Thing of a juft Parallel between Father and Son amonglt Men^ and Father and Son in the Deity^ between which there is fo wide a Difference. Amonglt Men^ Father and Son are two ; they net only are two feparate and divided Perfons^ but they have diffe- rent Endowments : Whereas in the Deity Father and Son are One ; not One Perfon^ but One in all Excellencies and Perfedi- ons. Amongit Men^ the Father has his Things^ and the Son his Things : But in the Deity^ the Son hath all Things (without any Exception) that the Father hath. Among Men^ the Father doeth fome Things^ and the Son other Things : But in the Deity^what- Ibever Things the Father doth^ the fame dotb the Son like wife. Amongft Men^ tho' the Son IS from the Father^ yet he is not in the Father j and tho' the Father produced the Son^ yet he is not in the Son ; and tho' a Son may be very like the Father^ yet it cannot (fpeaking ftridly) be faid^ that he that has feen the Son^ has i^^Qn the Father : But in the Deity, the Father is fo in the Son^ and the Son in the Father, that he that has feen the Son,^ has alfo feen the Father, Arguments therefore from Father to Son a- mongit Creatures to prove how Things Hand between Father and Son in the Deity, will not hold, nor be of any proper Force. Long before Dr. Clarke appeared upon this Argument, Crellius the Famous Soclnian Wri- ter, in his Dlfcourfe of One God the Father, re- prcfented it as an Evidence^ that Christ 82 The Deity Serm. asHeisthCiS'^w of God^ could not be tht Sw jTT freme God^ becaufe as He is fuch^ the Father ,^^y>^,,J^, is greater than He : But I take ByfierfieUrs An- fwer to be very fatisfadory ^ .^iz., that this Declaration of our Saviour^ does not point to any real Dignity or Perfedion in which the Father excells the Son^ who may ftiil be the One Supreme God^ equal with the Father, notwithftanding that as Mediator the Father is the greater. Nor can I lee any Thing like Proof produc'd to the contrary. 2. 'T I s faid that the Apoltles have de- clared Christ's Subjection to another^ not only as his Father, but his God. We read of God thy God:, and our Lord is faid to be anointed by his God. And the molt Blefled GoD^ is called the God of our Lord Jefus Chrift : even after his Humiliation was over : And 1 Cor. xi, we are told in fo many Words_, That the 3 Head of Chrifi is God. Thus then ftands the Argument. Tho* the Son is called God, yet he is fo a Gody as that he has a God ahoije him. And fays Mr. Fmlyn, If he have a Ged above him, then Is he not the Supreme God, tho* in Relation to created Beings he may he a God (or Ruler) over all "*'. I anfwer ; that our Bleffed Saviour having an Human Nature as well as a Divine, we- need not wonder that the Father with refpect to that_, fhould be ItyPd his God, or that He fliould pay him Worfhip^ which is often taken Notice of This Human Na- ture was anointed or fandify'd, by its being united to the Logos or Word_, without any Ground left to conclude an Inferiority, witn refped to the Divinity. I cannot therefore fee. T:r4clsp^, 3» of the So N.' fee^ why we may not allow the Father to be caird the God of our Lord Jefus Chrifi^ after his Humiliation was over, as well as be- fore_, by Reafon that the Human Nature that was retain'd, was not only of his forming_, but under his fpecial Management, after its Removal from hence to Glory, as well as while it continued here below. And then as for God's being the Head of Chrifi^ that is as Mediator, in which Capacity, all own his receiving his Kingdom and Dominion froni the Father, The Father is the Head of Chrifiy becaufe He as Mediator does all Things ac- cording to his Will, to his Glory, and by Authority deriv'd from him. Tins Senfe is confirmed, from what is connected with it. For thus does the Text run, th^ Head of e'very Man is Chrift ,• ajtd the Head of Chr'ifi Is God. So that as Christ is Man's Head, by Vertue of the Power and Dominion given him over all Flefli ^ foisGoD or thQ Father the Head of CHRrT,by Vertue of his .9:iving hnn th-^.t Pow- er and Dominion as Mediator. And then as for that Exprellion, God thy God^ it is exprefsly pfal. xlvj fpoken of the *,on as our Redeemer, as is 7. plain from his being faid to be anointed -with the Oil of Gladnefs above h:s Ft Hows. So that as our Lord was the Ecernal Son of G o d^ he had no G o d above him ; 'Twas only as He became Man in Order to our Re- demption, and had in the Nature he afTum'd a delegated Power, that He could be faid to have any Superior. 3. 'T I s pleaded. That ChrJj^ is to ^^'g^^ i Qot xv: till he hath put all Enemies under his Feet : That 24 28. at length He fhall ddlvcr up the Kingdom to Gody even the Father : And that then jhall the Son alfo hlmfelf be fubjcdl w7to him that put all Thwgs under hlm^ that God may be AU in AIL Q z It 84 The D E I T t It is from hence argu'd^ that fince the Son is to refigii to the Father ^ and be in Subjecti- on to him after that Refignation^ as well as before as Mediator^ He muft of Neceffity be naturally inferior to him. Mr. Emlyn tells uSj That this great Text^ is full of Irrefifiible Ez'idence for' -proving an Inferiority In the Son to his Father '^. But after the ftridelt Search_, I mufl: declare I cannot perceive^ the Apo- ftle meant any more than tliis : that the Me- diatorial Kingdom having been receiy'd ^ mult when it has ferv'd the Purpofes which it has been ereded for^ be at laft refign'd : And that after that Refignation our Lord Jesus Christ as Man (and fo a Crea- ture) flaall be for ever Subjed to the Deity : But I can't fee why we may not Hill hoid^ C H R I s t's Equalitj to the lather in all Di- vine Excellencies and Perfections^ both be- fore this Refignation and after it f. There are a few Things that here deferve to be confider'd. As^ I. We fhould confider what that is that is to be refignd. 'Tis not the Deity^ but the Mediatorial Kingdom. At the End of that admirable Difpenfation that was cal- culated in Order to our Redemption^ fhall the Kingdom be delrver'd up. The King- dom to be refign'd is not the Rule of the Deity3 nor any of the Perfections necelTary to the Exercile of Univerfal Government^ but that Kingdom which commenc'd in Pa- radife^ and is to be continu'd till all oppo- * TrnBs, p: 7. t See on this Argument, Mr. Jofeph Bqyfes Vindi- cation of the True Dairy of our BlefTed Saviour^' Third Edition, ^.30, C^g, of the So N. fite Powers are fubdu'd and vanquifh'd^ and all the hearty Subjeds of it are fix'd in compleat Fehcity. From the very going forth of the firil Promife did God admJni- Iter all Things by his Soti^ as imiverfal Lord and King • and 'tis the grand Defign of the Holy Scriptures to give us an Account of that Adminiftration. Man having fhameful- ly revolted^ God would not any longer ^xvern him alone^ or immediately as He had done before^ but He would have a Pre- sident General to manage for him^ or in his Name^ and by Authority and Power derived by Commiffion from him. This Commiffi- on He executed before He was incarnate ; but his executing it was more vifible^ after he aiTunVd our Nature^ and therein iuffer'd and dy"d^ and then had all Power gi^'cn him in Heaven and m 'Earthy and a 'Name abo-ve e-very Name. This Kingdom was given him by Commiffion^ in Confideration of his intend- ed Humiliation J by which He afterwards acquired a Right to it^ becaufe of his ful- filling the Conditions upon which the Grant was made. This Kingdom was not natural to Christj but adventitious^ and given him by the Father^ and the Power he exer- cifes in \t was deriv'd from him. Our Lord often declar'd this^ faying^ A^ Things are Matth.xi. ddi'vered unto me of my Father. I am come m 27. my Father'j Name, And It Is my Father that John v. honour eth me^ of -whom ye fay that He is your 43. God. And after his Afcenfion to Glory^ HeJ^'^^^ ^'^^^• plainly declar'd to the J/ian Churches that ^'^•^, -. as to his peculiar Power J 'twzs received of his ^ ' Father. And I mult own I take it for a " dired: Inlet to Jriamfm^ and the very Thing that has led feveral afide that way both for- merly and lately^ that they have taken thofe G 3 Texts S6 The Deity Serm. Texts that fpeak of the Conveyance and III. ^^^^^ of ^he Mediatorial Authority^ under ^^-y^i^ Limitations^ as meant of the Conveyance of the Divine Nature iiom Father to Son. But be it as it will as to that^ this re- ceived and delegated F^v^er that was com- municated to Christ in order to our Sal- vation_, it is intimated by St. Taul in the Text objeded^ is^ when that is accomplifh- ed^ to be at hit delivered up ; at which we have no Occafion to be furpriz'd. For why fliould a Commiflionary Power be re- tain'd any longer, when the End for which it was communicated is fully anfwer'd ? When then the Honour of the Divine Go- vernment is fully fecur'dj and our Salvation intirely accompiifh'dj it could anfwer ncEnd^ either \vith refped to cur Biefled Saviour^ or as to us^ for him to keep his Commiflion any longer. 2. W £ may alfo confider ^ who it is that is to make this Rcji'j?jatkn of the King- dom. 'T:s the Eternal cqh^ who had an O- riginal Pcv/er as G o r^ and was in Pofieffi- on of all Divine Perfedions from Eternity^ as well as had a Ccmmiinonary Pcwer^ which He received upon Man's Apoftacy. And of him we may obferve^ that feeing it / Vv^as his Human Nature that properiy fulfer- / ed^ and his Divine Nature was incapable cf / being exalted^, or having a New Dcminionj 'tis evident that the Kingdom granted him^ that h at laft to be refigncl^ could be given him according to his Human Nature only. For tho' the Godhead alone could enable him to execute the kingly Office to any Purpofe^ and he had been wholly incapable of it if that John V. "w^i*^ wanting^ yet He had this Authority gl^ %j, t'cn him^ bccaufe he was the Son of Man, And of the So N. And it is alfo worthy of our Notice^ that tho' for a Time^ in order to our Salvation^ He was pleas'd to Immhle hlmfelfy and appear in our Nature as an Inferior^ and ad in Sub- je(5lion3 yet He can as well ceafe to be at all^ as quit or lofe^ any Part or Branch of his Original Excellence. So that it is He that was at firft the Receiver^ that is to be at laft the Refigner of the Commiffionary Power receiv'd^ when the Purpofes that were to be thereby ferv'd are fully anfwer'd. The Refigner is the very Perfon that before reign- ed in his Human Nature in the Right of his Sufferings and Death. He that h^a all Things fut under his Feet by Go D, in the Human Na- ture aiTum'd^ when his Mediatory Work is finifh'd^ is to refign his fubordinate Power. It could not be taken from him by Force^ or without his Confent. He will deliver it up freely : And that at the Time^ when he Jhall ha've put down all Rule and all Authority and Tower; i. e. when He (liall either have converted or deftroy'd all oppofite Powers. The End for which our Saviour's Mediatory Kingdom was erecled^, was to fubdue a re- bellious World to G o D 5 and captivate Men to a free Subjection to his heavenly Will j or if they will not yields to niake them the Triumph of his Everlafting Vengeance. And this End will be fully accomplifh'd at the lalt Judgment. By that Time^ He will ei- ther have reduced his Enemies by the Pow- er of his Grace^ and brought them volunta- rily to proftrate themfelves before him ^ or have trampled them under his Feet. And when once Things are brought to this pafs_, the End and Reaion of the Mediatorial King- dom will wholly ceaie ,• and therefore it will b? refignd. And then. G 4 3. We 88 The Deity Serm. 5- We may farther confider^ to whom this III. Refignat'ion is to be made. 'Tis to the Father ^ from whom the Kingdom was at firit received ; but who as He e^er was a Father^ and never without a Sony fo can no more ceafe to have a Scn^ like himfelf in all his effential Per- fed:ions_, than He can himfelf ceafe to be. The Kingdom is tO be dell'vcrd up to God^ e^jcn the Father 'y who tho' greater than his Deputy^ ading as, his Commiffioner^ yet had not more of the Power and Glory that is effen- tial to the Deity^ than He v/ho for a v/hile^ and in order to the ferving of the highelt Pur- pofes^ condefcended to ad: by his Commii^ fion. And indeed^ into what Hands could it lb fitly be refigned^ as into thofe from which it was at firfl: receiv'd ? And what can appear more natural^ than for the Father ^ who there- fore gave our Lord J e s u s, in his humane Nature^ the Government of the Univerfe^ that there might be nothing in the whole Compafs of it capable cf fuccefsfully oppo- fing him in his Deiign^ to re-affume the Power intruftedj when the End of fixing this Vicegerency is accomplifli'd ^ But it is eafy to obfcrve^ (and it is fit we fiiould obferve) That in the great Worxk of our Redemption^ when the Father is fpcken of^ we are to look upon the whole Trinity as having a joynt Concern^ as well as to reck'jn the Father con- ce.rn'dj when either the Son or Spirit are par- ticularly fpoken of, in any thing relating thereunto. So that in this Cafe of the Re- figtiat';on oi the Mediatorial Kingdcni;, which is defjgn'd to bring Things to that pafs^ that God may he All In All; tho' the Father IS meii- tion'd^yet fliould not the Son and Spirit be rec- kon'd unconcerned. For He to whom the Me//gnation is made^ will not be more All in AU after of the So nJ 89 after it is over^ than either the Son that makes Serm. the Refignation ^ or the Spirit ^ to whofe Effica- jjj^ ey it IS to be afcrib'a _, that the Ends of ^y-^J^ the Mediatory Authority were fo far an- fvver'dj as that there could be room for fuch a Refignation. And now^ 4. Let us confider what this Refignation imr plies and carries in it. It imports no AcceP- lion of Power to him to whom the Refig- nation is made_, who* had no Rival before^ any more than He will have afterwards. Nor does it intimate any real Diminution of the Refigner^ as to any thing effential : For lie wili always continue in nimfelf as Great and Glorious^ and as Divine a Perfon as ever. All that it properly implies^ is^ That there will be a laying down of the Ccmmiffion re- ceiv'd^ when the Ends of it are fufficiently anfwer'd. There will be a ceafing of the Gofpel Difpenfation^ or of Christ's exer- cife of his Mediatorial Kingdom^ in the Rule and Government of his Church and People^ and his fubduing his and their Enemies. The Son will give up a fort of an Account to the Father of the Office committed to him. And^ as the Difpenlation began with an KOi of Subjection to the Father from the Son^ (who tho' He was under no antecedent Obligation^ yet was fo ready to undertake the great Work of our Redemption^ that^ as the A~ poltle obferves ^ when • He came into the Worlds He faid^ Lo, I come to do thy Will, oHeb.x.7: God ;) fo it will alfo conclude with a Hke A6I3 when the Son returns the Kingdom into the Hands of him that gave it. And this laft Kd: of the Difpenfation may not unfitly be compar'd with feveral of thofe that went before itj as with our Lord's Incarnation^ Death, Re fiir region, Jfcenfion, and the Lafi Judg- ment. B X 90 The Deity Serm. ' By his Incarnation the Son took our Flefh III. upon hiiTi^ and confecrated it in his own Per- ^^^i^^^"^ fon. By his Dcath^ He latisfy'd Divine Ju- Itice^ and open'd us a Way ot Accefs to the Divine Mercy. By his Rtjtm-ettlony He be- came the Depofitary and Truftee of that Life that He has purchased for us. Upon his Aj- cenfion^ He went to take Pofleflion of the Heavenly Glcry in our Room^ and became capable of communicating the fame to us. And at the Lap Judgmtnt^ He will intirely deliver us from the Power of all our Ene- mieSj to that Degree that we fhall never be molefted by them more. So that when we ihall be together taken up to Heaven^ and the Mediatorial Kingdom (hall be refign'd^ this laft Ad will be the Confum.mation of the whole Work. For we fhall not then any more be confecrated by the Firlt-fruits of the Flefh^, as at our Lord s Incarnation -^ nor will there be a bare Redemption in a Way of Rights as at his Death ^ nor a mere reaching Lite by Proxy, that it may be hid with Christ in G o d, as at his RefurreBlon ; nor a fimple Pofleflion of Heaven in the Perfon of our Headj as at his Afcenfion ^ nor a mere Deliverance from the Hands of our Enemies, as at the Laft Judgment , but there will be a full and perfect Communion of the whole Church, Head and Members, with the Blei- fedGoD, and that v/ithout Interruption, to all Eternity. y. L E T us alfo confider, what will be confequent upon this Refignatlon of the Me- diatorial Kingdom and Government. 'Tis faid. That the Son alfo hlmfelf\ will then be ftih- jeB to the Father. That is. He will be lo in his humane Nature, which He will Itill re- tain. And God JIj^II he All In AH* That is, the Divine of the S o N. Divine Excellencies will moit illuftrioufly (hine forth in Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghojl^ without any farther Need of an interpofing Mediator ; tho' the glorify'd humane Nature of our Sa'vlour will ftill continue a bright Mirrour of the Divinity. The Son himfelfwlU then be fuhjeB to tbeTa,^ ther. He is fubjed to him now^ in the Pof- feffion and Management of that Kingdom that will at laft be deliver'd up. He ads by Deputation from the Father; and what He doesj is in his Name_, and by his Authority : But hereafter He will be otherwife fubjed to him than now. His humane Nature fhall tranfmit the Rays of his Father's Glory thro' it^ to Perpetuity^ to the raviftiing and tran- fporting of all Beholders. ^efore_, He chief- ly exerted the Fathers Regal Power^ accord- ing to his Commiflion received ,• but that being refignd ^ all the other Parts of the Divine Glory Ihall fliine forth in the fame Humane Nature of ChrisTj, which will for ever continue the Temple of the Deity. The Son himfelf then laying down that Power which He now exercifes as Mediator, fliall as Man, together with the Church He has redeem'd, be fubjed to that Government, which He that fut all Tmngs under him fhall let up. Our Lord indeed ftiall ever continue in his glorify'd humane Nature at the Right Hand of God ; He fhall be always higlily exalted in Honour, Dignity, and Beatitude ; always having religious Refped and Vene- ration paid himj and the ElFeds of this Kingly Power fhall for ever continue ; his Enemies being deftroy'd,and his Saints reign- ing in confummate Blifs through cverlafting Ages : And yet as Man, He Ihall then be fttbjea 92 The Deity Serm. fti^jeB to the Father ; in the fame manner with III. Saints and Angels. ^„oy^s^ H o w E V E R:, we fhould in this Cafe take heed of feparating the Fatber and the Son^ and cf oppofmg the one to the other. We fhould remember that the Father reigns in the So?i^ and the Son alfo will reign in the Father. As to this^ I cannot but much ap- prove of a Paflage in St. Bajil. If (fays he) the Son v^ill be [libje^ to the Father -with re- fpeSl to his Dlzfinitjy then was he fubjeci to him from the Beginning of his being God : But if he "ivas not fubjecl to him from the firft^ but will he ftibjeci to him at laft^ (which is the very Thing St. Taul intimates) this Subjeciion will yefpeU his Humanity ^ and be for our Sakes^ and not refpeEl his Divinity _, or he on his own Account. "^ Tis added^ God jloaU be All in AIL All Power and Dominion will from thencefor- ward be immediately exercis'd by the Deity_, that is the Father ^ Sen and Holy^ Ghoft. The Variation of the Perfon in this Part of St. TauVs Difcourfe fhould be carefully noted. He does net fay^ Then fhall the Son alfo himfelf be fubject to him that did put all Things under him^ that the Father^ but that God may be All in All- When the Son has re- fign'd his Kingdom^ He and the Holy Ghofi will not fit Itill^ and leave the Fa'ther to reign and ad: alone : But no Power or Dominion fhall be exercis'd^ except what is Eifential to the Godhead^ in which the Son and Holy Ghoft fubfifling together with the Father y iliall for ever reign together with him. God will then be All in All, He will rule * St. BafiL Op. Tom. i. p. 769. of the So N.^ p^ rule and govern all Things immediately by Serm, himfelf, and his immediate Will fhall reign tjt alone in all^ and be the proximate Guide' of ,-.^^^ all the Inhabitants of the BlelTed World ^"^^"^^ above. So that there will then be no inter- mediate Governor between him and us^ to exad: Obedience from us^ and to convey his Favours to us, but we Ihall render all our Duty to him immediately, and receive our Happinefs from him diredly. The Apoftle obferves. That as Things now Hand, Chrifi is AH in All. It is by him Col iIk that the Father now does and governs all i \. Things. But when this Difpenfation comes to an end, God alone or the Triune Godhead will be All in All. So that whereas the Father at prefent only lets himfelf forth to us through his Son, he will then let himfelf forth immediately to us : And all remaining Sin being taken away, the Mediation of the Son will be no longer neceiTary to our having Communion with the Divinity. And whereas the Son now communicates his Favours to us with a difcernible Inequality, giving one Man one Gift and another another ,• and diftri- buting one and the fame Gift in different Degrees and Proportions, as He fees to be molt for the good of his Church ,• G o d will then communicate his Favours fo liberally to us, that the Light of his Knowledge, and the inexpreffible Brightnefs of his Holinefs, fliall then fill all the Bodies and Souls of thofe that are near him. God will be All in All. Not that the Nature and Subftance of all Things will be turn'd into God,- or that all without Exception will at laft be fav'd, and made Monuments of the Divine Mercy^ as fome have vainly and groundlefly ima- gin'd ; but that all that are regoyerable, being brought The Deity brought back again to G o d as their Princi- ple and End^ all the Divine Perfedions^ one as well as another, will be illuitrated and made confpicuous, in them_, and in the Ma- nagement of them. b o that upon the Whole_, I can find none of that irrefifiible Evidence^ that Mr. Emlyn fpeaks ofj no nor probable Proof neither_, in or from this Text, of that Inferiority in the Son to the Father ^ which he fo indultrioufly endeavours to fpread and propagate. And when he intimates. That Jejus Chrifi in his highefi Capacity^ being inferior to the Father, ca7i^ not he the fame God to "which he is fubjeB^ or of the fame Rank and Dignity ; * I reckon it a fufficient Reply to fay. That Christ as God being equal to the Father ^ tho' as Mediator His Inferior, was naturally of the fame Rank and Dignity with him to whom he for certian Ends became fubjed, and will be fo, after that the Authority and Power com- mitted to him, is refignd. And I can't per- ceive that this is difprord, by any Thing that he has ofFer'd. Reserving other Pleas of the fame Nature to the fubfequent Difcourfes, I fhall only add a few Hints by way of Caution. It is certainly highly needful we Ihould take heed of being fo zealous to magnify and exalt the Father^ as to deprefs the Son, Hardly any Thing is more common than for People out ot fear of one Extreme to run into another, and out of Concern for one Truth, to run down another : But this is neither prudent, nor fafe. How often do we find fome that are afraid to have Rea- fon depretiated, which is molt certainly the Candle * Trndsy p. 9, lo, of the Son pt Candle of the Lord^ free in their Reflecf^ions gg^j^^ wpon Re'uelationy as imperfed and defective I ttt' And others that for fear Revelation fhould be lJ~ difefteem'd^ inveigh againlt Reafon^ as rather ^"^^^"^ an Enemy than a Friend to Religion ! Where- as both of thenij if rightly us'd^ and kept in their proper Place^ may accord very well together. But is there any Senfe in this ? So may I alfo fay^ why fhould the Father be magnify 'd to the Sons Difparagement ; or the Son advanced to the Father's Diminuti- on ? We fhould not let our Zeal run all one way^ for fear we are infnar'd. Far be it from us to lefTen the Father. But do our Obligations to the Eternal Son of G o d run fo I0VV3 as that we fliould be lefs afraid of detrading from him^ or denying him the Honour that is due to him? W E have had fome that have been fo in- tent upon magnifying our Obligations to the Son of Godj that they have comparatively overlook'd and made light of the iandifying Work of the Bkffcd Spirit ^ altho' that is not either lefs neceffary^ or lefs valuable in its place^ or lefs matter of thankfulnefs^ than any thing for which we are oblig'd to our BleiTed Redeemer himfelf And it has often been query 'd of fuch^ why they fhould think the Holy Spirit to be more alham'd of his Workj than the Son was of his proper and pe- culiar Work ? And it is a Query to which they have never hitherto been able to return a fatisfadory Anfwer. In like manner would I ask of thofe who are fo earneft in mag- nitying the Father^ as we find fome are^ for what reafon they fhould think to pleafe him^ by lefTening the Son ? And it is fuch a Quefti- on as they w^ill not eafily be able to anfwer. I mult own therefore I thiak that but a nced- The Deity ful Caution that was given by St. Hilary ^^ one of the earliell Chriitian Writers uponthe Sub- jed: cf the Trinity we have now remaining ^ who when he was dealing with the Artansy tells US^ That -we muji- take heed^ leafi under Pre- tence of honouring the Father_, ive;^^ lejjen the Glo- ry of the Son. And Gregory Naz.ianz.en f COn- CurrSj faying^ If you deffife the Son that you may Honour the Father_, he does not recei-ve your Honour, When the Son is deffis'd^ the Father is no way gJorify'd. Tm afraid 'twill prove but a poor Excufe at lalt for any of us to fay^ as one does at prefentj I ho^e the Great Redeemer^ ivlll neijer he ojf ended with any^ who ft and by his own Words ^ viz. The Father ts greater than I 4- For tho"* they are Chris t's own Words^ fpoken by him in the Time of his Humiliation^ yet can they not by any Means juftify the feeking to advance the father^ by lefTening the Son^ which is what I verily think fome are much more juftly to be charged with^ than others with exalti?ig the Son aho^ue his God and Father^ that are freely accusal cf it t|. I T is obferv'd by a late Learned Writer on the Trinity j That as on one hand Men by guarding unwarily agalnft Trjcheifmj ha've in the ether Extreme run into Socinianifm^ to the Dimi" TJUtion of the Honour of the Son of God., and to the taking away the ^uery Being of the Holy Spi- rit J* fo on the contrary^ uncautmis Writers in their Zeal agalnfi Socinianifm^ and Arianifm^ ha've no lefs frequently laid themfelves of en to Sab ell i- anifm^ * Lib. III. De Trin. pag. 35. t Orat. XXXI. pag. 507. \ Emlyns Trads, J)ag. 45. tl ScQ Mr? Eml^ny ^pp^nkix to his Narmm, p. 58; of the S o N.' 97 "RJlifm^ or Tritheifnij hy negkBlng to 7naintain SerM, the Honour and Supremacy of the Father. And ttt he tells US^ It was the Defign of his Writing {jr^-^ to dlrcB to the a'voldlng both Extremes f . If that was the Defign of his Writings he ap- pears to be very unhappy in his Meafures y which are fo calculated to guard againll Sahelllanlfm and Trltheifm^ as dire(5lly to drive thofe that imbibe his Principles^ into Aria- nlfm for Shelter. He is fo clear againft Sa- beUlanlfm^ in. afTerting a Diilindion between Father^ Son^ and Holy Sfirlt^ that few that read him will I believe offer to charge him with making them but one Perfon^ as did the Sabelllans, But in the mean Time^ he plainly brings in fuch an hferlorlty of both ' the Son and Spirit to the Father ^ as leads to dired Arlanlfwy if we may judge of the Prin- ciples of that Party^ by thofe remaining Writings which are moft in Credit^ that came either from fuch as efpous'd and fup- ported them^ or fuch as oppos'd them. And if it be Trithelfm^ to hold one Supreme and two Inferior Gods_, it would be very diffi-- cult to clear his Principles from thatCharge : So eafy is it for Men to run in to Extremes^ even when they feem concern'd to avoid them. Our observing this_, fliould make ua the more cautious. We ought alfo to be very cautious of fetting up one Paflage of Scripture in Op- pofition to feveral others^ or making one Text or two a Standard^ or fetting the Scrip- ture a clafhing with itfelf. If we meet with fome Paffages that are not eafily to be re- concil'dj 'tis our fafeft way to hold them H all^ * See Dr. Clark/s Introdu(5lion, p. xxvil, xjtviii. The Deity allj without quitting or denying any Ofie : Which is no more than becomes us^ confn dering under whofe Condud they were drawn up. Safely may we conchide there is a way of reconciling them_, whether we can tind it out or no. Thus when we are told_, That Chrifi and his Father are one^ and yet that the Father is greater than the Son ; that the Son is at lafi to refign to the Father, and yet that He is to be honoured e^jen as the Father ; we fhould remember that He from whom all thefe PalTages came^ knew what He faid in all of them : And there- fore we have not the lealt need to part withj or demurr as to any one of them, tlio' we may not prefently be able to dis- cern how they hang together. Let us not cry out in a cavilling Way^ How can thefe Things he ? Let us rather conclude that thus they are, and that they hang well together, becaufe they are thus reprefented^ by one that neither could deceive, nor be deceiv'd. This is what Itrid Reafbn would jultify. But if inftead of this^ we will fall to cavil- lings and wreft the Scriptures^, arid it proves to our own Deftrudion in the Iffue, we muft thank ourfelves, and the Fault will lie at our own Doors. And confidering the infinite Obligations we are under to the Lord Jefus Chrifi^ for the ineltimable BlefSngs He has procured for us, by his amazing Condefcenfion and bitter SufFeringSj it very much becomes us to be afraid of giving way to the leaft diminifh- ihg Thought of him ; and that the rather, leaft if we once give way^ we may by De- grees be carry'd farther than we could at fir ft imagine. of the Sojj. pp v-/"V^ For my own Part^,^ I am never for fu- Serm, fped:ing Perfons of being erroneous^ or in- ttt clinable to give into pernicious and dan- gerous Opinions^ without good Reafori. Far be it from me to fay or think^ or give the leaft Encouragement to others to think^ fuch or fuch a Perfon to be in a dangerous Error^ or inclin'd to favour thofe that are fo^ becaufe perhaps he fs not for expreffing himfelf as I may choofe to do^ or may have lefs Fondnefs than Ij for certain Methods of guarding againft apprehended Errours^ that may have been proposed : And yet give me leave^ with Freedom_, to warn you to beware of failing in any Part of the Ho- nour that is due to the Lord Jefus Chrlfi^ leait you fliould at length be carry'd into a farther Oppofition to his Truth^ and Caufe_, and Gloryj than you had at ifirft any Ap- prehenfion of. I think verily this may be the rather allow'd me^ becaufe there have been fome^ who from queftioning whether fuch or fuch a Text would prove our Sa- viour's Divinity^ or whether Self-Exiftence or Independence might be fafely afcrib'd to ChrisTj, have come by Degrees to queftion his proper Deity^ and make him a mttv fubor-^ dlnate God^ a God by Office^ or a deify'd Crea- ture. It will concern you'td ftop at the firft^ if you would not run to Extremity. A T the fame Time it alfo highly Concerns us to take heed of relling in any Know- ledge of C H R I s T we may attain xyr-^ depends upon it_, have fo much of a Myjhry in them^ notwithftanding all that is reveal'd concerning theni^ that we muft not pretend to be free of Difficulty about thcm_, or able fully to account for them. And yet this is no empty_, barren Myfiery^ or fruitlefs Spe- culation. So far is it from that^ that the Apo- Itle prefently adds^ that In this Myftery arc hid all the Treafures of Wifdom and Knowledge : For fo the Senfe of what immediately foUov/s will runj if inltead of in ivhom^ as it is in the Text^ we turn it wherein^ as in the Margin ; which is beftj and molt proper. All the Treafures of Wifdom and Knowledge are herein contain'd , but 'tis in a fort of an hld^ den manner. This My f cry is an Abyfs of Won- dersj \n which are found all the Kiches of hea- venly Truths in the knowing of which true Wifdom confiits. Thefe Treajuresy which real- ly are invaluable^ notwithftanding all that is difcover'd about them^ are yet fo far hidden^ that we muft not pretend to fathom or com- prehend them : But ftill they are fo far laid open^ as that we may get all the Knov/iedge of them that is neceffary to our Salvation. To hear fome Men talk of G o d as a Father^ and Christ as his Son^ and the Way of his Generation^ and Manner of Subfifting and Ading before his Incarnation^ would tempt one to imagine they counted themfelves Adepts^ and thought they fully underftood the whole Matter^ and had no remaining Difficulty. But St. Paul found a Myftery in the Go/pel Do- Brine concerning God the Father^ and Christ his Son, and their mutual Relation^ Concerns^ Counfelsj and Motions^ together with what H 4 depended lo^ The Deity Serm^ depended thereupon. However^ that I might jy^* here contribute to your Ellabliftiment^ I have \y^Y^ confider'd the Deity of the Father and Son^ and am endeavouring to Ihew that this Son is to he honour' d^ e'ven as the Father ^ being equal to him. And to make this the clearer^ I have confider'd fome of the Arguments urg'd in Proof of his being properly fohordtnate to his Father^ in Nature^ Attributes^ and Perfedi- ons ; And ftiall now go on. IV. 'T I s pleaded^ That our Lord Jesus dif- claims thofe infijjite Verfecilons which belong only to the Supreme G O d. A?id if He wants one^ or any of thefcy He is not G o d in the chief Senfe "**. But I cannot fee v^hy He that was tndy God^ as well as tndy Man^ might not as Man dif- claim fome Perfections which belong to G o Dj and yet challenge the Deity to himfelf, becaufe of his pofleiling the fame Perfecti- ons as God. And as to this^ we Ihall be able to judge the better^ by taking the par- ticular Inltances mentioned into Confide-ji ration. I. ThbNj, it is faid^ T\\.2it one great and fe- ciiUar Terfc^tion of the Deity_, is ahfolute^ unde- ri^'^d Omnipotence ^ which is freely own'd. 'Tis pleaded_, That he who cannot work all Miracles ^ end do whatfoenjer he lifi of himfelf without Help from another y can ne^er be God^ becaufe he ap- pears to be an imperfell^ defecli'ue Being co.mpara--> tl^'cly t- ^f^'^^ 0^*^ L^^'^ confejjesy of myfelf^ I John V. can do nothing. His Sufficiency for working Ml- 5°' racks was of God the Father. He owns^ that from nothing ^ Emlyn\ Trades pfig. \ i of the Son. 105 mthing that was hlmfclf^ does He draw his Tower SERii, and Authority ; jvhich is 7J0t the Voice of Gody jy^ hut of a Man, My Father (fays he) in me does ..^/^^^/^ the Works. 6"^ that there was no divine Agent ^q^h xiv; in and with him hut the Father ^ who only nas lo. all Power In hlmfelf^ and needs no Ajjlftance, 'Tis reply'd^ Thar it is not at all to be wonder'd at^ that He who was Gop from the Beginnings condefcending to be made Flefhj and to take upon him the Form of a Servant^ fhould not in that Capacity do what-- ever He lifted of hiwfelf Nor is it at all fur- prizing^ that his Manhood fhould be an im-- ferfe^y defeBlve Beings if compar'd with the Deity. Tho' as deputed Mediator ^ 2idi\n^ by Commiffion^ He could not do whatever he lifted of hlmfelf yet it being by him as G O D that all Things were created^ that are in /-. j | ^^ Heaven^ and that are In Earthy vlfible a?id Invl^ fihky we may very well conclude,, that He could not want Sufticlenc^ for working any Mi- racles that were neceflary to fhew his Glory forth^ as there was Occafion. Tho' the Sif- fciency of his humane Nature to work Mira- cles ^ was of God the Father^ yet was it his own as well as his Father s Gloryj that was manl- John iL fefted forth by the Miracles He wrought. Tho' n. his fayingj Of myfelf I can do nothings really was the Voice of a Man i yet his faying^ I am Rev. L 8, the Almighty^ (of which before * ) was molt certainly r^e Voice of Gob. And tho' it was the Father that was In him that did the Works ; yet did not that exclude his own Agency. For our Lord therefore intimates to Philip^ r^^^ ^•^; that it was his Father In him that did the Works ^ \q - u, ' on purpofe to convince him^ that He was in the Father^ and the Father In him. It was this way jo6 The Deity SERM.way made evident_, not only that the Father jY^ 72^.^s in hlm^ but that He allOj (the Son^ was ^^v^;^ In the Father^ the Father and Son having one and the fame ElTence. And fo alfo^ when it is faid_, Jl:>e Son can do nothing of hlmfelf^ hut •ivhat he feeth the Father do -^ 'tis added_, -whatfo- ez>er Things He (the Fatker doth , thefe alfo doth the Son likewlfe : The Father is in the Son^ and the Son is in the Father^ by an Identity of Will and Operation j both of them willing and doing the fame Things : And they are alfo in one another^ by an Equality ot Ho- TiouTy and an Infeparablenefs of Worihip. And whereas it \^ faid^ There was no D/- njine Agent in and with the Son hut the Father_, ^ that AiTertion is much too pofitive. For the Sfirlt alfb had a Concern in our Lord's mi- raculous Works. And yet if the Father and 5o« wrought together^ I don't fee any Rea- fon for thelealt Sufpicion^ that the latter had not the very fame Power with the for- mer. And therefore Faufiinm a noted Writer of the IVth Century^ in his Difcourfe againlt the Arians ^^ defies them to mention a7ty one Thing done hy the Father^ that was not aljb done hy the Son : And Itrenuoufly argues with them^ That He mufi be Almighty^ hecaufe He did ivhatfoever was dene hy his Almighty Far- ther. 2. Another Perfedion that is reprefent- ed as neceifary in the Deity^ is Sup-eme and Ahfolute Goodnejs^ which alfo it is fa id oitr Lord. Jefus exprefsly dlfclaims f. For we are told^ Matth^ J^f^ f^^^ ^^ hlm^ Why callefi thou me Good i xix. 17.* T^^^'^^ i^ ^^^^ g^^^ ^^t One^ and that is God. Where * Cap. 3. p. 120. t Emljins Trads, //T^. 13- of the So N-; 107 where He dlfiingtnjljes himfelf from God^ a^ mt Serm» the fame 'with bim^ and denies of hlmfdf -what \\l . He affirms of God : And challenges the Man for frefuming to fay what feem'd to attribute to him - the FerfeBion of Supreme infinite Goodnefs^ and leads him off to ayiotber^ who^ ajjd -who only^ was more eminently fo. And he that pleads in this manner for his own belov'd Hypothefts^ de- clares himfelf afionl^^d to fee ivhat Violence is off'e/d to the Sacred Text^ by fuch as maintain the Equality of Jefus Chrifi to God his Father. But if we on our Side were difpos'd to be afionlfiidy there is Room and Ground enough for it_, upon our finding fo great a Strefs laid upon what fo little deferves or can bear it. For what could be more ridiculous than to infmuate as if Christ could not be G o Dj, or be intitled to an equal Honour with hi^ Father y becaufe He was not free to be call'd Good by fuch as thought him no more than a Man ? Or becaufe he took that Occalion to inftrud them in the infinite Diftance there is ^ between the Elfential Perfedions of the Divine Nature^ and the Goodnefs of Creatures ? Our Lord would have this Young Man^ either know him to be G o Dj or not call him Good, When this Per- fon made his Application^, he only incend- ed to own and honour Christ as a Good Man 3 but He would lead him to own and honour him as a Good God. And what is there in this that needs furprize us? For my Part^ I can't fee that when our Lord faid to him^ Why caUefi thou me Good ^ it muft necelfarily be a Reproof : It might as well to the full be defign'd for his Convidion^ and to car- ry him on farther : And a Reach of this kmd w^as no v/ay unbecoming. But when Perfons are once fix'd in a Notion^ from which The Deity which they determine not to be mov'd^ they find it a wonderful eafy Thing to confirni themfelves from any Thing almoit that comes in their way. ;. Another neceffary Perfection in the Dcity^ is ahfolute Omnlfcience ^ or unlimited Know- ledge of all Things pafiy prefent and to come. And this infinite Knowledge it is pleaded_, our Lord ^efus Cbrlfi had not ; particularly as to Things Harkxlii. ftiture ,• fiueh as the Day of Judgment. For^ fays 32. He_, of that Day knows no Man^ no^ not the An- gels In Hea'ven^ nor the Son_, hut the Father only. And it is faid_, That here the Son profefjes his Knowledge to he limited^ and Inferior to the Fa- ther'j : And intimates^ That He could not he God Infinite^ and yet have hut a finite Under- fianding ^ or he equal In KnovAedge to the Fa- ther^ and yet not know as much as the Father : And thatj If He was not an Infinite God when (m Earthy He cannot he fuch afterwards f . And this being a Plea in which fome have been much difpos'd to triumph_, I fhall confider it the more particularly^ and dilate upon it the more freely \.. This Text muft^ I grants be own d to have its Difficulty. And Matth. the Parallel Text in St. Matthew agrees in xxiv. 36. confining the Knowledge of the Day and Hour of the lait Judgment^ to the Father on- ly. That Men fhould not know it^ need not at all feem Itrange. For thofe of them that know the moft^ know but in Part ; and the Part they know is not to be compar'd with that Part of which they are ignorant. Nor have we any great Occafion to be furpriz'd that the Angels fhould be faid not to know before- * Emlyn\ Trads, pag. 15, i^- i See on this Argument Mr. Jofeph Bcyfe's Vind. of our Saviour s Deity. 3d Edit, p, 92, 93, ^c. of the S o N. 109 vx>r^. beforehand the pr^cife Time of the Day Serm, of Judgment : For tho' they are in Hea- jy ven_, and by being fo have an Opportunity of knowing many Things that are hidden and concealed from us^ yet their Know- ledge as well as ours is limited and bounded. They can know no more thaa what God is pieas'd to communicate to them y and as fagacious as they are^ they cannot pry into luch Things as He_, upon whom they intirely depend^ thinks fit to keep hidden and fecret. But that the Son^ whofe Omnifcience is more than once alTerted in Scripture^ with great Pofitivenefs^ (and who if he lays claim to a proper Divinity^ or an equal Honour with the Father ^ mult of Necellity have that as well as other infinite Excellencies belonging to him ) that He fiiould be faid not to know the Day and Hour of the laft Judgment ^ and that He himfelf ihould afcribe the Knowledge thereof to his Father^ to the Exclufion of himfelf, muft be own'd to have a peculiar Afped^ and we may well be uneafy^ till we find fome way to folve the Difficulty. It has been here faid^ That the Intention of our Saulour in this FaJJage^ ts to declare that AS the Father aloj^e Is God unoriginate^ ani of himfelf ^ and as He is alfo the alone Foun- tain of all Tower^ fo He is llkewlfe the alone Fountain of all Knowledge ^ in fo much that no one knows any Things no not e'ven the Son himfelf^ hut hy Communication from him *. And to thi^ Purpofe Irenaus and Bafil are quoted upoii us^ with great Pomp tj as the bcft Comments on • ComiBent. on Forty feledl Texts, /». 171. J Scripture Do(^rine^ N©. 773;>. iio The Deity Serm. ^^ the Words referr'd to. Irmaus as to this JY^ Matter exprefles himfelf thus : Our Lord blm-^ \y^'sr^ fi^f ^^^ ^^^ ^f ^^^j acknowledgeth that the Fa- ther only knew the Day and Hour of Judgment • declaring exfrefsly that of that Day and Hour kno-weth no Man^ neither the Son_, hut the Father only. Now if the Son himfelf jv as not ajham^d to leanje the Knowledge of that Day to the Father^ Iftit plainly declared the Truth ^ neither ought we to he a^amd to lea've to God fuch ^ueftlons as are too high for us. For If any one enquires why the Father^ who communicates In all Things to the Son_, is yet hy our Lord declared to know alone that Day and Hour ; He cannot at prefent find any fitter^ or more decent ^ or Indeed any other fafe Anfwer at ally than this ^ that the Father is a- hove all : For the Father ^ faith He^ ^ greater than J. The Father therefore is hy our Lord de^ clar'd to he Superior c-ven In Knowledge alfo^ to this End that we^ while we continue In this World y may learn to acknowledge God only to ha^ve per^ fe^ Knowledge y and lea've fuch ^efilons to htm • and put a Stop to our Prefumptlon^ leafi curloufiy enquiring perhaps farther into the Greatnefs of the Father^ we run at lafi Into fa great a Danger ^ as to ask jvhether even above God^ there he not ano^ ther God *. But the Learned Dallle who was a very good judge_, tells us f^ That thefe Words of his y look as If they would very hardly he reconciled to any good Senfe, St. Bafil alfo exprefles him- felf thus : As to the ^efi^ion put hy many^ con- cerning thofe Words in the Gofpel^ that our Lord Je-* fm * Ireyt. Lib. 2. cap. 48, 49. And the Remarks of Dr. TVaterlnnd, on this Paflage of that Father, Defence cf fome Queries, p. 105, deferve penifing. , t Treatife of the Right Ufcof thf Fathers, Boo^lll of the Son. m fus Chrlfi knew not the Day and Hour of the End — That ivhlch I ha^je been taught from a Child ^ of thofe who went before me^ is this ^ "That as we underfland thofe tVords^ There is none Good but Oney that is God^ to be fioken by the Son_, not 42S excluding hlmfelf from being Partaker of the. Nature of Good^ but only fuppofing the Father fa he the frft Good • and by the Word none^ mean- ing no other firfi Good ,• but that himfelf is the. fecond : So m thefe Words ^ No Man knoweth^ ivs believe our Lord meant to ascribe to the Father the firfi Knowledge of Things frefent and future^ and to declare to the World that He is In all Things the firfi Caufie. — Neither the Son but the Father ,• — That is^ the Caufie of the Son'/ Know- Udge is from the YdiXh^T \ fior his Knowledge is gi'vat him from the Father. Thus^ Rev. i. i. The Reve- lation of Jefus Chrifl: which God gave unto him. And it is mofi proper and decent to affirm conceriting the Son^ that from whom He recei'ves his Dl'vine Efifince^ from him alfio He deri'ves his Knowledge *. But as to thefe two Paffages cited^ I can- not fee why they fliould be look'd upon as decifive in the Cafe. As for the fir ft of them from Irenausy Dr. Waterland f^ and Bifhop Bull before him 1^ in my Apprehenfion_, give good Reafon to think he has been miftaken^- and fliew that if he attributed any Ignorance to C H R I s Tj, 'twas in Refped of his Humane Nature only. And tho' St. Bafil appears pofitive, yet 'tis very poffible if his Works were fearch'd with Stridnefs^ (for which I cannot * Ad Amphiloch. Ep. 391. t Defenfe of fome Qaeiies, f. loi, 103. i Bulii Def. Fid. Nic. p. 82, Comp. Br^v. Auinudv? yx G. CL jf>, 1056. 112 The D E I T T Serm, cannot fay that I have either Time or Incli- jy^ nation^) fomewhat might be found that \^r>J^sj might quahfy his Affertion. I am the ra- ther inclin'd to be of that Mind^ becaufe St. Gregory Naz^lanTjen "^^ who does not ufe in thefe Matters to differ from St. Baftly exprefsly tells us^ That the Son knows the J)ay and Hour^ as G o d^ hut Is Ignorant of it as Man. But I think it may well difcourage us from being led by Names in a Matter of fuch Importance as this^ to obferve that the greateft Men had their Blemifhes and Er- rors : And even Dr. Clarke himfelf declares_, That he does not cite fuch Palfages as thefe as Troofsy hut as lllufiratlons only •(* j and yet I can t fee how they can be regarded as J/- lufirationsy if they are found to clafti with Scripture^ as thele Paffages will be found to do^ if taken as the DoSor declares himfelf for underltanding them. Others have reckoned that our BleiTed Saviour drop'd the PalTage objeded^ in a way of prudential Oeconomy^ and declar'd him* lelf ignorant of the Day a?id Hour of the lafi Judg- ment , on Purpofe that He might divert his Difciples from enquiring concerning it. But let our Lord's V>di\^rL in mentioning it be what it would^ what He declares mull be in itfelf ftridly true^ or elfe He was guilty of a downright Falfhood^ than which no Re- flexion upon him could be more grofs^ or lefs deferv'd. There muft be a Senfe in which the Son really was ignorant of the Day and H^our of the laft Judgment^ or elfe this Declaration of his falls to the Ground ,• and * Orat. 3^. t Inrrodudiqn to Scripture godrine; fag, xvi^' of the S ON. 113 ^nd we are not a little difcourag'd from de- Serm. pending on what came from him upon other jy Occafions. IfiJore of Damietta^ '^ was of O- ^y^\r^ pinion_, That all that was figniffd by cur Lord's not knowing the Day and Hour of the lafi 'Judg- ment^ was that He was willing to avoid anfwer- ing unprofitable ^ejtlons. But whether He waS' difpos'd to anfwer or no^ when He declard as to fomething that was particularly men- tioned^ that He did not know ir^ it mull be own'd if He fpake truly^ that He was * in fome Senfe ignorant of it. The right and indeed the only way of folving the Matter^ I take to be this : That tho' our BlefTed Saviour as He was One God -with the Father^ knew the Day and Hour of the laft Judgment as well as the Father^ yet as He was Man^ and the Father's Agent and Deputy^ and acted under the Influence of the Sfirit in his difcharging his Office^ He did not know the particular Day and Hour of the final Judgment that was to come^ but refer- red It wholly to the Father. In my Appre- henfion Dr. Lightfoot f has explain'd this Matter much better than either of the Fa- thers mention'd. It is one Things fays he^ to underfland the Son of God barely and ahfira^ly for the fecond Terfon In the Holy Trinity ,* and another to under fiand him for the Mellias^ or that fecond Terfon Incarnate, To fay the Second Ferfon in the Trinity knows not fomething^ is blaf- fhemous ; to fay fo of the Meffias Is vot fo^ who nenjerthelefs -was the fame with the Second Perfon In the Trinity, For altho' the Second Terfon ab- fira^ly confider'd according to h:s mcer Dity^ waf ■ 1 Cc-equal * Ifid. Pelus. Lib. i. Eplftol. Ep. 117- J See his Works, Vol. 11. p i^i- The Deity Co-equal "ivltb the Father^ Co-omnipotent ^ Co-om" nifcient^ Co-eternal with hhn^ &c. Tet Meflias who was God-Man^ confiderd as Meffias_, was a Sewant ajid Meffenger of the Father^ and re- ceived Commands and Authority from the Father. And thofe ExpreJJions^ the Son can do nothing of hrmfelfy Szc, will not in the leaf fer^ve the A- rians turn^ if you take them i7t this Senfe^ which you mti'fi necejjarlly do j Meffias can do no- thing of hlmjelfy becah'fe He is a Ser^vant and a Deputy- But we mttft diflingmjh between the Excellencies and Verfettions . of thrift which flow- ed from the Hypoflatical Union of the t7vo Na- tures ^ and thofi which flow''d from the Donation and anointing of the Holy Spirit. From the Hy- fofiatical Union of the Natures flowed the Infinite Dignity of his Terfon^ lots Im'peccability y his Infi- nite Self 'Sufficiency to perform the Law^ and to fatisfy the Di^vine Juftice. From the anointing of the Spirit flow'^d his Toyver of Miracles ^ his Fore- knowledge of Things to come^ and all Kind of Knowledge of E'vangelick Myfteries. Thofe ren- dred him a fit and perf eel' Redeemer ^ thefe a fit aitd perfeB AFinifler of the Gofpel. So that thofe Things which were re^eal'd by Chrifi to his Churchy He had them from the Reuelatlon of the Spirit y not from that Union. Nor is it any De- rogation or DetraBion from the Dignity of his Per^ fony that He faith y He knew not the Day and Hour^ (j^^ : Tea it excellently agrees with his Office and Deputation^ who being the Father'^ Ser'vanty Meffenger and Miniftery followed the Orders of the Father^ and obeyed him in all Things, There is yet another Way that has been taken to folve the Matter^ and that is^ an holding the Word that alTum'd the humane Nature in the Perfon of C h r i s t^, to be qui- ejcenty or at reft^ during hisMiniftry^ and not so exert his Energy and Power. According tQ of the So N. 11^ to which Notion^ 'tis thought^ that the iW^;? Serm. Cbrlft Jefusy might not know the Day of jy Judgment^ tho' the IVord himfelf did know it. And this is the Way of Dr. Eennet^ who intiiiiates_, That we cant gi've any tolerable Ac- count of our Saviour'j not knowing the Day of yudgmenty without fupfofing the Quiefcence of the Word ; and that all the Dtfficufty that can be pretended J does Inftantly "vanlJJ) upon the AdmlJJt- on of that fingle Suppofit'ion *. And therefore he feems to apprehend himfelf very happy^ in having fallen into this way of Think- ing. But befides • that the Authority upon which the Doctor built this his darling No- tion of the ^uiefcence of the Word (which he reprefents as almofi as old as Chriftlanity itfelf) is weak and defedive^ and feems attended with a Miltake f ; I muft acknowledge I am at a Lofs to difcover^ how this can give us any new Lights or any farther Help than we had before. For either this Notion when it comes to be fcann'd^ agrees with the com- mon Sentiment of our Reformed Divines^ That tho' the Son diftmdly knew the Day and Hour of the laft Judgment as He was G o Dj, yet He was ignorant of it as he was Man ,• or it differs from it. If at the bottom it differs from it^ I doubt it will upon Search be found to draw ill Confequences after it 4.. And if it agrees with it^ and in Reality at lait amounts to no more than that carries In itj then have we a great Noife made about I 2 this * See his Difcourfe of the Ever-bleffed Trinity in Unity, fag. 128. t See Modeft Plea for the Baptifmal and Scriptural Notion of the Trinity, Chnf. yi.-p. 89. + See Mr. John Hughes's Remarks on Dr. 'Bsnn:t\ Pifcourfi? of the T Ri ^■ I T V, fng. 14^ ^q. ii6 The Deity Serm. t:his as a Difcovery^ to but little Purpofe, jy * and without any difcernable Advantage. I \^^^^y^l^ cannot therefore fee why we may not ilick to the old Way of explaining the Matter. Our Bleffed Lord knew not the Day and Hour of the future Judgment as He was Man^ tho' as God He was diftin6Hy acquainted with it^ and foreknew it. This is the Senfe in which it was underftood by feveral of the Ancients y with whom a great Number of Mo- derns^ of as great Worth as could well be men- tion'dj readily concurr. Among the Ancients ^ 111 particularly give you the Words of St. Hilary , who upon pro- ducing this objeded Text^ returns this for Anfwer : That as Many our Lord is Jaid to have wepty and Jlept^ and been fad^ tho^ as God_, He Tvas not liable to Tears or Sleeps or Fear. And as it was after the Infirmity of bis Flejhy that He "was under a Necejfity of enduring Weepings Sleeps ffanty fVearinefsy and Fear ^ fo alfo was it accord- ing to his humane Nature ^ that He profefs^d Ignc- ranee of that Day and Hour '^. And in another Place He fays^ That He that bore our InfirmitieSy took alfo to himfelf the Infirmity of humane Igno- ranee. He knew not the lafi Dayy jufi as He kne^v not the Sepulchre of Lazarus ^ and knew not the Woman that touched the Hem of his Garment t» And he is far from being herein alone -^ for this alfo is the Senfe of St. Cyrily St. Chryfofiom^ Athanafiusy Theodorety Gregory Naz^ianz^en, and the great Thotius 4.. And among the Moderns y tho' it is well known that Fetavim was no mighty Enemy to the Ariansy he yet ownsj, that '^ Hi!.. Lib. IX. de Trinit, ndfinem. t De Trinit. Lib. X. p. 191. i See Suiceri Ihefnur. im Voce Ke/Vo, Ket/AH, Ktlftf^ of the S o n] 117 that they could not from this objeded Text Serm. fetch any folid Arguments for the Inequality of jy the Son to the Father '^. And here at Home among ourfelvcs^ Til mention one of no fmall Note_, and he a Perfon that is often repre- fented by thofe of the new Scheme^ as not a little inclin d to favour them , I mean Arch- bifhop Tillotfon, who in my Opinion has very well explained this difficulty objeded Text^ when he fays^ It Is certain that Chrift as God^ could not he ignorant of any Thing , but the Di'vlne Wi.jdom which dwelt In oar Sa'viour^ did commu- nicate Itfelf to his humane Soul^ according to the divine Pleafure. So that his humane Nature might at fome Tiroes not know fome Things. And there- fore Chrift Is [aid to grow In Wlfdom j which He could not he faid to doy if the humane Nature of Chrift did necejjarlly know all Things ^ by Virtue of its Union with the Divinity. A N D in Reality^, upon the clofeft Confide- ration,, I cannot fee why we ihould any more be furpriz'd^ that Christ ihould be faid not to know fome Things_, than that He fhould be faid to groip and improve^ to be hungry and thirfty^ tO take pains^ and wee^^ and grieve y and he forrowful. Thefe Things all Itand upon the fame Foot^ and are In- ftances and Effeds of his Humanity ; but no juft Arguments againft his Divinity. 'T I s altogether paft my Skill to difcern^ how it can any way become us to endeavour to break through fuch a Difficulty as this^ by calling in queftion any Thing that is ab- iolutely certain. Now if we believe the Scri- ptures^, I don't fee how any thing can be I 3 more * Vld. Petnvii Dogm. TheoUg. De Trtnitate, Lib. IL can. iii. Sed. 11. 'ii8 Th^ DEixr Serm. niorc certain^ than that our Saviour was Ow- IV- »{/^^'^'^'*- ^^ ^^"w dvjelt all the Ftdlnefs of the God- s.^/'^^/^su ^^^^- ^ great and a very necefTary Part of Col. ii. o. thsitF/dlnefshsid been wanting^had he not been properly Omnljcient. For any Degree of Igno- rance IS moll certainly an Imperfedion^ and argues liich an Emptinefs as cannot confift with all the Fullnefs of the Godhead. Unlels there- fore we own his Omnlfclence^ we make him defective and imperfed. And we have very good Reafon to own it^ fmce we find it free- ly afcrib'd to him by one that had all ima- ginable Advantage to know him_, and whofe Work and Bufinefs it was to make him known to the World -^ I mean St. Tetevy who upon our Lord's feveral times putting the Quelti- on to him^ Whether or no he lov'd hlm'^ Tohn xxl. ^""^^de this Anfwer^ Lord^ thou knoweft aU Things ^ ij^ Thou knoweft that I love Thee. 'Tis a vain thing to talk here of a relative OrKnifclence^ for the Apoftle afcribes no lefs to Christ than an abfolute Ofnnlfcience. He intimates^ that his beloved Malter^ did as much^ and as truly^ and as certainly know all Things^ a§ the ::cn himfelf To offer to fay^ that Peter \va,s deceiv'd when he made this Declara- tion^ is without any Foundation. He could not be deceiv'd in fuch a Thing as this was^ v/ithout venting a down-right Blafphemy in his Malter's Favour^ and alcribing to him an infiiiite Knowledge^ which belonged to God alone. Nor could it be fuppos'd^ if he had overltrain'd^ that our Lord would have dif- cover'd himfelf fo pleas'd^ as He appears to be^ in prefently adding a Charge to feed his Sheep^ which is a WorJ^ ajid Office for which he had been utterly unfit^ had he afcrib'd to C-R-Ri'ST a Knowledge that was infinite_, wi.ite in Reality He had none but what was Itraitly of the S o N. Uraitly bounded and limited. And yet the Text objected fets a plain bound to his Knowledge^ and tells us of fomething to which it does not extend^ and that \^ the precife Time of the Day of Judgment. There muft therefore be one Senfe in which He knows all Things^ and another Senfe^ in which there are fome Things of which He is ignorant. And the Perfon as to whom thefe different and oppofite Allertions are advanc'dj (and that in the Sacred Scriptures themfelves) being both God and Man at once^, nothing can be more natural than to hold^ that it is as God that all Things were known to him j whereas ^j Man He might be igno- rant of fomething capable of being known ^ and particularly of the Day a?td Hour of ths lafi ^judgmeyit. Our Lord partaking of a douhU Nature y had a double JJnderfiaiiding ^ ^- the one Infi- nitCj the other Finite ,• the one Divine^ and the other Humane ^ the one Omnifcientj and t\\^ other capable of Ignorance. In the one He differs not from the Father^ tho' He does in the other. When therefore He is faid to know all Things^ we are to take it as meant of his Dhume Ujjderfianding ; and when his km^vlng any Thing is de?jyd^ we arc to take it asjmeant o{ his Human Under fi and- Ing. And that this was our Saviour's true meaning in the Text referred to^ is plain from Two Things. I. Because He fpeaks of himfelf as He differed from the Father^ and had an Under- I 4 Handing * Ses Placsel Difput. de Divina Jefu Clirifti EflQti- tla. Pav. HI. p. 198. I20 The Deity Serm. landing that was feparate from his^ which JY^ was only as He was Man. And^ ^^/->^rij 2. Because his denying his knowing the precife Day and Hour cf the laft Judg- nient in that Capacity _, was fufficient to check the Curiofity of the Apoilles^ whom it little became to defire to know more^ than the Son himfeh" knew as He was Man, Fcr as to what was proper to his Deity which was truly adorable^ tho' with refpedt to that He knew all Things without Excep- tion^ yet could they not be fuppcs'd in- fenlible that nothing of that Nature belong- ed to them^ and that it would be altogether unwarrantable for them to afpire after it. But that fubtle Writer CrelU/fs here advances Three ThiiigSj tho' I cannot perceive they could help him to reach his End, I. He faysj That our Saviour in the Tex^ objec^led^ fimply and without any Limitation de- nies his knowing the Day and Hour of the lalt Judgment^ and therefore denies it In all Refpicts ^. But a Thing may be laid dowii fi^'!^{y3 ^ii^ there may be no Limitation ex- frcjYd ^ and yet one may neceflarily be i?npiyd. Thus our Lord Jesus without Matth. i. any Limitation exprefs'd ^ is Laid to bef I- the Son of David ,• and of the Seed of David ; a Tim. 11. p. ^j^ yet fuch a Limitation is to be under- ^- .. ilood ^ as according to the FteJJj ^ and both Acts II. g^^ j.^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ 1^^^^ cxprefs'd it ac- ^°'^^j^^ cordingly : But at other Times a Thing ^xix'.s*. *-^^y ^^ exprefs'd ih, as that there maybe jio good Reafon to "be given^ why any Limi- tation ihould be unaerftood. Now when Christ denies his knowing the Day of Crellius de Uno Deo. Lib. I. Sed. 2. cap. 9, of the S o N.^ 121 Judgment^ tho' no Limitation be exprefs^d^ Serm. yet there is fair Room for fuppoling one to jy be underftood : Nay there is a plain Neceflity ;^^yr>^ of it^ to keep that one Text from clafhing with feveral others. I can't fee why we may not underftand it according to the FlejJj^ .- as well as when He is faid to have been the Son^ or of the Seed of David. In like manner our Lord^ when the Time of his Crucifixion drew near^ cries out fimply^ and without any Joh. xvilJ Limitation^, noiJJ I am no more in the World : And 1 1. yet that we are to underftand that Saying of his with a Limitation^ i$ plain from that Matth: noted Promife ^ Lo^ I am ivith you alivays ^-xxvauxoa 'ven to the End of the World. But the fame Au- thor farther urges_, 2. T H A T the funple Name of the Son us'd in the Text objeded in Oppofition to G o d the Father^ and the Gradation that is obferva- ble^ when our Lord afcends from Angels to the Sony and from the Son to the Father ^ makes it plain that He fpeaks of himfelf in that Nature^ according to which He is the Son of God. But this is not Self-evident. We cannot gather this^ from his mentioning the Son^ in Oppofition to God the Father. For the Apoftle plainly intimates to us^ that the Son may be confider'd Two feveral Ways ; ei- ther according to the Flejlo^ or according to the Spi- rit of Holme fs : Either as He was the Son of David^ or as He was the Son of God, And therefore fomewhat may be faid of him ac- cording to the FlejJjy and not as He is the Son of Gody without any Inconfiftency. And as for the Gradation^ from Angels to the Son^ and From the So?i to the Father ^ that i$ from perfons to Perfons_, and not to Natures. Now the Perfon of the Son was more excel- If lie than Jngelsj and with his Humane Un- " ' derltanding 122 The T>mrY derftanding he knew fome Things that were not reveal'd to Angds. And thenj, 3. The fame Author was alfo for laying a Strefs upon St. Matthew'^ faying that it was the Father otily that knew the Day and Hour of the lait Judgment : And He reckons the Expreffion of St. Mark to be equivalent^ when He fays ^ Neither doth the Son know^ but the Father : The Father being opposed to the Son himfelf Now ( fays he ) had Christ known the Day of Judgment ac- cording to his Divine Nature_, then 7tot the Father onlj^ but the Son alfo would have known it ^ ay^ and the Hcly Spirit too. But it may be reply'd that the Word only added to the Father J did indeed exclude from the Knowledge mention'd^ the Son as He was Man^ but not as He was God; for fo He was 072C with the Father. And befides, the excluding the Son as He was God^ would have carry 'd in it a manifeft Contradidion to thofe Texts^ in which He is faid to have known all Things. But then as the Son was not excluded, fo neither could the Ho- ly Ghoft be excluded^ of whom we are toldj, I Cor. ii. That He fearcjjeth all Things^ even the deep ,10, II. xhings of God. For 7i^hat Man knoweth the Things of a Man^ fave the Spirit of a Man which is iit him ? E-ven fo the Things of God knoweth no Man^ hut the Spirit of God. When a Man knows any Things can the Spirit which is in him be ignorant of it ? How then fhould the Spirit of God be ignorant of what is known to God '^. And if the Spirit could not be excluded from the Knowledge of the Time of the Day of Judgment^ when the Father is faid to knov/ it_, much lefs could the Son be ignorant of it. And this we may the rather conclude^ becaufe the knowing^ of the Son/ of the Day in which He was to a(5t the Part of Judge of Quick and Dead^ as much be- long'd to his Office^ as any one Thing that could be mention'd. But Mr. Emlyn^ who in. all his Trac5ls_, generally falls in with Crelllm^ and borrows not a httle from him, tho'^Ihave not ob- ferv'd he's fo frank as to own it_, Itiil in- fifts_, and objeds^ I. That tf Chrifi was the Supreme God m any Nature of hts owriy He could 7iOt in any Con-' Jifiency with Truth and Sincerity ^ fay that himfclf did not know the Things which himfelf did knovf 'very well^ as he fure if He was the Supreme God^ He did ,* for this were to make him fay what Is mof falfe^ and to equi-vocate in the mofl de- ceitfull manner. For tho^ we jlmild fuppofe He cvnfified of Two infinitely difiant Natures ^ and fo had two Capacities of Knowledge ^ yet fince Hlmfelf tncludes them both^ it follows that the - denying a Thing of Himfelf in abfolute Terms ^ without any Limitation in the Words ^ or other ob^viom Circum- fiances y does plainly imply a Denial of its belong- ing to any fart of his Perfon^ or any Nature in it *. But fuppofmg two Natures in Christ^, (which is the ground we go upon) it has been already fhewn^ that with refped: to his Divine Nature^ his being without the Know- ledge of the Time of the Day of Judgment, is by no Means to be allow'd ^ becaule then He would have wanted an effential Part of the Fulnefs of the Godhead ^ which it is faid dwelt in him : Nor could He have been faid to have all Things that the Father hath ; for He would not have had that Knowledge which properly belonged to the Divinity : Nor t TrAds, p. 17. The Deity Nor would St. Teter have fpoken Truth^ when He faidj He knew all Thhjgs without Excepti- on. Our Lord therefore could only fpeak of himfelf with Rclped to his Humane Nature^ when He declared He knew not the Day of Judgment. And in fo expreffing himfelf He "^was fincere _, and not chargeable with an Equivocation. And a Limitation ( as has been before obferv'd) was imply'd^ tho' not exprefs'd. And if He was at once both Qod and Aian^ He moft certainly might own his Ignorance as Man ^ and yet as God^ might in Knowledge as well other Per- fedions '^be equal to his Father, For no good Argument can be drawn from ufual Exprel^ fions as to a Perfon that has but one Na- ture^ tho' feveral Parts^ to what may be faid_, by^, or of^ one that in one and the fame Per- fon has two Natures joined. But^ a. Mr: E??2lyn alfb objeds, that in the Text cited^ our Lord does not put the Dlft'm- H'lon or Oppojttion betweep the Son of Man^ and ike Eternal Word^ hut between the Son and h'ls Father : Sayings not the Son knowsy but only the Father : By which (he fays) Its plain ^ He had 710 thought of including any ferfon or Nature cf his own among the excepted : For whatez/er 7i;as not the Father_, he fays 7ms ignorant of that Day *. But our Saviour was diilind from his Fat'her^ both as He was the Eternal Word, and as He was the Son of Man. And there- fore when He denies of himfelf in Oppofi- tion to I;!s Father^ Ibmething that He could not with Truth deny of himfelf in one Ca- pacity ^ tho' He could in the other^ it is but a decent Piece of Refped to him^ zq fuppofe * Hrficls] p. 19, 2©. of the So N. 12$ fuppofe him in fuch aDenialj to be fpeak- g^RMw ing of himfelf in that Capacity in which jy^ only He could confiftently with Truth , ,^r\j^ give forth fuch a Denial. He urges far- ^ ther^ g. That our Liter pretat ion 'ji>ould make all^ even the mofi pLiin Speec/j mtcertam and Infignl-^ ficant : And that Jefifs Chrlft could In no Words y in briefs ha-ve denied hhnjelf to he God mofi H'lgh^ if He had a mind to- do If^ more plain and full than thefe : For that let him have faid whatever He would ^ we jJwuld fill I have faidy It was to be under fiood cf htm as Man only \ It is reply'd that when our BlelTed Lord h in the Writings of the New Tefiament fo of- ten declar'd to be God as well as Man^ 'tis altogether unreafonable^ and tends to de- llroy the Credit of thofe Writings^ to offer to fuppofe him capable of profeiling him- felf not to be Go d. The Apoftle is pofi- tive^ The Word was God^ as well as that the John L i2 Word was made Flejli. There's not the leaft *4* Room for that Writer's Suppofition^ That He could have a mind to deny himfelf to be God. For what were that but to contradid him- felf and his Apoitles^ and the whole Cur- rent of the Writmgs cf the New Ttfiame-nt at once. But if we muft fuppofe luch a Things as that our Lord fhouid be difpos'd to diiclaim his own Deity^ and deny him- felf to be the molt High G o d^ He needed but have faid^ that whatever He was be- fore He appear'd in this lower Worlds and whatever Glory He fhouid receive in Con- fequence of his Incarnation and Sufferings, He ftill was and fhouid be but a Crea- ture : * Xr-4^/, p. 20^ 21, 126 The Dei ty Serm. ^"^^ • ^^^ -^^ ^^^^ ^^y Thing to this Pur- jy * pofe^ it could not by any one have been y^m^J.^! pretended ^ that it was to be underftood ^^^^'^^'^ of him as Man only. And therefore I ' think that Author's Aliertion^ that is found- ed upon our Lord's declaring his not know- ing the Day and Hour of the laft Judg- mentj That the BkjJ'ed Jeftis has declared him- felf not to he the Supreme Gody or equal to the Father^ as plainly as Words could ffeak^ is fo far from being fafe^ that it deferves Dete- fiation. And^ 4. He farther objecfts^ That our Way of Interpretation may he turned againfi ourfelz'es : And that if it be jufi and true to deny ofChrlfi^ ahfolutelyy what belongs to him in one J^Jature^ hecaufe there Is another Nature in whieh it he^ longs not to him ^ then may we as 7vell fay that He is not God equal to the Father^ becaufe He IS not fo as Man^ as that He knew not the Time of the lafi Judgment y becaufe as Man He did not know it *. I anfwer with the Apoftle Rom. ill. Tauly Let God he true^ but e^very Man a Liar, 4. Men often run into Inconfiftencies : But fo did not the BlelTed J e s u s , nor did He in any Cafe encourage them^ or lay a Foun- dation for them. Our Lord in Fffed de- clares himfelf not equal to his Father ^ when He reprefents his Father as greater than He was : And yet when He has all the Perfe- d:ions of his Father afcrib'd to him^ (and that of Omnlfcience among the relt^ notwith- Handing this particular Confeflion of Igno- rance) and when He elfewhere declares that He hath all Things that his Father hath^ He muft be inconfiftent with himfelf, and lead us EmlynVT/4^;^ p. ii? i2r. of the So isr 127 us into Inconfiftencics and Abfurdities too^ Serm. if it be not as He was Man only that He yy difdaims the Knowledge of the Day of ^^.^^^ Judgment. And if a Man be gone that length, as not to Itick at charging our Bleued Lord Jesus with being inconiiftent, and leading us into Inconfiftence and Ab- furdity, it matters I think but very little what he thinks or fays of Him afterwards. He farther objeds,, f. T H A T our Way of Interpretation cannot be right y hecaufe there is no Caution frhjoynd^ or Hint added^ that it Tvas with rejpcdi to his humane Na- ture only^ that our L O R D hte-w not the Hour^ &c. Whereas Caution vjos often gi^en about lefs Mat" ters *. To which it is a fufficient Reply^ That the Evangelilts did not think a Caution needful3 or elle they would have added it. And they might well reckon a Caution in this Cafe the lefs needful^ becaufe having dropped fo many Hints of a Diuine as well as an Hu- mane Nature^ in. the Perfon of our Sa^uiom-^ they might conclude^ that no one that had a due Dread upon his Spirit of making their Writings inconfiftent, could upon the men- tioning his Ignorance of the Day and Hour of the lafi Judgment y at all queftion its being meant of his humane Nature only. But as for a Man that thinks he fufficiently explains thofe Texts that exprefsly affert Christ's knowing all Things, by reprefenting it as hyperbolical ,• like the Prophets being common- ly faid to know all Things : And that rec- kons that Knowledge of the Hearty that is often fo fully afcrib'd to C h r i s t^ was but like that Knowledge of the Thoughts and Hearts of Men^ that Trajiji^ p. 13. 128 The Dei T r SeRM. ^^^^ ^^ ^pon occajion been communicated to Trophetf lY^ and Jpafiles * ; He difcovers fo little Venera- tion for the facred Scriptures^ and fo little Regard to the Honour of the Bleffed J esus^ that it may well be queftion'd^ whether any Caution added^ would have been a fufficient Reftraint to him ; or kept him when he met with what he found difficult to reconcile with his Hypothefis^ from crying out with M- codemm^ Hovj can thefe Things be i Reserving the other Pleas to the next Difcourfe^ I fliall now fubjoin a few plain Hints by way of Application. And^ I. I muft freely own it^ I cannot fee that we have any Occafion to Wonder to find the DoBrine of God the Father and of Chriil^ to have a great deal of Difficulty in it^ notwith- itanding all that is reveal'd concerning \u It need not furprize us to perceive that it has a remaining Abftrufenefs^ after our ut- moft Searches^ and our moll lerious Medita- tions. The Apoftle^ in this Text^ tells us plainly it is a Mjfiery ; and that is in this Cafe_, and as thus apply'd^ to be look'd upon as an infpir'd Word^ what Liberty foever fome may take in refleding upon it. We have not the leaft Occafion ( as I know of) to be either afraid or alham- ed to acknoivledge a Myftery^ where God himfelf has declared there is one_, how much foever fome that can't bear to be confined even by the Moft High Himfelf, ridicule that as a poor and forry Refuge. When Men have faid all they can^ Chriftianiry is and will be re-« * Emlyns TraSis jpag, 2$, a6. of the S o i a God^ and reckon it worth their while to contend for^ trull in^ ferve and vvorfhip^ fo ignorant^ defecflive^ and imper- fecSi a Godj as a created God muft be^ even tho' he had all the Glory conferred upon him that he poffibly could bear^ or be capable of. Such a God as this^ could at beft have none h\it fub- ordinate Excellencies and Perfedions (tho' me- thinks a fubordinate Omnifcience_, and a fub- ordinate Omnipotence found a little odly.} He could be but a fubordinate Sa'vlour ^ ana help us to but a fubordinate Salz^ation. And therefore I don't fee what Room there could be for an intire Trull and Dependence. Let us pity thofe who impofe upon themfelve$_, by confiding mfuch a God as this^ who in Rea- ality is no God ; and could not fupply the' Wants^ or redify the DiforderSj or anfwer the Expedations^ of fiich needy^ unworthy^ cravingj miferable Creatures as we are. 3. Taking notice of thofe who are not to be brought to an hearty Acknowledgment of the Myfiery of Goviy and of the Father_, and of Chrirfj Let us obferve how naturally one Error about that important Dodriije draws others of the Son. others after it. Let any here run into Mi- ftakes,, and the whole Scheme of our Religion is prefently afFeded. Let Father and Son be equaij and there's Room for a Compadt. The affuming human Flefh^ will then be an Ad of the moft furprizing Condefcenfion ,• andRe- deeming Love, will be found to have a great Aptnels to excite a fuitablc Love in Return. There will be One capable of giving, and another of receiving Satisfr.Bicn ; I mean fuch a Satisfaction as is as Eftimable in the Nature of Obedience, as the injury which the Great Ruler of the World re- ceiv'd was, in the nature of Contempt. Eut if Men once call Chrlfi's Deity into que- Ition, and over and above a Verfond Sub- ordination^ will have the Son a Subordinate Gody they prefently run into miilaken No- tions about his Incarnation^ and about the whole Work of Redemption ^^ and quite over- turn the Dodrine of SafufaBlon^ together with what depends upon it. And it they have low thoughts of the Terfon of Chrljt^ 'tis not to be wonder'd if they make light of his Grace. It is not at all to be exped- ed, that Men fhould have better thoughts of the Spirit^ than of the Son of God : And therefore we need not wonder, that they that {tumble at the Sons Deity ^ are againlt the Terfonality and Deity of the Holy Ghofi too, and quite to feek about his Opcrathnsy and particularly that Sanctifying JVork of his, that is in the Sacred Scriptures reprefented as fo abfolutely necefTary to Salvation. If we give up one, I don't lee but we muft in Confequence give up all. And if we would not have the whole Houfe tumble, we had need take care to fecure the Foun- dation. The denying Christ's proper 132 The De^i T Y Serm. ^^^ty^ is juft like opening a Sluice to let m jy Floods ot Errors^ to the indangering a com- \^r\^^ ^^^ Deluge. If Christ once paffes with us for a Subordinate and MetapSorical God^ we fliall foon count him a Metaphorical Priefi^ and his Death a Metaphorical Sacrifice. It therefore deferves our noting^ That as much as Mr. Whifton has fince wander'd from the Truth_, he at firft fetting out declar'd^ That he had not the leap Dejtgn to detraB from the great Dig- nity of^ or from the Di'vine Wor^np due. to the Son of GoDj, and the BleJ/ed Spirit ^ on jvhofe ■ Redemption and SanBif cation^ he fgnlfy'd all his own hopes of Salvation were Intirdy Groun^ *ded. t Biit being officioufly intent upon building the Neiv Jerufakm^ he has rear'd up a Babely that has not the leaft like- Jiefs to the City of God. 4. And Lailly-j If we would fliew that we are not Strangers to xhdLt Acknowledgement of the My fiery of God^ and of the Father ^ and of Chrifiy- that my Text fpeaks of, let us endeavour to make a right Improvement of it. This will be the belt Way to a firm EfiahUjloment. We may therefore obferve^ That the Apoftle in this very Context admonifhes Chriftians^ as they Col. 11. 6. had recelvd Clrrifi ^eftis the Lord^ fo to 7valk tn him. And he feems to mtimate to theni_, that this would contribute to the Stedfaflnefs of their Ver. 5. Faith in Chrift^ and to their reaching the full Affurance of Under fiandljtg in the Knovj ledge of the Myftery of God the Father^ and of Chriltj, which was the great Matter of his Con- cern about them. Let us alfo live in a con- ftant humble Subjedion to the Lord Jesus C H R I s T> * Hiftorical Preface; ^ag, 17, of the So NT. 133 Serm^ IV. C H R I s Tj and we iliall find that it will not a little contribute to our Stedfaftnefs. We may contend warmly for Notions^ and be ^yy^^>^ never the better ,• no^ not tho' we have the Truth on our Side. But if initead oi holding the Truth in Unrighteoufnefs , we purfue it in its pradical Tendency^ and lead Chriffcian Lives^ we may hope to be preferv'd from deftru- cSlive Errors : For we have a folemn Pro- mile or Declaration^ that came from the Mouth of our Lord himfelf^ upon which we may fafely depend j That // any Man "will 'John vii; do his IVilly he fiail know of the DoUrlne^ whe- }1* ther it he of Go v- K 3 Se R M. 195 SERMON V, John V. 23. That all menjhould honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. A V I N G given Proof of the Deltj of Salters: the Son^ as well as of the Father^ I am hall,T«^/. confidering the Pleas of thofe_, who ^^y Lee- are for a proper Subordination^ or an Inferlo-^^^^*^^'^' Yity of xh^Son to xkit Father^ in Nature^ At- ^5-*7i9» tributes or Perfedions. Having fhewn the Infufficiency of feveral of thera^ I go on to thofe that are yet behind^ which we ftiall up- on Confideration find to be as weak as thofe that have been touch'd upon already. 5". It is pleaded_, That the Son many times frayd to his Father^ and that in his own Be- half, as well as for others 5- which is repre- fented as a plain Evidence ot his being In- ferior to him. Often do we read in the Qo{- pel Hiftory of his praying to his Father. We ^^^k u are told^ That He departed into afolitarjPlace'^^' . andpra/d^ that He contlnud all Night In Prajer ^^ '^' to God ^ and th^t He fell on his Face and prafd ; Match.' K 4 which xxvi. 39. 36 The Deity Serm. which intimates the Proftration of his Soul : y^ And 'tis declar'd^ That He offered up Prayers s^,/'->^j^^^^ and Suppl-catkns^ with flrong Crying and "TearSy Heb. V. 7 urAo him that was able to Ja've him from Deaths and was heard in that He feared^ or for his Bety. Nay we have a large and particular John xvii. Account of aP?v?;cr v/iiich he ciFer d up to his Heavenly Father'^ with great Submiilionj \ little before his entring on his bitterelt Suf- ferings. And it is pleaded^ That there can be no Trayer^ in the Scripture Senfe of that Wordj but from an Inferior to a Superior^ In anfwer to this^ I won't fay as St.j^o^^ of Damafcmy That Chr if only prafd in Appear- ance ^ and not really and in Truth. I own He prafd x^aily^ and fervently too ^ ISlor ihall I offer to deny^ but , that as pur Lord was a proper Petitioner^ He was Inferior to his Father : And yet I muit own^ I cannot fee^ how we can from thence warrantabiy conclude that In his St^per lor Nature VIq was not equal to him. That our Lord Jesus^ who offered r/p Trayers to his Father ^ had an hf eri or Nature ^ is plain from the PalTage cited out of the Epiftie to the Hebrew's^ where when Notice is taken of thQ.Pri7yers and Supplications which He offered with firong Crying and Tears ^ there IS an exprefs Confinement added^ to the Days of Us Flejh. And it is alio a^s plain^ that He had a Superior Nature^ from feveral Paffages that are dropp'd^ in that remarkable Prayer of Tohnxvil. ^'^ that St. John has recorded. Father ^ {ays i He there^ Z^^'^'^fy T^^^^^ ^^^ with thine oivnfelf '^ with the Glory which J had with Thee ^ before the World was'. And it He really ha'd a Glory with the Fa- ther ^ before the WoHd was^ the Nature in which He had it muit necellarily be Superior to that Animal and Rational Nature ia which He of the Son. i 37 He appeared here below. Tho' therefore his Serm. Trayers were in fome Refpeds like ours^ yet y^ in other Refpeds they were very different. .^^^^L^ I T has been a great Qiiellion with fomej how Christ could pray at all ? And whe- ther He did it as Man^ or as God ? It was a common Saying of the Ancients^ that He pray'd as Mait^ and not as God : That as God He was worihipp'd with the Fat/jer ; but that as Man he prayd to the father. For my Partj I fhould rather choofe to fay^ He prayd either as Man^ or as Mediator ,• and in both Reipechs is ov/n'd hferlor : And yet I can t fee that we from thence have any Reafon to inferr^ that as God^ He was at all hferi- or to the Fat/jer whom He pray'd to. 'Twas as Man that He put up that remarkable Pe- , . tition^ O my Father^ // it he pjjihle^ let this ^f^^' Cup pafs from me. For his innocent Human Nature had no fmall Dread of the bitter Sufferings that were before him. But it was as our Mediator and High-Prieft that He of- fer'd up feveral Petitions in that Frayer which St. John has recorded^ at his Entrance on his laft Sufferings. Such Requefts indeed in that excellent Frayer of our Bleifed Lord^ as are Icrw^ and carry in them Subjeclion to the Father^ came from his Humane Nature only: But the reconciling^ mediatory^ im- petrating Force ^nd Efhcacy of that Prayer ^ came from the Dl'vhie Nature that was perfo- nally united to the Humane. As to fuffer and die is proper to xh^ Human Nature ; but to fuffer and die for the Sins of the World^ and the Redemption of Mankmd^ belongs to our Lord's Pneftly Office^ and has both his Natures concurring in it : So humbly to fray and lupplicate belonged to his Hu- mane Nature, which only was Indigent ; but to 1 38 The D E I T r Serm. to pray^ with fuch Efficacy as to obtain for y^ all Believers^ Grace at prefent^ and Glory \yry^sj hereafter^ belonged to his Prieftly Office^ in which both Natures concurr'd. And yet it no more from hence follows^ that confider- ed as Gody He was unequal or inferior to his Father y than from the appearing Mean- nefs of the Flefh He affum'd^ it follows that He had no Glory with the Father before the World was^ or had quite loft it. In this Refped^, He was as much^ as truly^ and as ;uftly the Obje^^ over the Writings of the New Tefiamenty we often find Notice taken of the Authority of the Father in command ing, and SubmiJJion of the Son in obeying j which i^ faid to be an Ar- gument of the Superiority of the one_, and the Inferiority of the Other. Thus our Lord himfelf fpeaking of his laying down his Life, and taki'fTg it again, fays^ This Commandment John xl ha^e I recei^'d of my Father. And again, I ^^' have not fiokQn of myfelf, but the Father which ]^^^ *^ fent me. He gave me a Commandment, what 1'^^' jhould fay, and what I jJwuld fpeak. And as John xiv. the Father gave me Commandment, even fo J ^i, do. Thefe and other fuch like Paifages arc reckon'd to give Additional Proof that the Father was fuperier, and the Son but inferior and fubordinate. But this may be eafily an- fwer'd, from what has before been oifer'd. For I don't fee any Occafion we have to be furpriz'd that our Blelfed Lord fliould as Mediator be reprefented as being in a State of Subjedion^ and bound to Obedience, Be- p^jj^ ^^ g^ ing found in Fajlnon as a Man, He was it ill farther to humble himfelf, and become obedient to Death, even the Death of the Crofs. When He that was before in the Form of God, took the fir ft Step, and by alfuming the Humane Na* ture, took the Form of a Servant, we have no Reafon to wonder at any Thing that fol- low'd after, which was only in Order to the more eifedual aniWering the End de- fign'd. But tho' our Lord Jesus did receivs Commandments from his Father, and kept them, and tho' He was obedient to him, and his Ser- vant, yet was this as to his Humane Natitre only. It ftill remains true^ that He was m Heaven The D E I T r Heaven before He receiv'd thefe Command- ments^ and fet himfelf to comply with them out of Compaffion to us. He ftill had a Divine Nature y and was God over all biejjed for' ever ; and accordingly is in all Ages to be ador'd. 8. It is alfo pleaded^ That the Son is ra- ther reprefented as the Mediate than the C7/- timate Object of Divine Worfljip m our Sa- cred Writings : And from thence it is ar-- guedj that the So?i cannot be eqiial to the- Father y but his Inferior, And this Argument- is at large purfu'd hy Is/iiL . Emljn ^ who feems to Triumph in it as unanfwerabie. - I before argu'd ^^ That our Lord Jesus Christ mult be true and proper^ that is the Supreme God^ becaufe He not only has the Name^ and Titles^ and Works^ and At- tributesj but alfo the Worihip of God a- fcrib'd to him. But now we are told^ That tho' oi'bcn from the Worjlnp due to our Lord Je~ fuSy we inferr his Supreme Deity ^ the Argument may feem popular ^ yet it is plain that no truly Di- vine Worfljip or Supreme Adoration is upon Chrifli" an Frinciples gl''je7t to the Elejfed Jefus i*. This I confeis is plain dealing. And would but all whofe Principles lead to the very fame Con- clufion^ give us their Senfe with like Free- dom^ we (hould better know what we have to depend on^ than while they ufe fubtle Covers and EvafionSj for fear we fhould diftincftly difccver what it is they are aiming at. I ihall now diftindiy confider the Wor- ihip that is due to the Son of God. * See Pag. 40, Sc t EmlynV TMSf pag. 51. t)f the Son. 14.1 I muit freely own, I can much better al- S£rm, low of Subordinate IVorjJiipy than Subordinate y^ Titles^ Works^ and Attributes , and the one i^,,^^^ does not appear to me to found fo oddly as the other. Our Divines have generally Gwn'd^ that Christ was to be adord as Mediator : And if we are to put our Prayers to G o D into the Mediator's Hand^ I fee nx) Reafon why we may nor diredtly apply to him to ule his Intereit with his >Wjer iii our Favour. And if this be caiPd Subordijiate IForJhi^y I flian t cppofe it. But then I ut- terly deny^ that this Sort of Worfhip is all, that is due to the Blelfed Jesus. I take the higheft Worihip that God ever claim'd^ to be our Redeemer's due^ as He is his Eter- nal Son ^ : And if fo, then there muft of Neceffity be an Equality betv/een Father and So7t, But rU take thefe Things - in. their Or- der. I. TheN:, let it be yielded^ that fuch a SuhorJinate Uorjl)'-p as that which I have. now mention'd_, is due to the So7i as Mediator be- tween G o D and Men. The Scripture is ve- ry plain thatj No Man cometh unto the Fa- John xiv, ther^ .hitt, by hrrri. 'Tis by or through him we ^. helk've in God ; And through htm that vje have ^ Per. L an yiccefs by one Sprit unto the Father. 'Tis -^• by him that, vj^ come unto God. And it can- ^ ^^' not be deny"d^ that the common Way cf^pu our addreflmg ourfelves toGoo, that the^^^ Writings of the New Ttfiamc??t ki before us, " is for us to pray to God thro' Jefi^s Chri/y or in his Name, as our Advocate or Inter- ceiTor. VII. * See on this Argumeat olM^orJhap Mr.Jcfc^h Boyfs$ Vindication of the True Deity of our Blelfed iiAviora. 3d Edit, p. 108, 8cc. iz|.2 The Deity Serm. ceffor. This is the Way to which we ard Y pointed by thofe Words of our Savioiir ^ \y\Jm^ fVhatfoe'uer ye Jhall ask the Father in my Name, John xvii ^^ ^^'^^ g*^'^^ ^^ y^^^' Nor can it be deny'd 33. but that the moft Primitive Writers^ Clement of Rome^ and Polycarp of Smyrna^ and they that came after them^ run in the fame Strain. They offer'd their Prayers to Jefets Chrlfi as their High Prieft^ to prefent them to God. And this is common with us to this Day, and very Scrip tural^ and liable to no jult Exception. And if fo_, I cannot fee why our praying to him to intercede for us_, may not be as unexceptionable. But then_, 2. I think there is much more than any fuch fubordlnate Worfilip due to our Lord Je^ fus dhrifi. He being before his appear mg here below in our Nature^ poflefs'd of the fame Divine Perfedions as are afcrib'd to his Father y mult have a Right to the fame Worfljtf. But Mr. Emljn in fo many Words declares. That no Injury is done to our BleJJed Saviour y by not giving him the fame Supreme Worjhipy -which ive give to the Father *. I on the contrary muu own I think it a great Injury and Affront to him ; and that for this Reafon, becaufe He has the fame Divine Perfections with his Father ^ as has before been prov'd. I defire therefore that Two Things may be here obferv'd. 1. That there is no one Ad of JVorjhlp afcrib'd to the Father in the Sacred Scrip-^ ' ture^ that is not afcrib'd to the Son alfo. And 2. That tho' it cannot be pretended that the fame Ac^s of IVorJhip are any Thing near t Tr/i^;, pag. 53, of the So N. i/^o near Co frequently afcrib'd to the iS'^« as to Serj^, the Fat/jer in Scripture^ yet may we without y any great Difficulty be able to account for ^.^/-^^rC^ that DiiFerence. i'.-I affirm^ There is no one Ad of Worjhlp^ that is in the Holy Scriptures afcrib'd to tlie Father^ that is not alfb afcrib'd to the Son, Is the Father to be caWd upon^ and religioufly In- vocated^ for all needful Supplies of Grace ? fo alfo is the Son : And therefore it is given as one diftinguifliing Charader cf Chrifti- ans^ That they call on his Name ; and inti- Adb Ix, mated J that the Saints in every Place ^ are fuch 14. as call upon the Nawc of Jefus Chrift our Lord, ^ q^ ^ Mult the Father have inward JVorjlnp and 2. Veneration r fo alfo fhould the Son. Is the Fa- ther to be belie'v'd :n^ or trufted ? fo alfo is the Son. And therefore when it is declar'd^ That Tvhofoe'ver jliall call upon the Name of the Lardy Rom. jc. (that is the Lord Jesus) J7?/2ii^/'ey^'vV^ it is ^3- at the fame time intimated^ that this is not to be expedted without believing in him. For^ i^; fays the Apoftle^ how pall they call en hlm^ in worn they ha'vc not bellenj^d ? And a Paifage is cited out of the Old Tefiament^ and apply'd to our Saviour y figniiying^ that whofoever heliev \u eth on hlm^ pall not be apamed. And our Lord himfelf plainly told his Difciples^ that as they believed in G o Dj fo they fhould alfo believe ^ohn jXx, in him. Is the Father to be lov'd fupremely^ i. and fuperlatively ? fo alfo is the Son. We are to love him more than any thing in the World that is nioft dear to us j yea_, more than Life itfelf. Is an entire SubjtHion, and Matth. r, full Refignation of our Wills to the Will of 37. the Father^ a. Duty ? The like is alfo requir'd as LukexU%' to the Son. We are therefore calfd theSer-l^^- . vants of Christ ; and invited and urg'd to ^ ' ^ take his Toke upon us^ and to do his Will^ like thofe The Deity thofe the Bufinefs of whofe Lives it is to fev'be and pleafe him. We are to live unto him : and his dy'mg for m Was defign'd to oblige us to Matth.xl. this^ and we are to bind ourfelves to this^ by 19. folemn Covenant ^ in the Cafe of the Son^ as well Col. ilL as the Father^ as plainly appears from the 2'4- Great Gofpel Charter. And as the Father is to 2 Cor. V. h^ye outward Worfhip^ fo alfo is the Son. Is ^M h ^^^^ Father to have Fraife and Thankfgi^jing re- xxviU 1*9. ^'^rn'd him ^ 'Tis the fame with the Son^ who .is to have Glory ^ both now and for e"jer : And a Per. ill. Glory and Dommlon for ever and e^ver. Hence it iS. is that we in the New Te (lament have fuch a 1 Pec. V. Variety of Doxologies^ to the Son as well as the ^^* Father y which are a Part of the V/orflnp here on Earth : And vv^e have Intimations given us of a like IForjJj/p in Heaven above^ where Rev. V. BleJ/ing and Honour ^ and Glory a?jd Fewer ^ are *3» jointly alcrib'dj unto him that fitteth on the Throne^ and unto the Lamb ^ and that for ever and e'ver. Is the Father to be pray'd to ^ So alfo is the Son. Stephen^ the fir ft Martyr^ when he was juft expiring^ pray'd to him in as Solemn a man- ner as well could be ; crying out^ Lord Jefus Ads vii. ^€^^1'^^ ^y Spirit "*'. To him alfo St. Paul pray'd^ 59, 60. when he was under a very preffing Tempta- tion^ begging with the ut- Rom. i. 7. I Cor. I 3. z "^^^ Earneftnefs^ That the Cor. 1. 2. Gal. 1. 3. Eph. i. 2. Thorn in the Flcjh might de- Phil. 1. 2. Col. i. 2. I Thelf. i. part from him. And to him 1. 2Theflr. i. 2. iTim.i. 2. alfo did he plainly pray, 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. 1. 4. Phil. 3. when in the Beginning of feveral of his Epiftles^ he begg'd for thofe to whom he was v/riting, aCor. xll. Grace y Mercy and Veace from God the Father^ 7, 8, 9. and * ^*^^ Wl^khy ^§ Vi\^^l^ P^ift^; JP- ^95 of the So N. 145 and from Jefus Chriit our Lord jointly_, in Serm, fuch Places as thofe cited in the Margin. y Nay^ even the whole Canon of Scripture Ky^\j is clcs'd with a dired Addrefs to Ch r i s t in thefe VVordSj E^cn fo^ come Lord Jefus. And it is hard to fay how an higher Homage can be paid to any one as the Supreme God^ than has been done to our Lord Jesus by the whole Church from Age to Age^ and that by Divine Appointment^ in the Two Sacraments of the New Tcfiament. And J. can't fee any great Profpect cf Succefs^ in arguing with one that can make light of all this^ and re- prefent it as carrying in it nothing of an Evidence. But then^ I add^ 2. That tho' it cannot be pretended^ that the fame A6ls of J^forjlnp are any thing near fo frequently afcrib'd to the Son as to the Father in Scripture^ yet may we without any great Difh- culty^ be able to account for that Difference. Under the OUTejlamcnt ^ tho' the Unity of the Godhead was the main Principle Vv^hich diftin- guifh'd thofe who were favoured with a fuper- naturalj divine Revelation^ from the reft cf the World^ there yet were fome Difcoveries of a Tlwallty in the Deity : Notvv^ithftanding which it mult be own'd^ that the Deity of the 6'^;^ was far from being then fo diftinctly reveal'd as now. And yet if it really v/as the Son^ who in thofe divine Appearances that we read of in an humane Fornij gave the Faithful that liv'd in thofe Days agreeable Anticipations of his intended Incarnation (which has been the general Opinion both of Ancients and Mo- derns ^ ) we have Hints given of fuch an J- L d oration^ * See of this, BuIIi Dcf Fid. Nlc. p. 8, 6c. And Dr. IVatcr land's Defence of fome (Queries, ^. 8, C'c. and/. 38, O'c. Qcn, xvii. 3. The Deity doratioHy as is far from being attended witli any Tokens of a Stibordlnatlon, Thus when the Lord appear 'd to Abraham^ we are told^ that he fell on h^s face : And others ah"o did the like. Often do we read of an extraordinary Angtl^ that appear 'd and ipake to the Jewijh Patriarchs^ who is fometimes caii'd Jehovaf^ and at otner times the Angel of Jehovah. This Angel not only aflum^d the Nai'ne and Attributes of God^ but admitted and re- quired divine Honour to be render d to him^. and fuch as wa^ due to the Supreme God alone. Gen. 18. He allow d Jacob to offer Sacr fice^ and make a 16, ^c. reltgicus Vow to him_, wherein he devoted himlelf to him as his G o n : Nay^ he re- Ih, XXXV. quii-(j hijiji to make and dedicate an Ahar to *• him at BiJod. He aifo fufter d Jcflmay when he was Commander in chief of the Holt oilf- Jofh. V. raely to full on his Face to the Earthy and 7i^orjhJp '4> '5' hiwy and call hhnklf his Ser^-aju ; and not on- ly iby but he ordered him to loofe his Sbooe from of[ his Footy telling him^ that the Flace jvhtreon he food was holy ; being confecrated by his Divine Prefence. And He did the fame be- Exod. ill. fore by A4ofes He alfo recci^Sd a Burnt-offer- 5' tng^ and a Meat-offering from Manoah and his Wife. I don't know what Inftances offrpreme Adoration^ we can be able to faiten on under the Old Tcfiamenty if fuch as thefe may not be allcw'd to pafs for fuch. I take fuch Hints as thefe to afford fufficient Proof that the Son then^ as far as He was known^ had the very fame Flonour and IVorjhip with tlie Father. But under the FJtw Ttfiaynent^ when the Deltj of the Son came to be reveaPd more difl'inctiy^ it dees not feem to have been ne- ceiiary that diltind Worship as due to the Son^ ihould be particularly iniiiied on-,both becauie it is as He aded in the Capacity of a Mediator between of the So N. between God and Sinners^ that He is rhere fet before us , and alfo becauie his acceptable and fuccefsful Difcharge of the Mediatorial Office^ fuppos'd his antecedent Pcireffing; all Divine Excellencies^ and his inherent Plight to all proper Inftances of Dl^j'ine l^Vorfivp. If our Bieffed Saviour had not a kight^ as He was the IBternal Son of G o d^ to the fame IVbrjljip with the Father ^ I cannot fee how He as Mediator could be incitled to tlie Divine IVorfiip which is lo frequently afcr'ib'd to him in the N-^^w Tefiament : And the fre- quent Notice that is there taken of the TVoi--- Jhip that is due to him as M'^dlator^ makes the particular mentioning of the PFbrJh/p that was originally due to him asGoD the iefs need- ful^ and the Omillion of it the lefs furprizing. For It is taken for granted^ that if our Savwar was /IS Mediator to have '^2; Name aboue e^very JSlamey and e'verj Knee bowing to him^ and di'vine TVbrjJj'p readily paid him^ it would ealily be dif- cern'd to follow by Confequence^ that as He was Eternal Gjd J the higheit i/<9;;(?^r and Wor- [hip was due to him as well as th(t Father. Should it be iaid^ That tho' the higheft dl'v'me Honour and M^ojlj'p was not originally due ' to h'm 5 yet a fuhordinate divine Honour and Worjhip became his due as Mi^dlator^ as foon as God thought fit to require it^ and give forth his Precept concerning it : I anfwer j The Blelfed God all along in Scripture difcovers fuch a Jealoufy of his own peculiar ■ Honour^ due to him the One G )Dj that I can- not fee hoWj without being inconriftenr with himfelfj He could be fuppcs'd to give forth a Command to his Servants, to 7vorfh:p the Mediator with fiich a Sort of fubordlnate V/ot- Pnpy as that before fpoken of, if He had not an antecedent Right to all poffible Worjlnp as L 2, He The Deity He was God. I don't fee how this could be excus'd from Idolatry, For even a Divine Precept in the Cafe could net alter the Na- ture cf the Thiiig_, or (upon that Suppofi- tion) hinder the Humanliy from a Share in what was proper to the Dl'vinlty. If indeed Chrjst as God^ had a Right to all poflible Ac^s (jilVorjh'f^ before h's aifaming the human Natare^then might a pofitive Precept^uponhis having merited in that Nature^ very allowa- bly make it the Duty of fuch as received the Beneiitj to pay an that Refped to G o d through this Mediator ^ (confider'd in both his Natures) that was neceifary to their intirely reapixig the Fruits of h:s Mediatorial Office. But if there had been no fuch antecedent Right^ the allowing the humane Nature of C H K I s 1 any Partnerfhip in IVorJloIpy would have been a dired transferring the Glory of . the Creator to the Creature ; which is the very Thing cf which God has often de- clared his Abhorrence. Ho.vF vbK^ 1 think what I aim at mayeafily betaken in ; zj/z,. that lince the Knowledge of a proper Mediator between God and Men^ was under tiie Old Ttfiament fo indiftind j (tho' as far as it went^ we have fiifficient Hints^ that He that was defign'd for Mtdiator^ had a right to tne fame Honour and fVo?Jlnp with him whom he was to mediate with : ) And fince it was the great Deiign of the NeTij Ttfiament to recommend him to our Efteem and Hmonry IVorjI^p and Regard_, as Mediator^ in Older to our being by him reltor'd to the Happinefs which we by bin were fallen frcm^ we have fo much the lefs Reafon to wonder that neither the Old Ttfiamtnt ,nor the iV^5//-3 ihould fo much infift on the Ho- nour and Ifbrjh'ip that wais due to him asGoo^ before of the So N. 149 before He was diftindly manifefted as AfPords^ condemns d^reci Frayer to Jej'us Chrljtj i. e. other than fraying to God by him. And he himfelf gives this Glofs upon that Text^ that the Apoitles jl^ould indeed ask the Father^ but not him '^ fa^ve as Mediator^ to offer up their Trayers to the Father_, not as the Vltimate ObjeB f- Which I muft own to be as wretched perverting of a Te.xt as any Man could well be guilty of. When he mentions Orlgen s Conceit apon it (as citecj by Dr. Whitby^) that Christ here excludes himfelf from being the Objed of dired: Pray- er_, requiring his Followers to pray only to God the Father ^ he would have done well to have added alfo the Doctor's Cenfure which he adds in his Notes^ which is this ; that this Conceit of Origen // contrary to the TratJice of St, Paul_, and the whole Chrlftlat^ Church : 1 P^Z^ 57' The Deity Church: But this he has prudently pad byj net reckoning it to his Purpcfe. The true meaning of the Text is plainly this^ that when the Holy Spirit was come down upon the Apoflles according to prom'lej they ihculd not learn or receive Inftrudions by asking Chr 1ST QueltionSj as they did be- fore^ but iliould petition the Father in his Name^ for what they needed^ both for their own Inilrudion^ and fcr the advantageous Dn'^charge of their Mi.iiftry. But tnis is oppos'd 3 and w^ are told^ ^tis e'vident by the Comextj that He (our Saviour) fpcaks of asking m Prayer^ rather than of asking ^afiions^ htcauje he oppojes to it their asking ihe Father /?/ his Nar/ie. While in the mean Time the very Doctor whom he before cited upon this Textj tells us^ tis evident by the Context^ that he fpeaks of asking what was requi- fite fur the Difcharge of tiieir Clfice^ rather than cf aski..tg m .r^ycr. And he gives this good Realcn f^r it ,• becauie a httie before Ver. 19. the Text_, I's deciard that i/t knew they -were difivoHs to ask him the meaning of what He had laid to them : And a Tittle after the Texr^ the Apolties being iatisfy'd as to the true meaning cf what He had been difcour- Yer. 30. ^^^'g aboutj cried out, Non- are we Jure that I'LoH knowtfl ail TrjlngSy and ?teedeft not that any Mrnjhoidda.k Thee. So that tho' in both the Claules of the Text^ we in our Tranflati- hcP^^v & on have the Word ask^ yet in the Original &i^^v. there are two Words^ wiiich in their Signi- fication differ as much as interrogating and begging. He fays^ Tho' the PForddo ften fig- nlty ^0 ask by Efiojuli-yy yet does It dfo fignify to ask by Inirecyy cr Fraytr. But he knows very well the ctner is its moft natural and ufual Signification^ in Scripture^ as well as in Hu- mane of the Son. 155 mane Authors : And as to the Context, the Serm. Cririck of his own citing giv^es it againft y him. N^V^-^ All that I can perceive our Lord here intimates is^ that when the Sprit whom He promis'd to his Dilciples was come down^ they fhould have fo clear an Underftanding of Things Divine^ as that they ihould have no Occalion for Itarting fuch Qiieftions to him as were ufual with them betore. And this is a Thing as diftant from not making him the Objed: of their Invocation_, as EaJ^ is from Weft. As to other Ads of Worfliip alfo befides prajmgy the fame Writer appears widely mi- ftaken. He is fo, as to Ri/t/j. For not on- ly are we ^y C/jrift to helleije In God^ but when i Pet. i, our Lord fays to his Difciples, Te believe in'^^- God^ believe alfo in me^ He in Eifed bids them J°^^" ^*^^- believe in hnn in the fame manner ^ and with ^' the very fame Firmnefs, Steadinefs, and De- pendence, as they did believe in the Father himfelf. He does indeed profound two Ob j eels of Faith *j but gives not the leait Hint of any Difference between the Ads upon thofe Objeds. H E obferves alfo as to Lo^e^ that where- as we are requir'd to lo^e God with all our Matth; Heart and Soul ^ we are only bid to /oT^e C/^r//?^ xxli. ^7. above Father and Mother ^ and all thps lower World : ^^^^h- '^' And thereupon he challenges any Man to pro-^'^' duce a Text for the Supreme Ultimate Love of Je- fus Chrift * But fmce Christ is as truly G o D as the Father ^ methinks it is evident^ He is to be lovd with all our Heart and Soul * Pag. 5S. t Emlj^n, p. 5S, 59. The Deity Soul as well as the Father. Nay the very Precept that makes it our Duty to lo've the Lord cur G o d with all our Hearty makes it our Duty fb to love Jesus Christ^ as fpon as He is manifeited to be the Lord our G:>D. So that I fee no need we have to f^ek for a diilind: Text^ for the Supreme UlxuTiate Love of Jefus Chr'ifi : We have what is futiicient_, and equivalent^ in the very Text that requires we ftiouid give fuch a Love to G .:> the Father, Nay tne other Text mention d, in which we ai-e charg'd to lo'vc Cri.-it :.iPoue F^ahi,r and Mother and Life itfeifj is .^qu'Vaient to our being orde- red to 1^2 H'.a v;l:h all cur Heart and Souly and wiil app ar fo^ if it is weigh'd fairiy in the Badance. We are fo to love the Lord Jefus Ch.-lfi^ that Life itfeif and ail the £n- deannents '.f it^ our Relattons^ Eitates^ and moit valued Comfurts and EnjoymentSj are to be cveriock'd and made nghc cf_, when compai' d wich hiin_, and cpp.sd to him. And this as far as I can perceive^ intimates we are to love him i i the higheft Degree of which we are capable. And what more than th s^ our lov.ng him vnth all our Htart and Soul could carry in it_, would be hard to fay. H E alfertSj We are not ultimately to dedicate cur ft Ives to Chrsfi ^ hut to God through hhn ^ : Whereas I thmk 'tis evident we are to do both. Saftljm joins the Son and Spirit with the Fathrr^ and reprefents them as ftanding upon a Level. And to compare our joint D -d^cation to Futh^r and on t, to the firlt Clviftians dedicating themfelves to Chrifi and his ? Hw/y;?, p. 59, \ Page 60, of the S o N. his bifciples^ locks like one that rather aims at contounding Things^ than ietti ag them in the dcareft Light they wiii bear. He calls it * unwarrantable PrCjU>?j>tlon^ to p.y that the Three Into whofe Names we are baptl2Sd are One God ^ but we have not the lealt Reafon to be mov'd at it^ till he proves it fuch. One Thing that, feems ntrQ to have led nim afide was^ his fappoling we were baptized in the Name ot the Son of ALm: Whereas Baptifm is ordered to be adminiltred in the Name of the Son of God. And when he asks whe- ther we dare exclude the Son of Man ? I an- fwer_, that tho' he that was the Son of Gody in order to his being our Saviour became the Son of Man^ yet may he in that Foederal Solemnity be regarded as the Son of God^ with- out any nl Coniequence thence arifing. And to fay we are jomtly baptized into the Name of God and a Creature^ 1% to confound the Crea^ ture and the Creator. And as to the Lord's-Supper^ tho' it be a, Celebration of the Memory of ChrijFs Death f_, yet may it be faid to be an Injhnce of Di- 'vine PVo/jh'p pa/d to our Lord J ejus Chrifi^ in as much as we cannot rightly celebrate the Memory of that Death by which we were redeem d J without thanktuliy remembring that we were redeem'd with toe Blood of God^ ^^^ ^^^^ and devoting to him our Bodies and Souls 28. in return^ as his own Purchaie. Our keep- ing up this Solemnity is indeed an Aci of O- beditncey as it is a Cumpliance with a pofi- tive Precept : And yet we cannot herein dif- charge our Duty, without dc.ing that that is only due to a Being ot SupremeExceiiency and Au-^ * fm/yw's Trads, />. 61. t f^^- ^3- The Deity Authority ; ana t!ierefore there is Worfhip. Nay^ as making a Covenant with God by Sacrifice ^ was one of the highelt A6ls of Worfhip un- der the Law^ fo covenanting with our Blef- fed Saviour over the Memorials of his Sa- crifice^ is not only real TVorjlihy but one of the higheft Ads of WorjJiip under the Gof^ pel. But after all^ 'tis pleaded^ That this very Textj that fpeaks of honouring the Son^ e%!en as 7VC honour the Father_, reprefents the Honour due to Chrift^, as grounded upon a delegated Authority ^hich He is hivcfied with from the Father. And it is faidj Is not a Commlfjion d Authority given him^ on purpofe to he the Warrant and Rcafon for our doing him Honour ? and added_, That this in all fair Reafonlng will imply ^ that without this Com- miffion there would not be fo fujficlent Warrant and Ground for it^ Szc. '^. I aniwer^ That fuppoilng the Father and Son equal m Nature, Attributes and Perfedi- ons_, upon which Foundation it is that we Itand^ I don't fee how a more efFedual Me- thod could be pitch'd upon^ to fecure to each of them his due Honour from us^ than for each to be manifefted to us^ under fome peculiar Title and Charader^ and inforce his Claim of Homage by fome Difpenfation that might be fo remarkable^ as to be apt to raife in us a religious Awe and Veneration. Now this is what we Trinitarians apprehend to be the Cafe in Fad : And it appears to be chiefly upon this account^ that it is here dcclar a^ Ver. l%* The Father judgeth no Man^ but hath committed all Judgment unto the Son : that fo all Mm fmdd honour the Son^ euen as they honour the Father. 'Tis * Eml)n^ p, 78. of the Son 'Tis this Writer's Miftake^ to intimate^ that the Hcrtcur due to C h r i s t^, is here reprefent- ed as barely grounded upon a delegated Autho- rity j nor is a comiiiiffion'd Authority given him^ the foU Warrant and Reafon oi our do- ing him Honour : For even without this War- rant and Commiilion there would have been fufiicient Warrant and Ground for it_, upon the Alanifeitation of his Eternal Deity, altiio' we (houid not have been fo effectually ex- cited to give him t\\^ Honoitr that was due to him^ as we are by the prefent Settlement^ if we do but carefully obferve it. It is not pre- tendedj that the given Authoricy could have been a Reafon for giving the Sen Divine l4/or- jhip, had it not been originally due to him, upoii account of his Eternal Deity : And yet th'e Father s, Gifc contributed to the kcann^ to his Son this Honour as IvLdiator. And a Claim founded on Eternal Divinity , and on a Grant or Commiilion, are very confiftent. For a Gift of Power might be made to him as Man, when yet He its G o p had all Power : And He might be the Fcuntain of the Gift as Godj and yet the Receiver of it as He. was Man. Tho' I won't venture to lay as Mr. Emlyn* Pih^it there cun he no Truth more flaln than this, nor any Reafonlng more natural a7id unflrain d ', yet I take this Rcprefentation to be very bcriptural, and Suthcient to free this Matter of that Difficulty, in wnich he hath taken more than a littie Pains to involve it. And thus having, as was prop^s d, given Scriptural Proof ci the Son^ Deity, made fome Remarks upon it, and returnd an An- fwer to the Pleas of thoie who are for mak-ng Hun * Kmlyn, pag. 79. 1 60 The Deity Sekm/ ^'^^ but a ft/hordinate Deity ^ I fliall clofc this Y Headj with adding^ w/-v-v-^ IV. A few Dodrinal Inferences^ and Pra- dieal Initrudions. And^ I. I think it evidently follows from the PremileSj That our honotirwg the Son_, e^en as ove do the Father^, is not a mere Matter of Speculation. Nothing more concerns our daily Pradife^ in our Addreffes to Heaven. A Supreme and a Subordinate God would con- found us in our Trayers. The Fagans indeed diftinguifli'd between the Sufreme God and inferior Divinities : And they were in many Cafes not a little at a Lcfs to which to apply. And had we under Chriltianity^One God that was Sufremey and another that was Subordinate^ we fhould often be in like Perplexity how to manage. But Thanks be to God^, 'its other- wife with us. We may either apply to the Father through the Son as Mediator ^ or to the Father and ^on jointly^ or to either Father or Son feparately, without any Danger : And provided we do but honour the Son as -we do the Father^ Vv^e may hope to have that mer- ciful Audience of our Frayers from the God of all Grace^ that is reprefented as one of the molt confiderable Benefits and Bleffings of the Gofpel Difpenfation. I han't argu'd upon this Matter for Argu- ing fake : My Aim has been to promote your Eftabliftimenc in the Truth^ in order to your managing your Prayers with the more comfort- able Satistadion. And what can be of com- mon Concernment to us^ if this is not fo ? If Christ is not to be jvorjlvfd by us as G o Dj He was not G o d ^7 Nature ^ whatever He might be by Office. And if He really was by of the S o N. i6i sXV^ hy Nature Go Y)^ He mull have all the U^orJJiip SeRM, given him that is due to God: And v/e mult y take Care in all our Trayersy and Applications to Heaven^ to believe accordingly , and be cautious of fo advancing him as Mediator ^ as to detract from his Eternal Deity. 2. I can't help expreffing my Fear ^ left this Controverfy about the p-o^er Deity cf our Sa-viour and his Subordlnatlcjt ^ on the Foot on which it ftands^ and in the Way in which it \s manag'd^ fliould much lelTen Mens Veneration for the Holy Scriptures. Should thofe Sacred Writings once come to lofe their Cre- dit among us^ Religion would foon become one of the molt wild^ and freakiih^ and uncer- tain Things in the World. Now to fee Men that profels to make the Bible their Rule and Standard^ offering fuch open Violence to the plain Declarations which often there occurr^ concerning the Sons Delty^ as is done by many from Day to Day^ has in my Appre- henfion done as much as any one Thing that could be mention'd^ to bring the Scrip- tures fwhich in thofe Ages wherein Reli- gion has been in the molt thriving State ^ have been treated with fo much Refped) under a general Contempt. What mult the common People think^ when they obferve Men of Parts and Learning, and that ap- pear to have fome Concern for Religion too, queltioning at every Turn the Autbe?i- ticknefs of fuch a Text, doubting that fuch a Paffage is corrupted, and expreffing their Fears, that in this, and that, and a third Place there is either a Mutilation or an Addition ! Flow Itrangely muft it amufe them, to find almolt all the Texts that have been reckoned to give good Proof ofaTRi- WITY^ or of the proper Deity of the Son of M Qox>3 1 62 The Deity Serm. God^ either cavilFd^ or trifled^ or crir?- Y ' ciz'd^ or complemented away , and that^ it ^^.^,1, may be^ by Perfons that fhall declare they ^^^^ would not give up nor betray the Truth nei- ther I Nay^ how can it do any other than lelTen the Opinion of Men as to the Di'vlm hiffiratlon of thofe Writings^ in which after Search it is declar'd^ there are found a great variety of pompous Expreffions that amount to little or nothing ,• and a great many Paf- fages that feem to be of no fmaii Weight and Confequence^ which upon being learcird in- tOj fhall be found to mean the direct con- trary to what they feem to intimate ; and a number of Citations from the Old Tejtamcnt in the Niw^ that lliall be declar d to be only ufed by way of Accommodation^ tho' they appear to be produc'd by the Apoilles in dire(ft Proof of what they advance I Thefe are Things that are plainly very apt to un- fettle Men^ and leffen their Veneration for thofe Writings which alone can be expeded to fix them. I am not for fhutti ng out Lights or againlt any real Improvement ^ but think it "would be a great Shame to us to be led by an Ignh Vatum^ till we are left in a Maze and bewilder'd^, without knowing where we are_, or which Way to move. 1 cannot but enter my Caveat againft that unfettling Spi- ritj that whilft the Scriptures are flighted^ leads to Darknefs and Sceptklfmy and all manner of Confufion. I am very fenfible the Great G o d can over-rule all for Good^ and after a confiderable Shake and Trial^ bring about an happy Settlement : But of this I am very fure, if He has any Mercy for us^ He will keep up among us the Credit of the Holy Scriptures : And this is what I think it highly concern* u$ all in our feveral Sta- tions of the Son. 163 tions to. endeavour to our utmofl: to fur- Sfrh* ther and promote. y 5. I T ought CO be carefully obfcTv'd by uSj y^y->^^ That if we do not hcvour tijc bon^ ci^cn as we do the Father_, which is the Thing this Text I have been upon requires^ we^ as much as in us lies^ contradid and crofs his End^ in committing all yudgjncnt to him as Mediator. Let US remember that the Execution of the Powers ot giving Life at Piealure^, and of va'ifmg the Deady and jifdglng the P^orldy are by the Father therefore lodged in the So^is Hands as Me- * dlaioYy left the World fiiould net be fufiucir ently apprehenfive of his original Eniinence and Dignity. Let us (as we have good Rea- iovC) dread the Thoughts of fetting ourfelves herein to §ght agalnji Go d^ which would be fruitle(s in itfelt^ bccaufe He will take Care of his Son\ Honour^ but ruinous to us_, be- caufe we could exped; no other than to fall under his moft heavy Wrath3 for net com- plying with his Noble and Glorious Deiign in this Refped. Let us remember and con- fider that remarkable Saying of the beloved Difciple_, PVJjofoever denkth the Son^ the fa?7ie i]ohr\\u hath not the Father. Which plainly intimates ^3- that it is a vam Attempt^ to think to add to the Father y by withdrawing from the So7j. ; and that to deny the Son anyPart of his Rights out of a Pretence of Concern for his Faibers Honour y is in Effect a difowning and defying him whom we feek to plcafe^ and an expofmg ourfelves to his juft Refentment. When then we are told by one th:it has fhev/'d abundance of Zeal to make our Bleffed Redeemer a mere ftilpordi^atCy infericr_, and dependent Delijy that he is jealous for the peerlefs Majefiy of r/jt? L o R D of Hofis ^ the M z God 164. The Deity cnrsj Sekm. ^o^ ^/ ^^ ^^^^ *3 ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ Reafon y * to cfteem it a godly Jealoufj^ or that it will be Matter of comfortable Reflection in the o;reat Day of Account. He tells us indeed^ That the pcerlefsy unequard Majefiy of the One God, ^^nd Father of all^ appears to him to be the ^jery Bafis of Chriftlantty f. But if he fhould therein prove miftaken^ and the equal Glory of the Triune G o^d^ who is manifefted to be Father^ Son^ and Spirit (and is reprefented as fuch in that Form of Baptif?7iy which I fhould think as likely a Thing as any^ to point us to what our Holy Religion is chiefly bot- tomed upon) fliould at laft prove the true Bafsy I fee not but he mult fl:ill be anfwe- rable for eroding the great Deflgn of Chri- Ifianity^ unlefs his doing it in Ignorance will excufe him 4.. And how that can excufe one that is fo extremely pofitive as he is_, may defer ve his clofe Confl deration. While therefore he has been labouring with all his might to retrlcnje^ as he exprelTes it^ the ir.jur^d Honour of the peer lefs Majefiy of the OneGoD^ a7id Father of our Lord Jesus -j-f ^ he^ as far as * Emlyn p. 139. I True Narrative of the Proceedings, ^c. p. iii. \ I know no Call we have upon the account of fuch erroneous Notions, to pafs a pofitive Sentence *of Condemnation upon Men, as to their eternal State. Snhlnn was plainly of that Mind. For writing about the Arir,7is, he expreffes himfelf thus : De Gubern. Dei. Lib. V. Kos eos injur iam Divime Generaticni fa- cere certi funius, quod minorem Pane Tiliiim dicant : IB 71CS injuriojos Pntri cxiftimtinty quia aqualcs ejfe credimus. Errnnt igitur^ Jed hc72o anirvo erraJity non cdio, fed ajfcElu Dei, honorarc fe Dorfiinu/n atque nmare crede/ites. Qualiter fro hoc ipfo falf^ opi7iicnis er- ^rore in die judicii puniendi fint^ nulius potefi fcire, nijl ■". judex. t-jr True NaiTiVtive; ^c. p. xl. of the Son. 165 I can judge^ has been undermining our Com- Skrm men Chriftianity. May.GoD give him Re- y pentance^ before it be too late. And^ v/V^ 4. Let us adore the Son as G o d over JIl^ BleJ]ed for ever^ and heartily^ with the Apoftle^ fay Jmen to it. Let us do thisj if we either value his Favour^ or dread his .Difpleafure. Let us give him not only For- mal but Cordial Worlhip. The Angels of Heaven worfhip him ; and much more fliould we do it. According to the Advice given us. Let us kifs the Son, lefi He he angry, and p^^j^ -^ Tve perijl) from the Way, 71; hen his Wrath Is km- ,2. died: remembring what is added^ That hlef fed are all they that put their Trufi in him. M 3 S E R M. i6f * * * * .* * * *• * * «. * * ■* * ■*■„*.,&, *. *. *, SERMON VI. Matth. XXVIII. 19. — Bapizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the S o n, and of the Holy Ghost. E have dillin(5lly confider'd the Deity Salrers* of the Father and of the Son ; But fays h^W.Tuef- 3 St. Jerome y without the Holy Gholt the day Lec- My fiery of the Trinity ts imperfect * ; And ture; Dec, theretore 'tis but fit that we endeavour toi9-"7>9- confirm ourfelves in the Belief of \\\% Deity alfo. This was generally believed at firft, by all that own'd the Deity of the Son : But the Debate with the Brians (who appear'd in a great many feveral Forms and Shapes) was not over, before the Macedonians rofe up_, in Oppofition to the Deity and Dignity M4 of * Hieron. Tom. 3. ad Hedih. Epift. 150. Qu. 9, p. 420. i68 The Deity Serm. of the Holy Spirit. And in our Times^ tho' YI^ hardly any that are well fettled in the Be- \y^y->j lief of the Son's Deity queftion the Divinity of the Bleiled Sftrit^ without whom even the Agency of the Son himfelf in order to the Salvation of fallen Man would have proved inefFedual j yet there are few if any that oppofe the iDe/Vj . of the one^ but what op- pbfe alfo the De/(/ of the other ,• and many by hsefi rating as to the one^ have come at length to call the other alfo in Queition. 1 N Proof of the Holy Spirit's Deity ^ I Ihall take my Rife from the Ordinance of Chri- llian Baptlfm^ which was defign'd by our Sa- viour to be a lafting Token of his great Love to a loll World. In this Ordinance of Initiation^ Water is required to be made \JiQ of,, as a vifible Pledge of the Divine Favour ; and ^tis order'd to be apply'd to all devoted Ones^ in the Name of th^ Father y the So7i^ ' and the Holy Ghofi^ that we may be the more fully alTur'd of the Readineis of each of them^ to do any Thing that is be- comings in order to the fecuring our Sal- vation. And fmce we are in the fam.e Way and Manner ^ as well as at the fame Time to be ' ccnfe crated to each^ I think we may conclude that one of them is Gcd^ as well as another. -... W E are to be baptized in the Naine or in- to the Name^ of Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft : -For it maybe taken either Way. Now to be baptized in or i^tto the Name of any one^ moit properly is to be- devoted to him, to be called after him^ to. be bound to adhere to and follow him, and to live according to his Will. St. Faul fpeaking of the Ifraelltes % Cor. >:. in the Wildernefs^ fays that they were all hap- ^' ti^'^d un:oMoks^ or ini-o him. But he does ngt of the Holy Ghost, i 69 net fay they were baftlz.'d In the Name of Serm. Mofes. They were bnptizSd unto Moles^ that yj isj into his Dodirine. They were not con- ^..^.^.^ fecrated to hini^ but only obh'g'd by that ^"^^^"^"^ Wajh'mg which they receiv'd with and from him^ to profefs his Dodrine^ and to follow him as their Guide ; and faithfully to obferve whatever he commanded them from God. And this we find was the Matter of their Boafting ,• for they prided themfelves in be- ing Mojes's D/fc/ples. Whereas when we are baptized in the Name of the Father^ the Son, and the Holy Ghoft^ we are conlecrated to thenij and bound to glorify and worfhip thenij and ferye them religioufly. We are told of the Ancient JfraeUtes in the Old 7e- famcnty that they belic^'d the Lord cmd his Ser- -r -i i;^;;f Mofes : But no Vv^here either in Old ^^^, Tefiament or Ntw^ is it intimated to us^ that they oblig'd themfelves to pay Mofes Religi- ous Worlliip. That is too much for any Man to arrogate to himfelf from any of his Fellow-Creatures. St. Faul openly difclaims it in his own Cafe ; and flatly denies any p Mans being baptlz^'d In his Name. He reckon- ed it monftroufly abfurd that any one ftiould come under an Obhgation to pay him that Adoration^ Worfliip and Obedience^ which was in the Chriftian Way ingag'd and pro- mis'dj to one in whofe Name Perfons were haptiz^'d. All that he thereby intended^ was to bind them to be the Faithful Servants of that GoD^ who had manifefted himfelf to be and requir'd to be wcrfliipp'd as being. Father^ Son^ and Holj Ghofi. This appointed Form of Baptlzwg may, if it is well confider'd^ help \is to under- fland our whole Religion the better. For it begins with the gratuitous Mercy of the Enhc)' 13, 15' ijo , The Deity Father^ who reconciles us to himfelf by his only begotten Son ; and fo palTes on to the Blelfed Jesus^ with the Sacrifice of his Death ,• and from him it proceeds to the Bolj' Spirit y by whom we are wafh'd and re- generated^ and made Partakers of purchas'd^ promis'dj faying Bleffings. An4 it referrs^ either to the Authority of Father ^ Son^ and Spirit 3 which gave Rife to this Inftitution ,; or to the Scheme of Chriilian Dodrine which centers in the Difcoveries that are made us t:oncerning the Sacred Three ^ or to the di- ftind: Dedication to each of them^ requi- red as to ail that are baptiz,\l ; which the Ancients reckoned to be fignify'd by the Trine Immerfion, I. The Form of baptizing in the Name of the Father^ the Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ may referr to their Authority as givmg Rife to this Jnititution. AmbalTadors adl in the Nam'j of their Princes^ and what they do in that Capacity as their Reprefentatives^ is by Authority deriv'd from them. So when we Miniiters are order'd to haptiz^e and con- fecrate Perfons^ in the Name of the Sacred Three^ we are in Effed author iz'd to Ad as their Reprefentatives in this great Aifair ; And by applying Water in the Name of each €)f theiiij to Perfons rightly pr efen ted to Holy Baptifmy we m their btead feal the New Covenant with the B^ptifmal Sign ; ma- king over to the Parties baptiz'd^ the ieve- ral Bleffings promis'd^ provided they are faithful in the Duties requir'd^to which there is on their Part a fblemn Ingagement and Reitipulation. For in B^ptij-m a Bond is fign'd on G o d's Part^ as well as onrs. For as we from thenceforward are firmly bound %o Jr-end our Lives in his Scrvice_, fo does Fie ftancj of the Holy Ghost. 17 r ftand bound to be atr God, He ftands in- Serm. gag'dj that he that helle'vcs and is hapr;z,\Iy jjjall yj be fa-vcd. To this He in BaptiJ?n fets his Seal ^ v..^.->^/0 and all the Sacred Three are concern'd. The MarkxvL Father ingages that He will be reconciPd and i6. gracious ^ The Son that He will fully ad the Part of a kind and faithful Mediator ; And the Holy Ghofi^ that He will be a San^iifier^ Guide^ and Comforter. All this is as certain_, in the Cafe of Perfons truly devoted^ and that are afterwards faithful^ as it is that JV^ter which we fee with our bodily Eycs^ is ap- ply'd in their Name. And we Minifters by applying this Water in their Name_, do in their ftead give AlTurance of all this. And it be- ing but agreeable to our Commiflion fo to do^ it may as much be depended on by Perfons truly lerious^ that thefe Ingagements will be anfwer'dj as if eacli of the Sacred Three af- fum'd a bodily Shape_, and gave verbal Affii- rance of it. 2. This Form of Baptiz^wg in the Name of Father y Son^ and Holy Ghojt refer rs to the whole Scheme of Chrinian Dodrine^ which centers in the Difcoveries that are made us concerning the Sacred Three. The Sum of Chriitian Knowledge may be reduc'd to the Dodrine of Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ which therefore^ as far as it is reveal'd in Scripture^ is fuppos'd to be confented and fubmitted tOj by fuch as yield to this Inltitution. We are baptiz,'d in the Name of each^ i. e. into the Belief of the Dodrine of each^ as it is delivered in the Sacred Scriptures. And this i^ a Dodrine by which the Chrifiian Religion is remarkably difiinguijlid from all other Religi- ons^ either of Jews or Heathens ^ and which fummarily comprehends all that is neceffary X,Q be behev'd by us, in order to Salvation. This, 172 The Deity $£RM. T H I S3 I fayj IS 2L Dodrine by which the Y j^ . Chrlfiia7i Religion is remarkably dlfiinguljlid from ^^/->^l.s^ all other Religions^ either of Jews or Heaihens. Tho' the Religion of A4o[es taught the true G0D3 and the true Way of Worfliip which He appointed for a Seafon^ jet did it not reveal the 'Father^ and the Son like the Gofpel. It could not difcover God as the Father of C H R I s T3 rifen from the Dead^ and thereby declar'd to be the Son of God in Power^ and an All-fufHcient Redeerner. Neither could it reveal the Holy Sprit as proceeding from Father and Son^ after the Afcenfion of the latter to Heaven_, to the Fathers Right- Hand. Neither was the Miniftry of Mofes as fuchj fb apt to produce the BlelTed Fruits of Regeneration^ Adoption^ and San6i:ifica- tion^ as the Gofpel^ which is properly the Aliniftry of the Doctrine of the Father and 1 John V. the Son. For we are told^ That whofoe^uer 1. helleTjeth that Jejus is the Qhrifiy is born of God, Joh. i. ii, And that to them that recelued hlm^ he ga'ue >3' Tower to become the Sons of God : Who are born^ not of Blcodj nor of the TVill of the Flejh^ nor of theWiUof Man^ but of God. This alfo diftin- guifhes the Religion of Chri flans from all the Religions of the Heathens^ who had many Gods^ and many Lords ^ and Mediators^ but no re- generating or comforting Sfirlt : Whereas Chriftianity teaches one Father of all^ one Mediator between God and Men^ and one Sfirit of Grace^ to renew and fandifyj and affilt in all Acts of Obedience. And in this Dodrine the peculiar Glory of the Chrifiian Religion lies. And the impreffing of it the more fl:rongly_, and the propagating and per- petuating of it the more effectually ^ was the great Defign of ufing the Nam-^^s of all the Three^ at the Time of the firit Initiation. This of the Holy Ghost. This Way is the Senfe of this glorious Dc- d:rine to be revived and fpread, one Gene- ration after another ; and of this rather than any other^ becaufe this was the Doctrine by which it was defign'd that Chrifiians as fuch fhould be diftinguifli'd. It has been there- fore upon the profeding to believe this Do- drine^ that Perfoiis have all along been re- ceiv'd as Members of the Chriltian Church ; and that by the Order of him by whom this Church was founded. And it was his plain Intention^ that his Followers by being ba^^ tlz^'d in the Name of the Father^ and the Ho- ly Ghoft^ fhould be diilinguifli'd from Pagans and Infidelsj as well as by being baptl'zJd m the Name of the Son^ be diftinguirfi'd from the Jews^ who difown'd the Mejjiah upon his Appearance^ notwithftanding they had been looking for Him for many Ages. W I T H A L J, this Doctrine alfo fummarily comprehends all that \?> neceflary to be bi- lked by us in order to Salvation. And therefore we may obferve that the Ancient Creeds^ which were fhort Summaries of the Chriftian Faith^ owe their Original to this appointed Form of Chriftian Baftlfm^ and were bottom'd upon it. And I cannot fee why it fhould be queftion'd^ but that he that rightly underftands and believes the Love of the Father ^ the Grace of our Lord Jefm Chrlfiy and the Communion of the Holy Ghofiy knows all that is necefTary to his par- taking of that Love_, Grace and Communi- on; and in fliortj every Thing that is requi- fite to his Happinefs. And in Reality what Knowledge is there that can be faid to be ne- celTaryj that may not be reduced to this Dc- d:rine_, of the One moft glorious God^ fhe Yi- ther^ thi Sop^ and tk Holy Ghoft ? This 174 -^^^ Deity Serm. This diredly takes in the Three great TTT Works of Creatlony Redemption^ and Sanclijicati^ ^y-^^J!^^ on. It takes in Creation^ by which all Things were at firft produced , Redemption^ by which Man is recovered out of his fallen miferable State^ upon the Interpofition of the TVord made Flefh^ and fo dying and rifing again ; and Santilfi cation alfo^ by which Man being redeem'd^ is rais'd to a truly Divine Life^ in order to Life Eternal. And it alfo plairl/ points us to the Concern of eagh of the Sa- cred Three in the Salvation of fallen Man : And from thence the diftind Duties that are owing to each^ are eafily to be inferr'd. In Ihort^ it takes in the whole Oeconomy of Sal- vation^ from its firft Foundation^ to its full Perfection. T H £ Form of Baptifi^ referrs to this Do- (5lrine_, as v/hat is neceffary to be perfo- nally believ'd by all fuch as are baptiz/d at Adls vUl ^^^' ^^^ therefore^ If thou belie-veft ivlth all 37 qS. * ^'^^^^ Hearty thou mayfi he baptiz^'d^ was the Language of St, Fhflip to the Eunuch : JnJ he readily anfu^^erd and fa'id^ I belie-ve that ^e- fus Chrift is the Son of God. Which Confeflion of his^ as fnort as it is^ includes Father y Sony and Spirit. For there's the Father to whom Christ is 2i Son ; and there's the Son of that Father diredly believ'd in j and there's alfo imply'd an Undion of the Holy Spirit y that made our Jesus to be the Chrffi or true Mejfiah. And in Reality^ no Time can be more fit_, to make llich a Profeflion in J than when Perfons that are grown up to Years^ folemnly devote themfelves to God through Christ. This is wltnejfmg a good Confejpon ^ and it is much for the Glory of God. Such as are Adult, cannot worthily j^eceive Baptifm, In the Name of the Father^ th& of the Holy Ghost. the Son^ and the Hcly Ghofl:^ unlefs they are iirft inflrucled In. tiieDodrine cf the Father, the Son^ ^.nd Holy Ghcft^ and brought to ac- knowledge it. And therefore St. 'Paul^ find- ing lome Dilciples who were not well in- ltriid;ed about the Article of the Holy Ghofi-y t%V% thenij unto ivhat or '\i\ what Name then ^cfts xl:!c, they "were bapi!Z,\l ? 3. Nor is it to be overlook'd^ when C/j/'/V- ren are Baptlz^^d. .The Parents or Propa rents that oifer them in this Way to G o d^ by fo doing profefs their own Adherence to the Gofpel Dodrine of God the Father ^ the Sen, and the Holy Ghofi^ and their fincere defire that they and theirs may continue in ii: to Perpetuicy. They alfo bind theirs to a Prc- feflion of the fame Holy Faith and Dod:rine3 and ingage to train them up in the Know- ledge of it; and the Force of the Obli- gation afterwards remains. For Perfcns lb deyotedj and fo educated, ought never to forget the Sacred Three, whofe Names . were rtam'd upon them ; And it feems as much as the Love of the Father , the Grace of the Son^ and the Communion of the Holy Ghofi is worth to them, for them * ever to defer t this Dodrine, or pour Con- tempt oil the Name of any of the Sacred Three, to whom they were jointly devoted. And then, 3. The fame Baptifinal Form does alfo referr to the Diilind Dedication to Father, Snf7y and Holy Gho/^y that is required as to all that are baptiz'd, which the Ancients reckon'd to be fignify'd by the Trine Imma- fion, that was commonly us'd amongft them. Some reprefent this as the Senfe of CknjFs Words in the Charge in the Text ,• Baptize tbcm Into th^ frofejjion of that Gofpel Faith ^ ivhkh The Deity •was reueard and fent by the Father_, brought and piblljlid by the Son^ and confirnid by the Holy Spirit '^. But this Account is defe- d:ive. A bare embracing the Chriftian Do- <5lrine will not do. There mult befides that_, be a yet more folemn Tranfaclion between the baptized Parties and the Sacred Three ,• there mult be a Fxderal Dedication of all fuch to each of them. A folemn Promife muft "be made of renouncing the Devil and ail other Lords^ and a Subjedion x.o this God^ the Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft^. By fubmit- ting to the Rite of Baptifm in this Form^ we folemnly Itrike Covenant with God the Father who hath made us^ God the Son who hath redeem'd us^ and God the Holy Ghofi who is ready to landify us. We bind our- felves by Tsjame^ to give to each of them the deepeit P^everence^ the intenfelt Love and AlFedion^ and the molt dutiful Obfer- vance and Obedience. To the Father^ Son, and Spirit are we dedicated^ in Expectation of the rich and ineftimable Bleflings which flow from the Love of the Father^ the Me- rit of the Son^ and the Power of the Holy Spirit ^. All Three plainly Itand upon a Level : And they app^^ar to be Three diltind: Hy- fofiafesy or eife they would not have been nam'd Teparately^ with Articles added. For any Thing alfo that here appears^ they are all Three et^ual in Power and Authority. If the Son^ as fonie would have him^ was a made God_, and the Holy Ghofi a created Subltance^ they would each of them have been infi- nitely * Em'yn, p. 60. * S^Q Dr. }Vat{rUn/^ Eight Sermons, />. i86, 291, (3g, of the Holy Ghost. Bttcly inferior to the Father ^ and not join'd with him upon fuch an Occafion. The Ma- jefty of the Father would not have fuffer'd- any one to be in this Cafe join'd with him j had He not been God emal with him^ God in the very fame Senie as He. And it is farther to be obferv'd^ That the Sa- cred Three are not only diftindly nam'd^ but inuolUdy and calfd upon for needful Help to keep the Bond which the Parties bap- tized are brought under. And therefore Or'igen reprefents Ba^tifm as an In'vocathn of the adorable Trinity f . And AthanaJiMs fpeaking of the Form of Baptifm^ fays^ IVlmt Society and Communion can a Creature haue ivith the Creator ^ Why IS that which was made^ recHond up with the Aiaker ? ^ And Gregory Naz^ianzen fays_, T/Je Trinity is not an 'Enumeration of unequal Things y but a Complexion or Comprehenjion of thofe that are equal and alike in Honour *, And the Trine-lmmerfion that was fo much us'd in the Primitive Churchy plainly look'd this Way f- Our being thus baptized in the Name of Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft^ is a plain and un- anfwerable Argument that each of them mull be God. |-j- Were not the Son as truly^ and as much by Nature God as the Fa- ther ^ and the Holy Ghofi as truly and proper- N ly t T>if Tfiio-avvyfini Te^ Serm. ly God as either Father or Son^ our being Yj * baptiz,'d in their Name could not be ac- counted for. We are hereby in an afFed- ing Way reminded of the diftind Divine Benefits they conferr. The Father adopts us as his Sons^ and the Heirs of Eternal Life ; the Son waflies us from our Sins in his own Blood ; and the Holy Ghoft regenerates us_, and furnifhes us with all needful Grace. And fmce we are dedicated to each^ each mult be God : And the Benefits which they conferr being fo diftind^ they mult be di- Itind in the Godhead. This is an Argument which we Ihould have always at Hand, wherewith to repel the AlTaults of thofe who deny the Deity either of Son or Sfirit. We lliould look as far back as our Bapifm^ and remember that by that Rite which is order'd to be adminiltred in the Name of the Son and Sfirlt as well as of the Father^ our Saviour has reprefented them all Three as joint Oh']Q<^sOi Faith ^ Worjlnp^ and Obedience y and that we by being bapiz/d in their Names are oblig'd to own them as fuch. Consider then^Chriltians^ and that feriouf- ly_, That Three Great Names were named up- on you in your Baptlfm^ without any fign of an Inequality y and that you have in this Way httn affur'dj the Father ^ Son^ and Sfirlt agreed in being favourable and propitious to you, receiv'd you into their Difciphne^ Grace and Patronage^ and mgag'd to bellow the bell and richell Bleffings upon you^ upon your performing the Conditions of the Cove- nant. And forget not on the other hand^ that you are bound with a firm Faith^ equal- ly to acknowledge and confels the Sacred Three^ and to repofe an equal Hope and Confidence m Them ; giving to each of them ()[ the Holy Ghost. i 70 them the higheft Adoration_, and a perpc-g^^^^ taal Obedience. And fince this is plain Du- yV * ty, 'tis evident the Son ^nd Holy Ghoft muft be God as well as the Father. And this is an Argument that may^,! think^ convince and confirm^ fuch as are Strangers to the Force of abftraded Proofs^ and that have no Re- lifh for the Niceties of Crlttclfm. The very Form of thy Baptifm^ Friend^ may fatisly thee as to the Deity of thy Saviour. For had not the Son been G o d as well as the Fa- ther^ He never would have been joynM with him upon that folemn Occafion^ and repre- fented as the joint Objed of thy Faith^ Hope-, Love^ Truftj Worfhip^ and Obedience. The Holy Ghoft alfo muft be G o d^ or his Name would not have been brought in upon the fame Occafion j nor Vv/ould He have been rank'd with the other Two^ or reprefented as a joint Object with them of divine Truft, Worfhip^ and Obedience. T o lay^ That nothing is deflgn'd by the Holy Ghoft y but the Divine Power and Ejftca- cjy as is the way of fome^ is perfedly ri- diculous. "What^ are we ^or;V^in theName of the Divine Efficacy ? or confecrated to the Tower of God? What Stuff is this I When we are baptiz'd in the Father's Name^ do we not acknowledge his Vower and Efficacy an- fwerably to his Nature ^ and when we wor- ihip tht Father any Way^ do we not adore his Toiver ? And when we devote ourfelves to the Obedience of the Father ^ do not we fubjed ourfelves to his Tower ^ as well as to hfs other Excellencies and Perfedions ? And is there not as good Reafon for our being confecrated in the Name of the Divine JVifdom ^ or Goodnefs^ or Jnftlce^ or any other effential Attribute^ as in or \n- N 2 to 1 80 The Deity Sfrm. to the Name of the Divine Tower ^ This is ti Yj^ Thing that won't bear an Argument. ^^/^y-i^ 1 N this Matter J I muft contefs^ I agree intirely with Bifhop Burnet^ who in his Expo- fition of the XXXIX Articles "^^ exprelTes himfelf thus : Since ivlthout any DlftinBion^ or vote of hieqrdnlity all Three ^ the Father^ SOn_, and Holy Gholtj are In this Charge fet together^ ai Terfons m ivhofe Name this Tranfa^lon Is to be ma- nag^dj they mufi be all Three the True G O D I Otheru'Ife it looks like a jufi Prejudice agalnjl our Saviour and his whole Gofpel^ that by his ex- prefs DircBio7jj the firfl Entrance to It^ which gives the 'vifible and federal JR.ight to the great BleJJlngs that are offer d by tt^ or their Initiation into ity jlwuld be in the Name of two created Beings (if the one can be calFd fo much as a Beings accord- ing to their Hypothcfis) and that e^ven in an Equa^ llty with the Supreme aiid uncreated Being. The Tlalnnefs of this Charge ^ and the great Occafion up- on which it was gi'ven^ makes this an Argument of fuch Force and E^vidtnce^ that It may juftly de- termine the whole Matter. And of all Men_, I verily think this fhould never be calFd in queftion^ by any of thofe who^ as they are di- redted in their Litany ^ are often crying out^ O God the Father of Hea-ven^ O God the Son^ O God the HolyGhoft, O Holy, BleJJed, and Glori- ous Trinity^ Three Terfons, and One God, have Afercy iipon us mlferable Sinners, N o R is this any new or upftart Notion m the Churchy but of ancient Date. Dldymus t_, who flourifh'd about the Year oi Chrlft 360^ in his Difcourfe of the Holy Spirit, when he was fpeaking of joyning the Holy Ghofi with the Father * Tng. 38, t De Sp. S. Lib. II. inter Op. nieron, Tom. VL p^g* 224. of the Holy Ghost.* i8i Father and the Son^ has thefe Word: Wloo (fays Serm. he) will not from hence ccmclude^ theEfjualityofthe VJ, Sacred Trinity^ feeing there h but one Faith in the ^/-^yx^ Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft^ and Baptlfm is gi'ven in the Name of all Three <* I do not think that (iny 0726 will be fo fcolijij or mad^ as to imagine that Baptlfm to be perfect ^ which is gi'ven In the Name of the Father y afidofthe Son^ ivlthout the addition of the Holy Ghoft. And in this we niay be abundantly confirm'd by confulting other ancient Writer^;^ as may appear by the Citations in the Margin *. ^N ? I * St. Cyprimi ad 'Jul. Ep. 73- Tays that the Form of Bnptifm is prefcribed by Christ, that it might be m plena ^ ndimr.ta Trinitnte : i. e. in the full ConfelTi- on of the Holy Trinity. And St. Jerome, Epifi. 61. fays it was the Cuftom of the Church to inftruCl thofe who were to be Baptized, for Forty Days, in the Docftrine of the Holy Trinity. And Bafd cojit. Eunom. •— fays. That Bt^.pti:{ing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoji, is a moft folemn Profejfwn of the Trinity in Vnity ; becaufe they are all joined together in this piiblick^ AH of Devotion. x-Ynd he proves an e^juality of Honour to hejiie to Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, from this Form of Bnptifm, wherein the Son and Holy Ghoft are joind with the Father, without any Note of Diftinclion. And what more proper Token of a Coyijunclion in the fame Dig- nity, than being put together in fuch a manner ? Nothing (fays he) ftoall make me forfnkg the DoEirine J reccivd in my Baptlfm, when I was firft entered into the Chri- ftinn Church : And I advife all others to keep firm to that Profeffion of the Holy Trinity, which they made in their Baptlfm : that is, of the indivifihle Vnion of Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft. And Epift, 188. He proves that the Holy Spirit is God, from the Form of adminiftring Bnptifm, He being join'd to the Father and Sen, when Baptlfm is conferred in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. For (fays he) ^Vhat is of another and different Nature, Qould not partake of the W^s^ 182^ The Deit^ Serm. I ^^^^ft own therefore^ I don't much wonder yj^ to find Mr. Ewlyuy who fo little relifhes that Dod:rine which the Ordinance of Baptifm fo fully confirms^ Ihould fo eaflly be himfelf perluadedj (in Compliance with Sccinus f) ?^nd fo willing to perfuade others^ of the needlefs- nefs of Eapijm^ as to the Defcendants of fuch as have been themfelves baptiz'd^ and the Fitnefs of confining it to fuch only^ as become Trofelytes to Chriftianity from an Infidel State, fame Honour and TVorfmp. And AthnnnfiuSy Eplft. ad Serapion. j>ag. 14. Tom. x. ad Scrap. Tom. 1. p. 179, 186. fays, That Chrift founded his Church on the DoBrine of the Trinity contaiyid in thefe iVords ; nyid if the Holy Ghoft be of a different Nature from the Father ^nd SoUj he would never have been joind with theyn in the Form ofBapifm, no more than an Angel, or any other Creature. And Gregory Na:(ian:(en in his Oration con- cerning Baptifm, explaining the Creed and Faith into which Perfons were Baptized, infifts particularly on the Belief of the Holy Trinity, and declares he would baptize none that would not own this Faith. If (fays he) you do Jlill halt, and do not own the Divinity full and perfcHy Jeek^for fome body elfe to bapti:{eyoUy or rather dcjlroy you : For I have 7io mind to divide the Deity, and at the time of your New Birth to brijig Death pn you ; fo that you will have yieither Baptifm, nor the hope of Grace, your Salvation being quickly /hipwreckt. For if you deny Divinity to any cf thefe three, you over- throw the whole [Trinity] ayid make your Baptifm of no Iporce to you. And Fai'.ftinus de Trlnirare, has this Ex- jprefTion .- Cum praxcpit Dominus, lit gentes in nomine Patris (3 Filii (3 Spiritus Sancii bapti:(cntur, aPertiffi- mum eft Spiritum Snncium non effe Crenturam, vel ex ipsa Societate, tju.c illi una cum Patrc ^ Filio efi, vet qucd nunquam prtuciperct Dominus, ut in Creaturce no- mine aliquis bapti:(ett;r : Multum cnim divinjo potenti.c derogaretur, fi cum ConfcjfiGuc divini nominis par ^uoi^uG vreatinx confeffio pcneretur.' '• •■■ ■ ' : ■ "*• t ^^^ his Difpuc, de Baprlfmo Aqua?. of the Holy Ghost* 183 State f. By means of this he anlwers one Serm^ End at lealtj wliich may be to his Purpofe : yr For he takes a very proper Method to keep ,^/-*y^-Cj People from being fo afFedingly remind- ed of the Doctrine of Father^ Son^ and Spl- rity as they mufl: be^ if all in each Genera- tion that are allow'd the Benefits of Chri- itianity^ are obliged (if there be room for it) to be baptiz a in the Name of the Sa- cred Three^ and folemnly devoted to the Service of each of them. But the beft of it isj the Chrillian Church has been all along of another Mind^ and has generally thought: it their Duty to baftlz-e not only the nrft Trofelytes to their Holy Religion^ but alfb their Defcendants from Age to Age. And not without Reafbn^ as far as I can judge ; fince 'tis only continuing the Pradife of confecrating the Difciples of C h r i s t to Fa- tbe-fy Son^ and Holy Goofi^ by Baptifw^ that the Promife of having his Prelence with thenij always^ even to the End of the World^ could be expeded to be made good. And as long as this Pradife remains in the Churchy tho' one Generation goes^ and an- other comes^ yet we fhall have a Handing, convincing Evidence in every Age^ That the Holy Ghofty to whom all profelfing Chriiti- ans are devoted^ jointly with the Father and the Son^ is as truly G g d as either of them^ God eijual with them_, becaufe of his being join'd with them in that iacred^ initiating Solemnity. We are therefore often to be re- minded of this Argument^ that we may never forget itj but that it may have an abiding In- N 4 fluence t See his Previous Q^iefllons reUting to Baptlfm, at; the latter end of his XrMs. 1 84 The Deity SfiRM. fiucnce upon our Pradiife. And our Care VI. about thisj is the ready and only Way to y^r^^/-'^ fecure to ourfelvcs thofe Bleffings which true Chriftianity has intail'd upon it. This is what all are to be taught in all Nations^ and in all Ages j- inilead of being hidden^ it's to be preach'd to all People without Ex- ception. And now I fhall goon to other Argu- ments and Evidences of the D^/// of the i/o/; Ghoft^ in order to our full Satisfaction f- Consulting the Holy Scriptures (which moft certainly are here to be our Standard) we find the Names and Titles of God ar^ given to the Holy Sprit ; and the Perfe^iom of GoD are reprelented as belonging to him; the Works of God are afcrib'd to him ; and we are informed alfo that Divine fVbrJhlp is due to him : And therefore either the Scri- ptures moll fadly impofe upon us^ or the Holy Spirit muft be God. I. The Names and Titles of God are in the Scriptures freely given to the Bleffid Sprite and therefore mult He be God- Th^ Spirit \s Ifa. VI. 9. c^ip^ Jehovah. For Jehovah is by a Prophet Ads brought in as fpeaking^ what St. Paul declares xxviil. '^^ fo many \Vords was fpoken by the Holy 45, 26. Ghofi, And we are told in the OldJefiament^ Exod. that the Jfraelites tempted Jehovah at Maffah xvii. 7.^^^ and Meribah in the Wildernefs ; which in the Hebr, ill. jy^^^ Tefiamcnt is diredly explain'd of the Ho- ^'9* ly Ghofi. And whereas we are told^ That Me^ ■■ • /« t Sec upon this Subjed, Eftveick^s Anfwer to Bidh ; Pool's Blatphemer Slain : and J. Goodmn of being fil.'.d with the Spirit, Chap. vii. vlii. H^ittichil Caufa Sp. S. Vidrix. Mnthers' Diic. concerning the Deity of the Holy Ghoft, e^c. . .••.■■, ^V.: of tie Holy Ghost. fas went in before the Lord (Jehovah) and (pake ivith him^ St. ?W fignifies to iis^ thstt the Lord if that Spirit y that has fuch a Concern in the Miniftration of the Gofpel^ as he was fpeak- Exod. ing of, and freely magnifying. He is alfo xxxiv.34: plainly call'd God. For (fays the Apoftle) i Cor.iii. jknow je not that je are the Temple of God^ and i7- that the Spirit of (Sod dwelleth in you ? if any Man ^ ^^'^' ^'^^* defle the 7 em fie of God ^ him jhall God deftroy : *^> *7' For the Temple of God ts holy^ which Temple ye are. Plainly intimating to thcm^ that they were the Temple of God^ becaufe that Spirit that was truly God dwelt in them. Nor can I fee how they could be faid to be the Temple of Gody becaufe of the JHoly Spirit d^uelling in them^ if that Spirit that did dwell in them was not truly God. • \.x\^Qtothe Holy Ghofi ^ is alfo faid to be . (> z Lying to God ^ which is in EfFed: a calling ^ ^*^* him God. Tho' Men were unable to difco- ver the Sin of Ananias and his Wife^ yet the Holy Ghofi diftindly knew it. And it was a great Aggravation of their Faulty that they would venture to bid him Defiance by Lying to him 3 as if they could conceal their Bafe- nefs from him as well as their Fellow-Crea* cures. They this Way did not lye unto Men , but unto God ^, Which would not hold^ if the Holy Ghofi unto whom they ly'd^ were not truly God. And in like manner alfo^ refifiing ^^^ ^^' the Holy Ghofi ^ is reprefented as the fame thing ^^* with refilling God. ~ AgaiNj the Apoftle faysj Know you not that ^^^^'^'^' your Bodyts the Temple of the Holy Ghofi? Therefore *9> 2.0. * See a Sermon on this Texr, Preach'd before the Un'lverfity of Oxford, Feb. 24; lyi^; by miliflyn Ste^ fhens.M, A. Fellow of Exeter College, 1 86 The Deity glorify God ht your Body y 8zc. Which would car- ry nothing of an Argument in it^ if the Holy Ghofi were not truly God. Who but God can have a Temple belonging to him ! Being Tem- ples of the Holy Ghofi J we are Temples of 2 Cor. vi. God: And therefore God mull hQ glorify" d m us i6- and by us. And again^ we being his Tern- Levir. ples^ are faid to be the Temple of the Living God, xxvi. 12. So that He is the Lining God, And we fhall be the more induc'd to believe him fuch^ upon 2 Sam. confulting and comparing the Paffage in the ^'^^'^''^:^' Old Tefiament^y that is there referr'd to^ and 14^^' ^^' ci^^^- K^ ^s ^^^^ ^^^^ God of Ifrael^ and their Matt. xli. ^^^^ 3 ^^^ caird the Spirit of Glory. 31, 31. WiTHALj, the Holy Spirit is one that may ' be finn'd againil:_, and blafphem'd : And the hlafpheming him is reprefented as a. Sin too great to be forgiven^ either In this Life^ or in that to come. And this is a thing that is not to be conceiv'dj if he was not G^^. For cer- tainly none but God can. properly be finn'd againil 1 And He muft be the Mofi High God too^ againfl: whom any Sin fliould prove of io aggravated a Nature^ as to be incapable of being pardon'd. Every Sin againfl: God is far from being unpardonable ; And for a Sin againlt the Holy Spirit to be fo^ is a. thing inconceivable^ nay^ impofllble^ if the Spirit was not God. "Rom. XV. The Spirit is alfo call'd the God of Hope :, the ,3. " ' Sfirlt of Truth:, ths Spirit of Life ; or the quick- John, xlv. ning Spirit , the Spirit ofHolineJs. He is that one 17- Spirit^ from whom all Hope^ Truths Life^ and Rom.viii. Holinefs proceeds. And how could that be^ if ^: . He were not properly God ? Let us be ever fo U. 1. 4. i\j^i^ jn enquiring what Sort of Spirit this isj, we cannot find^ or give a better Arifwer than 2- Cor. iii. ^^ ^^^- Words of St. /W^ The Lord Is that Spi- 17. ' ' rlt : It is the Lord of whom thefe Things ar^ Ipoken of ^/j^ Holy Ghost. 187 fpoken. Tho' I muft own^ I don't knowwhy Sfrm. we might not render this PalTage thus ^ Tuat yj Spirit IS the Lord. And then we fhall fr(^m ,.,,^-y-sv Yi^nzt have an additional Proof of the Deity of the Spirit^ who changes us into the Image of the Bleffed and Glorious God. Vjat Spirit is the Lord Moft High. For He is not a bare miniftrhig Sfirlt ^ Hke thofe fent forth to mimficr^^^-'^-i^"' for them who fl^all be Heirs of Sal'vatio7i '^ He is no ferving Spirit^ as the Angels^ who tho' very- excellent Beings^ yet are no more than Crea- tures : But He is the Lord. The Apoftles have ftyl'd the Gofpel^ The Minift-ratlon of the Sprite a Cor. iiu (becaufe the Power and Grace of the Holy 8. Spirit is peculiarly therein manifefted) and in- tmiatedj that as Mofes when he turn'd to the Pcople_, put a Vail over hps Face y io the Jews Ver. 13, reading of the Old Tefiament had a Vail Itill 14- over their Mmds : And as Mofes ^ when he "^^^^ ^5> tur7idto the Lord ^ the Great Jehovah^ put oiF^'^' his Vail^ fo when the Heart of this People fhould turn to the Lord^ the Vail jhould be taken away. He then adds^ The Spirit u the Lord. In ver. 17, the Original "tis^ 0 HUdi©- 7^ nrviviU k/, which Claufe may as well to the full be render'd^ The Spirit is the Lord^ as elfewhere Tnvy.ci 0 SiU ]<^^^'^ iv".' iSj God is a Spirit. That S fir it then is tJoe Lord. ^4« He is the Lord Moft' High ^ he is t\\t Supreme God. And from this laft Piace^ we may draw yet a farther Argument. For if God being a Spi- rit is to be worjhipped in Spirit and in Truth ^ as our Lord there afferts^ then the Spirit of God and of C h K i s t^ who was promis'd by our Sainour to fupply his place^ and ad as his Deputy^ mult alio be lb worfhipp'd, • and therefore' is God. But of this more prefently. X' The VerfeBlons of God are in Scripture pfcen ■ afcrib a to the Spirit^ and therefore alfo i88 r/j^ Deity Sbrm. a^fo He mult be God, To him are eyen VI, thofe Divine Perfed:ions afcrib'd^ that are v,^,.>^^,^_y properly incommunicable. He is not only 1 John il* [he Holy Gne^ by Way of Eniinencej, but He 20. ^^ IS Omnifci€?it. Vov the '^ip'int fear cheth all Things y 1 Cor. ii. even the deep Things of God. He knoweth the ^°* Things^ even all the Things of God^, moil intimately and exadly^ jult as the Spirit of a Man knows the Things that moft proper- Ver. II. ly belong to him. For^ fays the Apollle^ Ti^hat Man knoiveth the Things of a Man^ fa've the Spirit of a Man which is in him ? E'ven fo the Things of God knoweth 7J0 Man hut the Spi^ rit of God. And befides^ unlefs He was Om- nlfcienty He could not^ as it is declar'd He Rom.viil. would^ make Jntercejfion for the Saints ^ according 27. to the f^Vill of God : Nor could He guide the . Apoftles into all the Truth^ as 'tis promis'd John XVI. -^^ flT^ould. He is alfo Omniprefent, fo that Pf cxxxlx <^here is no goings no fleeing from him. And -7, He dwells in the Teople of God^ wherefoever they are difpers'd. The Spirit of God does not only work tranliently and occaiionally in and on the People of G o d^ but we are told I Cor. ill. exprefsly He dwelleth in them ; He refides in 1^- them as in his Temples : In fo much thar Eph. 11. thro^ C H R 1 S Tj hoth they that are afar offy and *7? iS- they that are near^ haz^e accefs by one Spirit tmto the Father. He works Grace in the Hearts of all the Saints^ and He does it in fuch a Epn.MT, Way^ as to fhew the exceeding Greatnefs of his i8, 19. fo-wer. And therefore He is Omnipotent. He works all good Things in us. Let the Di- verfity of Gifts in the Church be ever fo great^ or remarkable^ v/e may fay as the A- i Cor.xli. poftle^ ^// thefe worketh that cne and the felf" II. fame Spirit_, di%.nding to every Man fe^uerally as i/e jvill. And this is what we may fafely affirm He could not do^ if He was not Jl- mighty. of the Holy Ghost. 189 mighty. He is the Tower cf the Highcft : Arid Serm.* the Eternal Spirit. And there is not a Per- yi, fedion that is elTential to the Divinity^ in i^^^-yAj which He can be charg'd with being any Luke i. way deficient. -^5. g. The Works of God are in Scripture of- ten afcrib'd to the Spirit ^ and therefore alfo He muft be God. The Work of Creation is his j and therefore we read that the Spirit of Gen. i. 2. God at the firft moved on the Face of the Wa- ters. He brooded upon the mifhapen Mafs of Matter^ and fo turn'd a confus'd Chaos into a beautiful Order of Creatures^ which was molt certainly a Divine A61. And Job in his ovvn Cafe cries out^ T^e Spirit of GoDjobxxxiii wade me^ and the Breath of the Almighty hath gi- a, ^jen me Life *. It was the Sprit of God Luke i. that in a peculiar manner formed the Body 35. of C H R I s T 5 which IS an Argument of his Divinity. And we are told^ That He that fiake by the Mouth of David^ was the God Ads \\\ 'which made Heauen and Earthy and the Sea^ and 24, 25. all that in them is : And at another Time 'tis exprefsly declared^ That it was the Holy Ghofi ^(Sts\.i6, that fpake by the Mouth of David. Working Miracles alfo is often afcrib'd to the Holy Ghofi. The mighty Signs and Wo?:- dcrs by which the Divinity of our Holy Re- ligion was fo fully attefted^ were wrought by the Po7Per of the Spirit of God. And He is de- Rom. xvl clar'dtobe the Worker of all Miracles. Some 19. have reckoned that nothing elfe was meant by the Holy Spirit ^ but thoIe miraculous Gifts iCor. xll. and^O;"- * See Dr. Kjiights Sermons, ;>. 269, ^c. where that and other Texts, that are commonly alledg'd ia Proof of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, are feverallv, and particularly confider'd. The Deity and Graces that were communicated to the firlt Spreaders and Publiflters of ChrHtianity in the World. But St. Faid very plainly di- Itinguiflies between the Gifts then diltribu- tedj and him that was the Diftributer of them iCor. xll. ^t his own Pleafure^ faying^ There are Dlverji- 4. ties of Gifts ^ bin the fame spirit : And after- .r wards addins; that He di-vides to e^very Man Je'verallj as he iviU. Go^erjtmg the Church author itatively^ is A6ls xUl. ^^^^ another Work of the SfArlt. lie call'd 2. Barnabas and Saul out to work. He mad^e Ads XX. Perfons 0-ijerfeers of the Flock of God. He 28. made and gave forth Laws to promote Or- der and Harmony in the Church when it was firlt fixed and fettled. And therefore they that met at Jertfalem for Confultation_, could write to their Brethrej/in other Parts^ I^.xv.28. ^^^^^ needed their Advice^ and fay^ it feemed ' Good to the Holy Gholl a7td to ns : And we may allow others that are forward enough to ingrofs the Name of the Church to them- felves^ to do fo too_, when they can give good Evidence they have a like Warrant,* but not before. Another Divine Acl that is afcrib'd to the Holy Sprit is the infpiring the Scriptures. 1 Pet. i. We are therefore told_, Thsii Trophecy ^ame not 21. i?i old Time by the I fill of Man ^ but holy Men of God fpake as they were moved by the Holy Ghoft. There are alfo a grea,t Variety of other Ads that are properly Divine_, that are in Scripture afcrib'd to the Holy Spirit. 'Tis He that is faid to blefs Gofpel Mlniftrations with Succefs, which is altogether Divine. . If you ask how ^t. Paul came to convert fo many to the Chriftian Faith^ fo itrangely to ran- fack Mens Confcienccs^ and make fo won- derful of the Holy Ghost. derful a Change and Alteration in and on them 5 He freely tells you^ it was becaufe his Preaching was In the Demonfiratlon of the _ Spirit_, and of Tower. He refolvcs it wholly j Cor. il, into the Agency of the Spirit who wrought 4^ with him^ and by hini^ in fuch a manner as to make Means that were in Appearance very unlikely ^ wonderfully efficacious to convert and lave Mens Souls. 'Tis this Holy Spirit that enlightens us. For He is the Spi- c t, • ^ rit of Wfdom and Re^uelatlcn^ -who enlightens the jg '/*' Eyes of our Underfianding^ that we ' may know what is the Hope of ChrijFs Callings and what the Riches of the Glory of his Inheritance in the Saints j and what the excecd'.jtg Greatnefs of h^s Tower to trs ward who helieue^ according to the working of his Mighty Tower. It is alio the very fame 'Sprit that inlivcneth us. For fays our Lord Jesus, fr is the Spirit that quickneth. He alfo rf- John vi, news us : And tli^refore we read of the re- 6^. ncwing of the Holy Ghoit. 'Tis He that fan- Tlr.lii. 5. cilfies us : And therefore Men are faid to be fanBfyU by r/^e Holy Ghoft: And fanmffd ^/ Rom. xv; the Spirit of our God. 'Tis He alfo 'that/r^»^- 16. thens and fiahlijlies us : And therefore the A- i Cor. vi, poftle prays for his Epheflans^ ihsitthtTather^^* of our Lord Je^us Christ would grant them gpj^^ '-j^ according to the Riches of his Glory ^ to be ftrength- 16. * ned with might by his Spirit in \he inner Man. In t\\\% one Spirit have we by Chnft accefs to the ^^\\. IL Father : He having an equal Share with 18. God our Saviour^ in the Gofpel Difpenfa- tion of Grace and Salvation. And it is al- fo by the fame Sprit that we are fealed unto g |^ -^^^ the Day of Redempion. Thefe are plain Divine ^o, ' Characters: And being taken together^ we may be well aiTur'd they can agree to wow^ but GQd, And then^ A. We The Deity 4. W E learn alfo from the Scriptures^ that Divine Worfiip is due to the Holj Spirit. He ^^ _^ was worlhip'd by the Seraphlms. He was ira:vL 3. worfhip'd by St. Taul^ who [wears hy theSyi- rit : And what higher hh. of Wcrfhip can there be than Swearing ? Now He declares Rom. Ix. thdit his Confcie?2ce bore him witnefs in the Holy J. Ghoft^ who he did not doubt would be rea- dy to atteft the Truth of what he declared. Often alfo did he pray to the Holy Ghoil^ and beg Grace from Him as well as from the Father and the Son. He begg'd that the Commimion of the Holy Ghoft might be with aCor.xili. tho[e to whom he wrote^ as well as either the 14. Lo've of God, or the Grace of the Lord J e s u S Christ. He pray'd to the Spirit that He would communicate himlelf to Believers^ and fufter himfelf to be enjoy'd in his Gifts and Graces which were various. St. Rev. 1. 4. j^/j^ ^\fy fupplicates for Grace and Peace from the feven Spirits which are before the Throne^ 1. e. from the Divine Spirit^ from whom all that Variety of Gifts^ Adminiftrations^ and Operations that were at that Time in the Churchy proceeded. And I think we have alfo an Initance of the worfliipping of the Holy Spirit in the Church of Jemfakm^ in her very Infancy and firft Rife. For we are Ac^s iv. told^ That they lift up their Voice to God with 24, 15. one accord y a?2d faid ; Lord Tloou art God which hafi made Heauen and Earthy and the Sca^ and all that in them is : Who by the Mouth of thy Servant David haf [aid, why do the Heathen rage, and the People imagine "vain Things ? This being fpoken by the Holy Ghcft^ we may I think warrantably enough ^ not only reckon they here calPd him God^ (as has been ob- ferv'd before) but worflnp'd him jointly as fuch. At lealt He could not be excluded from of the lAoi^Y GuosT. ipo from being the Objed of the Worjljlp that was Serm. offer 'dj jointly with the Father and the Son. y/ And as great a Man as Cajfander was^ ac- knowledges that It was by the Encourage- ment of *^this and other fuch like Examples^ that the Ancient Church very frequently call'd upon the Holy Spirit in an Hynin that was composed in Honour to him. And there- fore when Mr. JVhlfion f feems to be afraid it will at lafi appear that the hi'vocation of the Holy Ghoil is 7Wt only not fufported by Scrips turCy but a direB Breach of the firfi Commandment ^ &:c. He is in Fear^ where no Fear is. And tho' Dr. Clarke does not quite run his Lengthy yet he goes much too far^ when he tells us^ riiat for pitting up Prayers and Supplications di- reSlly and exprcfsly th the Ferfon of the HoIy Spi- rit^ it mtifi be acknowledgd there is no clear Precept or Exa?nple in Scripture, This I for my Part cannot acknowledge^ becaufe 'tis my real Judgment that what I have now offered, fufficiently proves the contrary. And when he adds^ That the fame muft he confefed con- cerning the PraHife of the Primiti've Church in the Three firff Centuries^ fo far as appears from the Writings of thofe Ages ^ j I can't concurr with him there neither. For I think St. Bafd wha liv'd in the very next Century^ is more to be regarded in this Cafe than the Doctor : And he fets himfeif induftriuufly to prove the Holy Gbofi to be a proper Objed of Adoration^ as well as the Father and Son • and argues that there was no Reafon to ^wd Fault Vv^ith the Doxolcgy us'd in the Church ^; And fays, Tiiat Firmillan^ Meletlm^ and the Eaftcrn O Chri- t Prim. Chriftlanity Reviv 'd, Vcl. V. App, 2. p. z6* * i)criprure Dodiiae. Pan II. §. liv. 194 "^^^^ Deity unr-^ Serm. Chriftians agreed in the Ufe of it; and fo Yj^ did all the Wcfiem Churches from lUjrkum to the End of the World. And this he faich was by an immemorial Cullom^ of all Churches^ and of the greateft Men in them. Nay^ he fays it had been continued in the Churches trcm x.\\^ Time the Gofpel had been receiv'd among them '*'. And feme Au- thorities in Confirmation of this may be i^^n in the Citations in the Margin t- I N fhort then^ the Holy and BlelTed Sftr'it having in Scripture the 'Name and Charatter3 of God given him^ and the D'rume Ttrftcli- 071S alcrib'd to him ; and He being there reprefented as the Author of all Sorts of Dl- 'Vine Operations^ that require Immenfity^ Om- nipotence^ Omnifcience^* and other Divine Excellencies j He being one to whom we are defeated ^ and in whom we are to helu^ue^ as well as againft whom we .may peculiarly Sin ; the Author of all Grace in Belie vers_, a fpecial Helper to them in their Prayers^ and the peculiar Spring and Fountain of Order in the Church ; if He is not truly God^ I think we * Bnfil. contr. Eimom. cap. 29. t Juftin Martyr in his Second Apology, exprefTes hlmfelt rhus. I4^e confcfs indeed that voc are Atheifts tii to fuch as have the Reputation of Gods amovg yon, hut not in I{efpeci of the mofi true God, the Father of l{ightecufnefs and Sobriety and- all other Vcrtues, and tpho hath not the leaft Mixture cf J4^ickednefs in hlyn. For him^ and the Son \vho came from him, and taught us thefe Things, and the Prophetick^ Spirit (or the Spirit who fpake by the Prophets) voe voorjlotp and adore. And St. Bafil de Spiritu Sancto, mentions feveral Pray- ers and Doxologies, us'd by the Ancient Fathers, in which the Holy Spirit was exprefsly worfhipp'd, as well as, either the Father or the Son: See Biiighnmh Origines Ecclefiajlic, a. Vol, V. p. 6z^ ^c of the Holy Ghost. we miift be forc'd to own^ that when wc have gone as tar in commending the Scrip- tures as we can_, we muft yet at laft be forc'd to own^ they are lb drawn iip^ as that in- Itead of guarding duly again it Aliftakes _, they lay a Foundation for molt unhappy Milapprehen(ions_, in Things of the laft Mo- ment^ in which our Spiritual and Eternal Welfare is nearly concern 'd^ and therefore are but little to be regarded by us. Reserving the Objedlions againft the Truth I have been upon to the next Dif- courfe^ I fliall only add thefe two Reile- dions. I. We may by what has been already of- fer'd^ be a little help'd to pafs a Judgment upon the AlTertions of a late Writer^ who feems to have thought himielf qualify 'd to give new Light to the World ; who declares that the Holy Ghoft is inferior as ivell as fnhor- (I'lnate^ to both the Father a77d the Son^ and that he was ne^ver exprefsly called God or Lord^ by the firfi Chrifiiansy nor ever was muocated by them : And that He Is to be 7i^orjh:j}fd in Bap^ tifrj^ Doxologjy and Bhjjing^ but not t>y Invocati- on. Thefe are the very Words of Mr. Whl- jion ^. But if you will be at the Pains to confalt the feveral Texts that have been produced with Relation to the Ho/y Spirit ^ I am in no fear of your finding him reprefcnt- ed as inferior to Father or r07i, Tii'..y give him the fame Name ^ Titles ^ Attributes y Works^ and Worfliip^ without any Notice ot an Inferiority, The Baptifm?d Form or Charge from whence I took my Rife^ fets the Holy Ghofi upon a Level witli the Father O 2 and Primitive Faith, Art. XIX, XX, XXL The Deity and Son ; and I can't perceive that the 0- ther Texts cited bring him at all lower. But when a Man has found out a Way to bring in new Scriptures^ and make a large and confiderable Addition to our very Bi- bleSj of Writings drawn up by a very diffe- rent Spirit from that which infpir'd our Sa- cred Penmen^ I think we have the lefs Reafon to wonder^ if he iliould be for de- grading that Hclj Spirit y from whofe kifpir'd Writings we have all our Light. How it may fare with the Holj Gbofi m thofe Apo- cryphal Spurious Writings^ of which that Gentleman is fb vaftly tond^ concerns us little : But in our truly Sacred Writings^ we find his Deity plainly enough declar'd^ by our being reprefented as the Temple ef God^ upon the Account of cur having him dwcl- mg in us. We there alfo find him exprefs- ly calFd Lord : For the Lord is that Spirit j or that Spirit is the Lord. 'Tis by this Spirit of the Lord J that we are changd into the glori- ous Image of the Bleffed G o d^ which is a change of that vaft Confequence^ that the producing ir^ is the main avow'd Defign of the Gofpel Dilpenfation : And the Spirit that does produce this Change_, and inlighten and transform us^ mult needs be the Lord. And He will continue Lord over the Spirits of Men under the Difpenfation of his Gofpel^ in Spite of any Thing that can be produced out of the Mongrel Confiitutions ^ or any other luch patch'd Pieces of fpurious Antiquity^ to deprive him of that Dominion. And He was In'vocated too by St. Vaid and St. John^ who are much better Patterns for us to follow^ than they that had an Hand in forging fuch Writings^ as thcfe mention'd^ Vv/hofe Names we know not, tho' we can eafily guefs at their of the Holy Ghost. their Principles. And if tWiS Spirit really has Grace and P<^ace to beltcw^ (and how fhculd He not_, when all true Grace and Fence is a Fruit of his producing) why fhould He not be in-jocatedy and Ibught to on this Behalf ? 'Tis well this Gentleman will own He is to be jvGrjlupp'd In Bafufm. That's more than fome that have given into his Principles can find in their Hearts to allow : For they can't fee that Bapilfi/^ has any Thing of Ifhfijip in ir. ' I leave it to them to agree that Mat- ter at their Leifure ^s they are able. But if the Spirit may be jvorjljipp'd In Baptifwy Doxo- logjy and BleJ]i?/gy I cannot fee why not by Invocation, Another Learned Writer tells us^ That for puttl7ig up Vraycrs direcily and exprefsly to the Holy Spirit_, it mufi he acknoivledgd there u 710 clear Frcccpt or Example in Scripture *. But I muft here alio beg leave to differ. I take the Scripture Command to worjlilp the Lord our Godj to be a clear Precept enough as to the Holj Spirit^ fuppofmg it evident that He is the Lord our God^ as He ought to be cwn'd to be^ if we were devoted to him as fuch_, when we v/ere haptlz^'d hi his Name. I alfo take that of St. Taut to be an Example In Scrip- ture^ fdfncient to encourage us. I fhouid have thought it reafonable to hold^ That as there are In Scripture clear Examples of ojf'eri?Jg up Prayers to the Son for fuch Blejfngs as it ps the proper Office of the Son to hefiovj ^ fo by Ana- hgjy the^oly Spirit may in like 7nar.ner be defi- red to convey fuch Gifts as we are fttre it Is his peculiar Office to dlftrlbute in the Church, And this feems to have been Dr. Clarke s Senfe allb^ when he publifli'd the firft Edition of his O } laboured 5 Scripture Dodrine, Pert II. §. 5 4, The Deity labour'd Work *. I'm forry to find him fo alter'd in his Second Edition^ where we meet not with a Word of that Nature. But the* he or others may alter^ without thinking it neceffary to give the World a Reafon of it^ yet I believe upon Trial it would be found no eafy Thing to give a tolerable Account^ why the Sfrnt may not be In^uocated for what He has to give^ as well as BkJJcd for what He has given ^ or why the Holy Spirit may not as well be hupbly and earnellly defir'd to convey fuch Gifcs as He has to diitribute^ as the Son pray'd to^ for fuch Bleflings as it is his Office to beftcw. But^ 2. 1 conclude with this Motion^ That Vv'e take Care to carry it to the Blelfed Sfirl^, as it becomes thcfe that were devoted to him when we were Baptiz^'d in his Name. Let us readily receive Light from him^ and_ beg of him to lead us in the Way both of Truth and Hol'mefs. Let us keep ourfelves o- pen to his Influences^ without grieving or refilling^ or at all running the Hazard of qiiench'wg him. Let us endeavour that both our Bodies and Spirits may be his Temples^ from whence all Impurity may be banifli'd with the utmoft Care. Let us endeavour to abound in iiich Fruits of the Spirit as Love^ Joy^ Peace ^ Long-fulfering^ Gentlenefs ^ Goodnefsj Faith^ Aieeknefs^ and Tempe- rance : And fo fiiall we the better be able to repel theAlTaults of the Evil Spirit^ and abound in all Good Works^ and Holy Obe- dience. Let us particularly cherifh the Spirit as n Spirit of Brayer ajid 'Supplication ^ aS ever we defire ; See Firft Edidon, p. 376. of the Holy Ghost. i ^^ defire to thrive in Religion^ or to know by Serm. Experience what it means to have the Spir;t yj^ 7vitncj]ing with our Spirits that ii^e are Children of ^,„^^,^^.^^ God. Let US be the more cautious about our Rom.viii. Carriage to the J31eired Sph-it^ becaule oui^ 16. Peace^ Safety and Fruitfulnefe^ and even our Steadinefs in the Truth depends upon his In- fluences. Let us grle-L'e the Holy One by our Pride and Paliion^ our Petulance and SelfiflmerSj by giving way to any Impurity^ or leaning to our own Underitandmgs^ or being fway'd by our own corrupt AfFedtions^ in- ftead of being under his Condud^ and He may refent it to that Degree as to leave us to ourfelves^ and then where are we ? We fliall take Error for Tru-th^ and wander in the Dark in the midft of the clearelt Light ,• let ourielves to build up what we ought to deftroy^ and to pull down^ what we ought to our utmoft to build up. We may with others be tempted to queilion the Holy Spi- ritV Di^inity^ or whether we may lawfully addrefs ourielves by> Prayer to him_, as little Danger as we may think we are in^ of any Thing -of that Nature. Let us then often remember our having been conlecrated to t\\Q Holy Ghofi in Conjundion with \ht Father ^ and the So7i^ and make it a Part of our daily Prayers^ that how ibrely foever we may be affaulted in one Refpcd or another^ we may not be confiderably fhaken^ and nmch lels overfet. 'T I s this Good Spirit muft fanBify . -^ if ever we are fancliffd : And that's too big and too great a Work for any one but God. 'Tis He muft keep us from falling, if we are fteady. 'Tis He mult lead us into all Truths help us to know it when we fee it^ keep us from any falfe Byafs^ and in a O 4 right 200 The Deity right Temper in our Enquiries after it ; and preferve us from being bewildred. Let us then take Heed of provoking him. Let us carry it with an humble Modelty^ and live in a conltant Dependence upon him m the Way of plain Duty^ and then may we hope that the Sfirit of Truth will not torfake us^ nor the Sfirit of Hollnefs and Love and Peace aban- don us ; but guide_, affift and manage us_, as a Part of his fpecial configned Charge^ till He has brought us to thole blifsful Manfions above, in which tbe Grace of the Lord Jefus Chriit, and tbe Love of God, and tbe CommU' nlon of the Holy Ghoft will be for ever with us^ in the higheft Degree, to our full Con- tentment and Satisfaction. S £ R M« of the Holy Ghost. 201 SERMON VII. 2 Co R. II. II. For what Man knoweth the things of a Man, fave the Spirit of a Man which is in him? Even Jo the things of God knoweth no Man^ hut the Spirit of God. j^^O what has been already ofFer'd as to Sakers- l^gi the Deity of the Holy Sfirlt, it may be \-\^\\yTuef ^^^ added^ That we net only meet with ^^y ^J^' pofitive AlTertions in Scriptare relating to it^ ^^^lt_i^' but Comparifons alfo made ufe of^ from ' ^^'^" whence it may very juftly be inferr'd. Thus the Sprit of God is compared to a Man's pfalm Breath; and it is intimated^ That as the xxxili. 6.' Breath out of a Man's Mouth comes from S< i ThtL within him^ fo alfo dues the Holj Spirit come i'^- 3. from the Breait of GjD^and accompany his Word : Which is an Argument of his D/V/w///, But the Comparifbn thai: is moil ufed inScrip- ture^ is of the Holj Spirit to an Humane SouK And thi3 is ufed both with Reference to . > the 202 - The Deity Serm, t^^ Church m general'^ and alfo with Reference VII. ^^ particular Believers. When the Conxparifon i^.,^.,^^.^^; between the Soul of Man and the Holy Spirit 1 Cor.x'iL- with Reference to the Church m general is di- lated on, we are told. That the Church con- iider'd in a Body, has all its Members united, lettled, gcvern'd, quicken d, endow'd, and wrought on by t\\<^ Spirit : Which v/ould be a thing Marly impollible if He were not God, And therefore thofe very Bodies of Believers^ which as they are related to Christ are fiyl'd Aie?r.bersy as they are related to the Holy Spirit are calPd Temples^ wherein He dwels. And then as to the Comparifon between a Man's Soul and the Holy Spirit , as it Refpeds particidar Belic'vcrs^ the Text I have now read is very clear as to that. For it plainly inti- •mat^es to us thus much. That what the Spirit of AIa?z is to Man whofe Spirit he is, that the Holy Spirit ]s to the BlelTed God. As the Spirit of a Man is confcious to his moft lecret Actings and Thoughts, which no Man elfe can know ,• fo does the Spirit of God know the molt fecret Things of 'Qod^ and help us alio in a Meafure to the Knowledge of them ,• which could act be without a real Divinity. As the Sf^rit of a Aian knows the Tilings of a Man^ fo does the Sprit of God hiciv the things tf Gody both Father and Son, The Spirit of a Man does not know the Things of a Moin^ becaufe they are difcover'd to him by one different from himleh, but becaufe he is confcious to his own inward Workings of Thought : So alfo does the Spirit of God know the Tbmgs of God^ both Father and Son^ not becaufe either the one or the other voluntarily reveals them to him, but becaufe He is naturally and ne- ceffarily confcious to all even the greatell ■Secrets af Both, whofe 5p/Vif He is. So that the of the Holy Ghost. the Holy Spirit cannot but be God^ becaufc He is as well acquainted wi':h the Mind ot GW^ as a Man is with his own Heart and Miad. He fearches the moft myfterious Counfels of God. The Spirit fearches all Tinngs ^ jea^ the deeD Thhgs of God : And they are fometimes alfo re-verded u?no m by the Spirit. And therefore He muft be truly God. Nor would it be more ab- furd to fuppofe the Spirit of ^ Maji \N\t\\o\\t Humanit)''^ than it would be to fuppofe the Spirit of God without a proper Divinity. They theretore that have deny'd or contefted it^ have err'd^ not hiowlng the Scriptures, or not underilanding them *. And yet they have various Pleas which they make in their own "Vindication^ to which 1 fliall now fet myfelf to make a Return^ not waving even tliofe which they recommend as having thegreateft Strength. And^ I. 'Tis faid^ That more Notice would cer- tainly have been taken of the Holy Spirit in the Jpofiies Creed ^ if our Belief of his Divinity had really been necefiary. Now we there only fay 3 I helie've in the Holy Ghofi^ without any Notice who or what He is^ or the leait Signi- fication of his Di'vinlty ; which if it is not a convincing Argument that He is not God^ mult at lealt be ailovv'^d (its faid) a good Proofj that the Compilers of this Creed did not look upon it as neceliary for all Chrifli- ans to believe him to be God. In Return to this^ I fhall not (with fome) offer to pour Contempt on this Greedy which I take to be Venerable for its Simplicity and /\ntiquity_, and by no Means to be flighted. To '^ That this Text was urg'd to this Purpole by the Fathers, See' in Petnvii Theol. Dorrm. de Triji. Lib. IL Cap. XiV. §. 10. ' ■ 204 The Deity Serm. To me 'tis plain that CW^'/» hiinfclf thought yjT that the Sumni of divine Knowledge might be t^^-^, advantageoufly reduc'd to this Crud^ becaufe he made it the Model of his Injiltutiom. For my Part. I am far from believing it to have been ^rawn up by the Apoflles^ or fit to be e?- qualPd with the Sacred Scriptures in Point of Authority : And yet I think it fo agree- able to the mcft Angient Creeds we have ftill remaining^ that it deferves Refped. And as to this Article^ I believe In the Holy Ghofl^ as it Ifands in that Creed ^ I have tw^o Thing? to oiFer^ and they are thefe : That the he- lleuing In the Holy Ghoft^ is in itfelf ail one with believing in his Divinity j and that it has been fo explained by thofe that have written Comments upon it from one Age to another. I. I fay the hellevhtg In the Holy Gholl^ which IS the Exprellion in our Common Creed^ IS in itfelf ail one with believnig hi? Divinity. The Creed is evidently bottom'd on that Form^ in which our Lord order'd JBaptlfm to be adminiftred^ which has before been under our Confideration. When there- fore the Creed has firft given us fome Ac- count of the Father^ and cf the Son^ which are the two firlt Names in which we are haptlzJ'dy it proceeds to the Holy Ghofi^ whofe >Jame is mentioned in the Baptifmal Solemni- ty^ jointly with the other two. And by Conlequence_, our declaring that we hellet'e in him^ is an Intimation that we beheve his Equahty with the other Two^ in all Divine Perfedions. Nor can I perceive we have any Occafion to wonder that this Article ihould be exprefs'd in this Creed with lefs Particularity^ than the Articles relating to %h<: Father and the S077., if we do but confider that of the Holy Ghost. that tho' there were in the Primitive Church great Contefts concerning the Father and the Son^ yet was there no great Controverfy concerning the Di^m'ity of the Holy Ghojiy till Miuedonhis made Oppofition. Withal^ 2. This Article of the Creed has been thus explained by thcfe that have written Com- ments upon it from one Age to another. And therefore when Mr. Emlyn puts thi^ Qucry^ Pi^ill any reafonable Man fay that thU [1 believe in the Holy Ghojf\ u a clear Deda- ration cf hh being a diftinH Perfon^ and yet e- cjual to the One G o D the Father ? * He in Effed declares the Commentators on the Creed from the earlieft Ages^ to have been all of them deftitute of Reafon. Bldymus writing of the Holy Spirit^ concludes the £- quality of the Sacred Trmity^ from the one Faith in Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit. And Epl- phanitis againft the Vueumatomachifis ^ f who boafted of their adhering to the Mc^;?^ Creed ^ (which with Refped to the Holy Ghofi fays the very fame with that calPd the Apofiles Creed ) affirming that it did not alTert hiaf Divinity^ makes this Reply to them : That altho'' there was no great mention made of the Holy Ghofl:_, becaufe there was no Controverfy then about him y yet there was fuff dent fald of him to declare him to be God^ In that as we are dire6ied by the Creed^ not only fimply to believe the Fa- ther and the Son^ but in the Father_, and in the Son^ terminating our Faith upon them j fo al- fo we are obliged in like manner to believe In the Holy Ghoft. He that needs more than this amounts to^ to give him Satisfadion about this * Narrative^ pai^. 4.9. 1 ^^- EpT^an in H«r. 74. §. 14, p. 904: 20(5 The Deity this Matter^ may coniult Biiliop Tearfons Ex- pofition oi the O-ccd. The greateil Objedion I have met with in Antiquity^ againft the Divinity of the Holy Ghofi^ is St. Jeromes Ob- fervation vvith Reipcd: to Latlanthis his de-* nying that the Holy Gbofi is a diftind Perfon in the Godhead^ fubriiting together with the Father and the Son. But then to prevent our being fhock'd by it^ we may do well to re- member^ that the fame St. Jerome gives us to underilandj That this Author was more to be commendecl for the Fmenefs of his Language .f than his accurate Knowledge of the Chrlftlan Do- Hrlne, But then^ 2. It is farther pleaded^ That it feems evi- dent from what is ailerted by 5t. Luke^ that we by the Holy Ghofi are properly to under- Luke i. Itand the To7ver of God. For the Angel told 35. the Virgin Mary the Mother of our Bleffed Lordj ThrZt the Holy Ghoit fl^oifld come upon her^ and then by way of Explication adds^ That the Poiver cf the Highefi jhoidd overjliadow her. But I think we may eaiiiy enough get over this Dirficuky^ if it really deferves to be caird one. Eor I cannot fee why it fhould feem at all It range to us^ for the Angel up- on this Occafion to make ufe of two Expref- fions to fignify the Holy Spirit ^ and that the i'Z- Gond fliouid make fome Addition to the firit. The Holy Ghofi (fays hit.)JJja!l come upon thee. That intimates his Concern in our Sa'vioir/s Con- ception in the general. And then 'tis added, and the Fower of the Highfijlhdl overjhadow thee : Which fignilies fomewhat as to the Way and Manner in which the Holy Ghofi fhouid be concerned. 'Tis ^. d. the Power of that Spi- rit who is the Mofi Hlgh^ or the Power of the Higheft^ who is the Holy Ghofi ^ ihail over- fliadow thee. And either Way^ what is faid, inftcad of the Holy Ghost. 207 initead of militating againft the Divinity oFSfrm. the Holy Ghofi^ makes tor it. And we may be yjj^ confirmed in this Apprehenfion^ by obierv- v-/->^rN-^ ing^ that when our Sa-vlour tells his Apoftles^ that tarrying in the City of Jeru^ahm , they Luke fliculd he endud -ivith Tower from oithigh^ the xxiv. 49*^ Thing that was referred to^ was the coming down of the Holy Ghcfi upon them.. And accordingly^ when the Promife ad:aaily was tulhird y and He did defcend from Hea- ven ^ we are told^ That the Power of the Holy Ghofh did come pfpon them. So that the Holy Ghoft is in Reality^ fo far from being the mere Tower of God^ that the Power which He difjplay'd, and exercis'd in the Cafes and up- on the Occafions that are particularly refer- red to_, plainly proves him in truth the Mojl IlJgh God. Lut farther^ 3. It has been and is objecled^ That we read of Ibme that were Difciples^ that is^ v/ere con- Verted to Chr'iftianltyy and accordingly baftizJd^ . that yet dcclar'd^ they had mt fo much as heard ^^'^ xi. there 7i'as an Holy Ghofi. And if foj how could ^' they believe in him ? For how could they be- Rom. %] lle^je in h'rm of whom they had not heard ? And 14* if they were incapable of believing in him^ becaufc of their not having heard of him^ and yet were Chriilians ; how can the Belief of his Dhj'mity be fo necciTary a Part of Chrifiia7iity^ as has been reprefented ? I reply : That that Text in the Original^ Hands thus ; We do not fo much as know whether theltioXy Ghoft is : I. e. We do not know vv^h ether the Holy Ghofi is given or fent. And this is not an arbitrary Senle^ or without Foundation. It is but borrow'd from another Scripture Paflage^ where 'tis faid^ that the Holy Ghofi John vl!; was not yet y hecaufe that Jcfrts was not yet glc- 39. rif/d. Our Tranilators have indeed added the Word 2o8 The Deity - Vs^orAgl'ven to fill up the Senfe 5* and becaufe it was of their adding^ it is put in another Charader. But it was not added without good Reafon. For nothing elfe could be meant by fuch an Expreffion^ but that the Holy Ghoft^ (who as well as the Son was in Being from the Beginning) was not yet come down from Above^ in the Manner that was intended. So that the coming down of the Holy Ghoft^ depended upon the Glorification of ^hrtst : And He himfelf plainly declared as much, John XVI. faying^ ^f ^ S^ ^^^ avjay^ the Comforter 3^7// ^* not come U7ito you : But if I depart ^ I will [efid him untoyou.V^^h^n then thefe Dilcipies of Jchn Bap- tlfiy declar'd that they did not fo much as know whether the Holy Ghoit was^ they could only mean^ that they did not know whether He was fent down from Above. For that there was an Holy Ghofi^ they could not but know ; St. John having himfeif fpoken of hinl to his Difciples, promifing them that He Matth lii ^^^^^ ^^ given them by the MeJJiahj who jj^ * ' "WdiS to hapiz>e them 7vlrh the }iio\y Gho^. They could not but know that an Holy Ghofi there was, fince it was exprefsly declar'd to 'em that they fhould be hptiz^'d with him. The only Thing about which it can with any Sha- dow of Reafon be fappcs^d they could re- main in Ignorance^ v/as^ whether or no this Promife was yet accomplifh'd, by the adual coming down of the Holy Ghofi ^ whom they had good Reafon to exped. And this was very confident with their Satisfaction^ as to his real Being, and his Dl'vinhy^ and his Di- Itinction from the F^^thcr and the S072, 'Tis farther objected, 4. That when the Scripture fpeaks of the Holy Sprit as a Perlon^ 'tis a mere Profo- fop'jsia j *a figurative fort of Expreflion^ which is of the Holy Ghost, 209 is no Argument of a real Being. This is the grand Objection of Volkelius the Soclnlan. And it miifl be own'd we have a confiderable Number of fuch Profipop'eias in Scripture that may be eafily taken Notice of. Thus we are told^ That iVifdom hath built her Houfe : jlie hath Prov. x'scl hewn out her Seuefi Pillars. She hath kiTdher Beafis^ i, 2,, 3* ^je hath mingled her JVine : She hath alfo furnijhed her Table ;P)e hath fent forth her Maidens :She crleth upon the Hi^h Places of the City ^ &C. We have alfo a Hke pompous Defcription given us of Chari- ty^ which we are told^ jtijfereth long a?td is kind ^ iCor.xIil; envieth not^ uaunteth not 'tfelf^ js 7tot pujfed tip^ &c. ^^ (^c. But every Man of common Senfe is aware at the fir ft Readings that fuch Reprefentations as thefe are not proper, but figurative. Of- ten alfo elfe where have Things inanimate perfonal Adions afcrib'd to them ; as when the Heavens are faid to decUrc the Glory of G-d; and the like. But as for the Defcription which the Scripture gives us of the Holy Ghofi as of a Perfon^ we ought to look upon it as a ftrid and proper one^ uniefs there were fome evident Necellity that required our un- derftanding of it otherwife. Now that can- not be pretended. Nay^ a Figure is as much excluded when He is fpoken of in the Nev^ Teftament Writings^ as could well be fuppos'd^ if it had been defign'd. When our BlelFed S"^- 'viour gave his Difciples a Promife of lending his Holy Spirit down from Heaven_, his Dii- courfe has nothing figurative in it. And when the Book of the A^s tells us how and in what manner He defcended^ it prefents us with as plain and naked an Hifiorical Account of a Matter of Fad:^ as could well be given. When our Lord fpeaks of the Holy Spirit^ Fie gives him a Name taken from his Office^ and calls him the Comforter, And to diftinguifti ■ — ■ p him 2 1 o The Deity him from himfelf^ with whom it was not im- poflible but fome might be in Danger of confounding him^he calls him another Comforter. John'xiv. And when he rays_, the Comforter ^ which ts the 1 6. Holy Ghoit^ whom the Father will fend In my Ver. 26. JSJ'amej he jhall teach you all Things^ and brhig all Tohnxv. T^hings to your Keine7nbrance: And when the Com- 26. furter is come^ whom I ivill fend unto you from the Father^ euen the Spirit of Truth which proccedeth from the Father^ he fiall tefiify of me: J/7.XVI. 3, jVnd when He fays al{b_, When he ts come^ He '3» willireprove the World of Sin ^ and of Right eoufnefs^ and of Jiidgmeyit : And 7i\ben Hcy the Spirit of Truth^ IS come^ he will gmde you into all the Truth^ for He jhall not ffeak of hlmfelfy but whatfoe^ver He Jhall hcar^ that jloall He /peak ; and He fliall fhe7i^ you Th'mgs to come : Theie and many other like Expreflions are fo itrong^ and carry fo much of plain Perfonaiity in them^ as not to leave the leaf!: room for a rational Sufpi- cion of any Thing like a Frofopop^eia. At lealt no Inftances that are at all like them can be produced. B E s I D E Sj, Father^ Son^ and Spirit , are of- ten in fuch a Manner mention'd together^ fo added one to another^ and fo compared with each other;, in the New Tefiament^ as not to leave the le'alt Room to fuppofe there fhould be a Figure ufed with Reference to the Spirit^ any more than with Reference to the Father^ or the Son. Thus when all are order'd to be baptlzj'd in the Name oitht Father ^ the 5oz?^ and the Holy Ghoft ; and when we are told^ That there are Dl'verjities of Gifts ^ but the fame Spirit^ a?id Differences of Adminifi:rations^ but the famel^OKVty and Di^/erfiiies of Operations ^ but the fame God : And when the feven Churches of Afia are faluted_, from him which isy and which ivas^ and ivhlch is to come^ ajU from the Se'ven 1 Cor. xii. 4. Rev. i. A, 5. of the Holy Ghost. 211 Spirits before Jjis TLrorje^ a7id from Jefus Chrifi Qerm ' the faithful JVitnefs ; I cannot fee that we xrrj have a jot more Reafon to reckon there JIJ^ iliould be a Vrcfopop-i-la with Reference to ^^'^^^ the Sfirit, than eitlier with Referejice to the Sovy or even the Father himfelt. If we once let locfe to fiich fort of Fancies ^ I know not where we fliall end. But far- ther^ 5-. We are told that there is no Text of Scripture can be mention'd^ wherein the word God denotes the Perfon of the Holy Ghofi. This is what Crellius f laid no frnall llrefs upon. And Dr. Clarke in this^ as well as in a great many other Things^ has done the fame after him : For he tells us^ That in no Text does the Tvord G O d_, e%fer fig- nify the Holy Ghoft *. Crellius fays^ That. i?t none of the places ufually cited ^ in proof of the Di'uin'ity of the Spirit^, is it either openly writ- ten or plainly declard^ that the Holy Spirit is God. 'Tis only concluded by fome Confeauence. And as for that Confequence 'by which it is con- cluded that the Holy Spirit is called Jehouaby It muf be drawn from feueral places. So that not one in a Thoufand of the common Fcople^ un- lefs put upon it by another ^ would compare the places together^ efpecially i7t fuch a mamier as to draw from thence fuch a ConclufiGn. But^ fays he^ tho^ we refufe not lawful Conftquences ^ yet is it recpuifite that fome places jlmild be produced out of the Sacred Textj in which it is plaijUy ivritten that the Holy Spirit is God, becaufe it cannot be, if he was the mofl High Gody but that it jljould be written pla'mly and often^ P 2 and t De Vno Vero Deo. Lib. i. §. 3. C(tp. r. * Reply to Mr. NW/o;?, g'/«^ r&e Holy Ghoj} is faid to be a ly'wg to God; and when fonie other Expreffions are us'd con- cerning Him as have been cited in the Dif- courfe foregoing. And this may be fuffi- cient in Anfwer to this fifth Objedion. But thenj 6. I T is alfo obje6ledj that our arguing from the Application of thofe Things to the Sprit in one Place of Scripture_, wiiich are afcrib'd to God or Jehovah in another_, is fallacious ; becaufe in the fame way^ we migh^ alfo prove that the Holy Sfirlt is the Father or the Son^ and that the Son is the Father, And this alfo is the Objedion of Cnllms^ or rar- ther a farther Inforcement of the Objedion foregoing. But this runs upon a plain Miftake. For the Arguments we draw from the places of Scripture that are referred to^ don't ftand barely upon this Bottom^ that thofe Things which in one Place are afcrib'd to G o d or Jr.HOVAH^ are either there or elfewhere a- fcrib'd to the Holy Ghofi : But thus Hands the Cafe. Obferving that thofe Things^ which God is declar'd either to have done or faid^ im- mediately^ and without the Help of any Crea- ture^ in one Place^ are either there or elfe- where declared to be done or faid by the Holy Ghofi 5* we from thence conclude (as we think we have good Reafon) that the Holy Ghofi is not a Creature^ nor any Thing different from God himfelf. It mufi: mdeed be own'd that there are fome^ that acknowledge the Holy Ghofi^ is not a Creature_, who yet deny that He is God the Creator ; fuppofing there to be fome middle Thing between the Creator anci of the Holy Ghost, and the Creature. But I mull own I can find no fuch middle Thing in my Bible. As far as I can underftand that Sacred Book^ the Creator and the Creature are diredly op- posed, and what is not the one^ muft be the other. But to pretend that we may as well conclude that the Holy Ghofi is the Father or the Sony or that the Son is the Father ^ as to argue the Dknmty of each from a con- cern in the fame divine Work_, is perfedly ridiculous. There are three Grand Works that are particularly celebrated in the Sacred Scrip- tures : and they are Creation ^ Redemption^ and Sa?icllfication. The Sacred bcriptures inform us_, that the Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit are concern'd in each : And the Dh/mity of every one of them feverally^ may be conclu- ded from his concern in each of thefe Works : And yet it by no means follows that the one is the other^ becaufe all are but One God. But of this^ more hereafter. Farther 7. It is objeded alfo^ that the Holy Spi- rit cannot be Gcd^ becaufe he is obtain'd for us of God by our Trayers. But tho' the Holy Spirit is God^ yet he is but One God with the Father and the Son^ and there- fore is to be woriliip'd joyntly with them^ in the Unity of the Godhead. When we pray for the Holy Spirit in his Gifts^ Graces and Comforts^ and obtain a merciful Anfwer^ as we pray to Father ^ Son^ and Spirit ^ fo we become the Temples of Father ^ Son^ and Spi- rit: And how this can any more be in- confident with the Divinity of the Holy Ghofi^ than with the Di-vinlty either of the Father or the Son^ I can't imagine. Our obtain- ing Grace from the Holy Spirit upon our humble and ferious Seeking^ is fo far from ' " / being 2 1 8 The Deity Serm. being an Argument againft the Dlvlnltj of Yjj the Holy Sprite that it is rather a confirm- v,^.^^^ ing Proof of it. 'Tis true our Lord tells Luke xi. ^^^ Difciples^ that their Hea'venly Father would 13. gi've the Holy Spirit to them that ask him ; Where by the Holy Spirit we are to under- stand his Help and Influence^ as far as it is neceffary to our Salvation. And the Fa- ther's giving this^ means no more_, than that that God who under the Difpenfati- on of the Gofpel has manifefted himfelf to be Father^ Son^ and Spirit^ and order'd that we fhould accordingly be devoted to him as fuchj would be ready gracioufly to ans- wer our fervent Prayers on this behalf. And I cannot fee^ why this fhould be any difficulty in our Way. And then^ 8. It is alfo objeded^ that the Holy Spirit is never once joyn'd with Father and So7?y in the Apofiolkal Salutatlo7is<\i2it we meet with in the Writings of the New Tefta- ment. This is an Argument on which Mr. Emlyn feems to lay a Con fider able flrefs^ and upon occafion of it he freely infults,, tho' he's as little able to bear any thing of that Nature from others as moit Men. The common Jpfiollcal Salutation runs thus,* Grace be to you^ and Teace from God our Fa- ther ^ a7d the Lord Jefus Chrlfi. Now fays that Writer^ either the Holy Spirit Is whol- ly left out fro?n among the Ferfons TJJorjJjipped by Chrifilans^ or the word Father muft be taken for the whole Deity. If God the Father 770tes the frft Verfon of the Trinity ^ and Jefus Chrlft the Lord the fecond Perfon^ then the Sph'i^ is not 171- eluded in the ObjeB of Divine Worjljip at all, yind what fiall be fald to this ? Is this to make the Holy Spirit equal to the other two ? What^ to pray dlfinclly to two Ferfons In particular all alcf?^ . o/ ^/:)^ Holy Ghost. 219 ahngy and. ne^ver once to the third ! IVhat is thJs but flahly to teach all the Churches^ that there was no third Ftrfcn of ecjii.il Ilonom' j fiice he wotdd nqj: ha've been fo constantly negle^ed by the Apoftles in their Vttblick liarjhlp ? And then he adds _, That // It is [aid that the term Father is put for the Deity, including the Three Terfonsy it is z^ery odd^ and looks like a jlnft for a defperate Caufe^ &c. '*■ And in return to this^ I have feveral things to offer. As^ I. That I don't think this Writer has in the prefent Cafe ftated Fad fairly. For I don't think it true^ that the Holy Spirit is ne- ver once joyn'd with the Father and Son^ in the Jpofiolical Salutation, I take it to have been otherwife^ in St. Johns Salutation of the Seven Churches oiAfia^ when he was writing to them. Fie begins thus : Grace be tmto you^ Rgy^ \^ r and Feace^ from him which is^ and which was^ and which is to come j and from the Se^uen Spirits which are before his Throne. Where Seven Spirits- are mentioned before the Trjrone ; the Number anfwering that of the Churches that were ad- drefs'd- to : But it is the Holy Spirit ^ from whom all the Gifts and Graces that were then in the Church proceeded^ that \s plain- ly meant. I am not infenfible indeed that iome have queltion'd whether or no the Holy Ghofi was referr'd to^ by the Se'ven Spirits be- fore the Tlorone. And Mr. Emlyn in particular faySj t That Mr. Jof. Mede has clearly proved the Seven Spirits to be Seven Angels : And he addsj That Mr. Baxter and others cannot deny or difown it. But I fliall here referr him to his Friend Dr. Whitby f^, who will give t Emlyn s Trads. p. 72. * Ihld. Pag. 55. 'Z De Dekate Chrifti, p, i3. 220 The Deity give him to underftand^ that all the Anci- ents underftand the Spirit of God by the Seven Spirits : So that I fhould have thought the great Poilcivenefs of the Author referr'd tOj who alTerts^ That the Holy Spirit is never once joyn'd with Father and Son in Worftiipj, might very v/ell have been forborn. 1. Suppose the Holy Ghofi never was fo much as once joyn'd with Father and Son in the Salutations with which the Epiftles com-r monly begin • He may yet be fo brought in in other (Jafes^ as to be fufhciently evidenc'd to be One G o d with Father and Son^ and the fame Objecl of Faith and Worihip. Thus it is not only throu^Jo the Son^ but hy the Ephef. il. Spirit^ that we are laid to have Jccefs to the 18. Father: And the Apoftie befeeches the Bre- Rom. XV. thren^ not only for the Lord Jefus ChriftV 30- Sakey but alfo for the La-ve of the Spirit^ that they would friz;e together 7i>lth him In their Fray- ers to God. And this very well deferves Obfervation. But farther_, 3. Suppose the Holy Ghofi never was joyn'd with Father and Son^ in a Salutation at the Be- irinning of any of the Epiftles^ if yet He is found joyn'd with them in a Benedic'Hon at the Clofe of an Apcltolical EpiltlCj and that in fuch a Manner as to leave no Room for the leaft H^iitation who it was tliat was meant j, I cannot fee any great Ground for that Author's Boafting. Now this actually was the Cafe. For St. ?aul ]\i^ in the Clofe of an a Cor. Epiftle of his to the Corinthians^ fays^ 7he xiii. 14. Grace of the Lord Jefus Chriit^ a'ad the Loue of God_, and the Commu?ilon of the Holy Ghoft^ he with you all. Amen. One fuch Pallage as that^ tho' in the Clofe of an Epiftle^ makes iiis Suggellion as if the Holy Ghofi v/ere con- Itantly negUchd by the Apofiks In their puhlick of the Holy Ghost. 221 IVorjljipy asgroundlefs as if it had been plac'd in the Beginning of it. Nay^ 4. Suppose the Holj Ghoft was not exprefs- ly mentioned by the Apoftles^ either at the Beginning or End of their Epiftles^ it yet does not follow^ that He was conflantly neg- lethd by them hi their pihl'ick fVorJhlp^ if we have any plain Inftance of their ofFerino; IForfjIp to Him. Now^ I think^ my laft Dif- courfe produced an Inltance^ wherein the Apoftles and their firft Followers^ did lift up their Voice to Q ou n-ith one Accord^ a?2d faidj Lord^ Thou art God^ ivhich hafi made Heaven Ads iv,' (ind Earthy and the Sea^ ajid all that In them is : 24, 25. yrho by the Month of Thy Servaiit David hafi faid^ Why did the Heathen ragCy and the People imagine vain Things ? In which Cafe 'tis plain they luorjljipp^d him as Lord and G o d^ who fpake the Words referred to by the Mouth of D^- vid : And it is as plain^ that He that did fo was the Holy Ghofi. I add fartlier^ 5". Suppose it fliould be own d furprizing to uSj That the Holy Ghofi fhould not be more - frequently mentioned by the Apoftles joynt- ly with the Father and Son^ both in their 5^- lutations and BenedlEtions too_, I cannot fee why we fhould fcruple to own^ that there are a great many Things befides this ^ in the Writings of the ISlew Tfiament^ that it is not eafy for us to account for. And is it aa allowable Thing for us prefently to grow pofitive as to our own Senfe of Matters^ and exclaim and infult^ if we meet with fbmewhat that is out of our Reach I How can this be either wife^ or fafe? And then^ 6. I muft own^ That I cannot for my Life fee that it is fo odd or very abfurd^ as that Author reprefents it^ to fuppofe in fuch Ape- fiolical Salutations as he referrs to^ that the Term 222 The De I t y Serm. Term Father fliould be put for the whole VIL '^^''J^ including all the Three Perfons. ^^^,^-y-^ Many as Worthy Men as any the Church of God has been blefs'd with^ either in ancient '"or modern Times^ have been of Opinion_, that the Son and Spirit are often in Scrip- ture comprehended under the Father. And methinks it looks a little too alTuming^ for one fo much the Inferior of many of thofe Excellent Perfons who have been of that Mindj to reprefent this as a Shift for a de- fperate Caitfe, He might have been a little more modeft. But if it is a Shifty I dare ven- ture to fay^ 'tis not fo poor an one by far^ as that Author himfelf was put to^ when to prove that our Lord Jesus Christ was not a proper Objed of dired Worihipj John XVI. i^g (.j^^g l^jg faying to his Difciples^ in that Day ^^' yejljall ask we nothings and explains his telling them^ that at the Time referr'd to^ they ihould ask him no more Queftions^ as a forbidding them to offer up their Requefts and Supplications to him^ \n order to the having their Wants fupply'd. Nor \^ the Caiife (whatever his Apprehenfions may be concerning it) fo dejpcratc^ but that it may be defended. He reprefents it indeed as a 2. John 3. ridiculous Things for the Father oi^hen difin- guijh'd from the Son of a Father^ to he put for the Father and the Son : And yet he would be hard put to it to give a good Reafon^ Why God tht Father might not be diftinguifli'd from his Son^ whom in his humane Nature he had fo dignify'd and exalted^ when at the fame Time the fame Father included the • whole Divine Nature as the Fountain of Bleffing. But it is farther objecSliedj If the Spirit of G o D be that to the Bleffed G 0 d^ that the • Sfirit of the Holy Ghost. ISt^lrlt of a Man which is in him^ is to Ma'n^ then the Spirit of God mult be the fame Per- fon with the Father ^ as the Sprit of a Man is the fame Perfon with the Man. If the Spirit of a Alan be the fa?ne Verfon with himlelf, then the Spirit of G o D muit be th.^ fame Verfon with himfelf. And as the Spirit of a Man is not an Objed to be apply'd to^ diftind from the Perfon of the Man himfelf^ fo neither is the Spirit cfGod an Objed: to be apply'd to^ diftinct from the Perfon of God himfelf. ^ I anfwer ; that -the Comparifon betweerr the Spirit of God, as being that to the Blcffed G o Dj that the Spirit of a Man which is in him^ is to Man^ coming from God himfelf^ mull needs be juit and right as far as it goes : But it does not there- fore follow that there is Room or Ground for a Comparifon in all particulars. It does not follow from the Comparifon in the Text between the Spirit of GoJ^ and the Spirit of Man which is. in him-^ that the Spi- rit of God miift he the fame Verfon 'With the Fa- ther ^ as the Spirit of Man is the fame Ver- fon ivith the Man ; For this would make Gody like Man^ to be a compound Be- ing 3 which we know he is not. Be- sides 3 the Spirit of a Man is not proper- ly the fame Verfon with himfelf: He is but Part of the fame Perfon^ tho' the Princi- pal Part. But in the Blelfed God^ there are no Parts ^ either more or lefs Princi- pal. The Spirit of God cannot be faid to be a Part or God : Nor can it be faid he is the fame Verfon with himfelf. 'Tis enough if he is the fame Godj with him whole Spirit he is. And therefore^ tho' the Spi- rit p — * Modeft Plea;/. 54, 55. The Deity rit of a Man is not an ObjeB to be apply' J tOy d/fimB from the Ferfon of the Alan himjelfirom whom he is not diftind:^ yet the Spirit of God may he an ObjeB to be apply^d tOy di- fitnB from the Ferfon of the Father ^ (as it fhould have been expreflcd^ rather than the Ferfon of God himfelf) becaufe he is diftind from the Perfon of the Father^ tho' flill Oz/e and the fame God. This I think may be fufficient in Proof of the Dl'vinity of tiie Holy Ghof, And now let any Man judge^ whether it does not argue a ftrange Alfurance in Mr. Woifton to fay_, the Moderns here are driven Into the greateft ftraits pofible^ and are abfolutely forcd to ajjert the Dluinlty of^ and pay Invocation to the Holy Ghof^ on the foot of jome Foor remote Humane Reafonings y without the leaf dlreBy Sa- cred or Original Authority for fo doing, *y f But let us not think it enough to be confirm'd and eitablifh'd as to the Divini- ty of the Holy Ghofty tho' that is a point of no fmall Importance : It concerns us to improve this Principle of our Holy Faith. Let us remember and ferioufly confider^ that it is upon this Bleffed Spirit to whom we have been devoted^ that we all depend. Let us readily give him the Glory of his Deity^ * The Council of Nice Vindicated, pag. 24. t I cannot help taking notice of the Magifterlal Air which Mr. V0nftQn puts on, when he is fpeaking of paying Invocation to the Holy Ghoft. I cannot, fays he, hut cxpeR that the Learned imynediately yield up this plain and clear pointy and leave off all Invocation to the Holy Ghoft J and to the whole Trinity. Reply to the Con- fideratlons on his Hift. Preface, and the Premonition, pag. 73. Methlnks a B^man Dictator could hardly have exprefs'd hlmfelf with more Poiitivenefs, upon any thing that belonged to his proper Province. v^"W of the Holy Ghost. 225 De'iiy. Let us not fo much as dellre He Sfrm. fhould be fhut out of the Doxologies of wor- yjV fhipping Chriitians^ when he from the firit has been joyn'd with the Fat/jer and the Son in. Baptlfm^ and was alfo joyn'd with them by St. Paul in his folcmn BejiedVcllon. Why ffiould any of us any more Scruple givnig glory to the Holy Gbofi at the End of our Prayers^ than did St. Polycarp of Smyrna^ (one of the moft glorious Martyrs of the Primitive Church) who when he was ty'd to the Stake^ and juit going to afcend in the Flames to Heaven^ to take his Lot and Portion there with the Spirits of the Jult made perfect^ concluded his Prayer with thefe Words : I glorify Thee through the Eternal High Priefiy Thy belo'ved Son Jefus Chrift ^ -with whom to Thyfelf and the Holy Ghoft^ be Glory both now and for ez;er. Amen. *. St. Bafil by but varying in this Refped^ gave great Of- fence : And tho' he was a Man of an high Spirit enoughj he thought it not below hnii to give the Offended Satisfadion^ by as am- ple Declarations upon that Head^ as any in all Antiquity. And that he might give"* the higheft AlTurance to his Friend Gregory of Nazlanzum, that he had not upon this Head deferted the Common Faith^ he ufed a fo- lemn Lnprecation^ and wifli'd^ That he might be for ever deferted by the Holy Spirit^ if he did not adore him as Coeffential with the Father and the Son^ in Glory ecjual^ in Maje- Ity coeternal. Let us ailb be as truly con- cerned for his Honour^ as for the Honour either Q of * This concluding Claufe of St. Polycarp" s Prayer, is thus tranflated by Dr. Cave, and the Learned Reader may fee this Doxology of his explain d and defended, BuHl Def Fid. Nic, Seel. 2. /'. 55, &:c. 226 The Deity, &€. oi Father or Son -^ and let us ihew it by our" Carriage. Let us rejoyce that we are con- fign'd to his Care^and are aPart of his Charge. Let us repair to him for Light^ taking Plea- fure in the Tnought of his knaving^ as this Text intimates^ the Things of G o d^ together with his being both able and ready to dif- ' cover them to us^ as far as is needful. And let us improve the Light which He is pleased to afford us to our utmoll_, and walk fuit- ably. T o Him alfo let us repair for Turlficatlcn ; T Theff. remembring^ That if we are chofin to Sm-vatio?!^ iv. 3. it is through SanBification of the Spirit. Let US I Cor. iil. confider the Apoitle's Sayings That the Temple 16. of QoT> IS holy ; which Temple we ars^ if the Spi- rit ^/GoD dwellln m. Let us endeavour that He may have m us an eafy and a quiet Dwel- ling.. Let us. chearfully apply to him for a Supply of all our Wants j and particularly for Strength againft our Corruptions^ for Com- fort under our Troubles and Prelfures^ and for Guidance and Affiftance in all Religious Pra(Slifes_, and in and through the whole of our Spiritual Warfare. Let our Lulls be ever fo Itrong, our Temptations ever fo great^ or our Enemies ever fo mighty^ yet let us not be difheartn'dj having this AU-wife and Al- mighty Friend to advife and help us^ whofe Grace is fufficient for us. Let us keep our- lelves open to his blelfed Influences^ and rea- dily^ thankfully^ and chearfully follow his Condud^ and we niay depend upon it^ it will be very much to our Advantage : For we fhall find He will lead us on in the Way of Truth and Holinefs^ and in the Way of Peace and Comfort too ,• till He has fitted us for^ and brought us fafe to^ the Regions of Lights and Blifs^ and Perfedion^ in the Upper World. S E R M. 227 ^ .^ #. .*. e. .% '% .t. .t' .f. e- ^' 'f • .,%■ 't' .% 't' c*. .1. ^ ^ SERMON VIII. I Cor. VIII. 4. We know that there is none other Goo hut One. ^ AVING dlftincaiy handled the Dehy s^Irers: IMm of the i'^^rZ/eTj Son and Holy Ghofiy and hall, T//?/- endeavour'd to clear the Dizunlty of the d^y ' Lec- Two latter^ from the Cavils of fuch as either mre ; deny or obfcure it^ I am now to confider '^^'^' ^i' thele Three as One God. For tho' Fat/jer^ ^7iv.. Son^ and Holy Gbofi^ be each of them G o d^ yet^ ftiil we may iafely ftand to it^ feeing i];it Scriptures have herein plainly gone before ns 3 That there is but 07te only Q^d ; and there is a true Unity in the Godhead , tho' that is of fuch a Nature as to be confident with a Trinity. There neither is- nor can be any more than One G o d^ cnc D'fvlne Na^ttre : But in that one Dlvme Nature there are Three that are dlfi'mguljh'd from each other^ and that fo equally partake of the One only DMne Na- ture with all its effential Properties^ that Q z there 228 The Unity there is not more of Deity, or of what ne- ceiTarily belongs to \t, in the One than in. the Other ^ it being wholly in each of Them^ without any Difpanty or Inequality. As hard a Saying as this is reprefented by fome^ it is very Scriptural_, and therefore very fit to be ufedj by fuch as take their Notions and Meafures in Things Divine from our facred Oracles ^. And here my Work will be^ I. To fet before you the Unity of the Godhead. II. To fhew you the Confiflency of this Unity with luch a Difil?jdlon between Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghofi, as is taken no- tice of in the Sacred Scriptures ; and to defend this againft thofe who are con- tinually crying out_, Hojp can thefe Thi\ ings I. I begin with the Unity of the Godhead, as to which St. Tatd is exceeding plain in this Text_, faying^ We kno-w, that there ts none other God hut One He f peaks of it in fuch a manner as difcovers , that this was a Thing about which he had not the leaft He- fitation. How many other Things foever^ fays he^ we may be ignorant of, this 7ve know itioft airuredly_, that there is none other God but One, We are at as great a Certainty as to this^ as we are that an Idol is nothing in the World. * Trinitns hxc, unus Deus ex quo omniay -per quern emniay in quo omnia. Ita Pnter (^ FiliuSy (S Spritus SnnHuSj (^ fmgulus quifque horum Deus, ^ fimul omnes unus Deus : Et fingulus quifque horum pletia fubftantia, & Jjmul omnes una fubjimtia, Auguftiiius de DodtrinI Chi'iftiana, Lib. i. ' ' " ^ of the Godhead. WorU, As for an Idol that is fet up as the Obje(5l of VVorfliipj, tho' the Matter of it is fenlible^ and fometimes may be of Value^ yet it is a mere infignificant^, and empty No- thing. It is Nothmgy either of itfelf or from any other. It has no Deity of its own^ nor any that is borrow'd. As to the Deity afcrib'd to it^ 'tis a mere Fancy and groundlcfs Ima- gination ,- and fo may be faid to be Nothing in the World. And this 'ivc know as certainly as we know any Thing at all. And in like Manner^ and with like Certainty^ we either do or may know^ that there is abfblutely jjone other God but One. He whom we humbly adore^ is the Onely God^ in Oppofition to Gods many^ and Lords many., whether fupreme or inferior. Whatever Drtficulty fome other Things which our Thoughts are fometimes exercis'd about^ may have in them^ and what- ever Obfcurity they may be involv'd in^ in this we are very clear^ That there neither ts nor can he any more than 07ie GoD: And he that is ignorant of this^ is a Stranger to firft Principles^ and has not the Knewlcdge of a Chriitian : And therefore vv^e need not be furpriz'd to find him blunder moft vvGfully_, in his Notions of God^ and Carriage to Him. I T may I think be worth our while a little to confider^ the Thing which the A- poftle here declares he knew fo certainly, and the Knowledge he had of it. I. The Thing which St. Vaul here declares he knew moil certainly^ is this. That there ts none other God but One. There are indeed (as is immediately added) Gods many^ and Lords many. There are many in Tide, and many \r\ Opinion : But there is onely One m Truth and kcahty. There is but Om Godhead-^ and (Q J therefore The Unity therefore there neither is nor can be more than Gne God. Be it as it wiii wich Kefped: to others^ to us ChiiRians^ there really is hut One G o d. Our God has an Uriliy that may be faid to be pecuhar to.himfelf. He not only adually is ^m^ and the Orly G o Dj but He IS fo Om as that 'tis not pcflibie there Ihouid be any other belides hii;: Every Be- ing that isj in a Senfe is One : For nothing truly IS J but what is undivided in itfelf, and divided from every Thing Cife. But there is no Unhj^ that fo abfoluteiy exclud- s ail Mul- tiplicity^ all Compcfitionj ail Rivaiiliip^ as that of the Dchj. Every Man is One • but he is but One of a vait Multitude^ who while they have the very fame Nature with nim^have intirely feparate Exiftence^ and differ from him in their Defigns and Actions^ Inclina- tions and Motions. There is but one vifible Sun ; but then there is nothing in the Na- ture of the Sun^ that intimates it carries in it any thing of an Abfurdity or Contradidi- on^ to fuppofe there might have been more. For He that made that one Sun^ if He had pleas'dj and it would have ferv'd his Pur- pofesj might have produc'd feveral others. Several Parts may make one Whole. Many Men may make one People or Nation ; many Men 0ns Army, a^d many Believers One Church. But as fo the Blefled God^ He neither is made up of Parts^ nor is He One of a Multitude^ nor is He in any Capacity of being multiply'd. When we hear of a Son of GoDj and a Spirit proceeding from Fa- ther and Son^ this is no Multiplication or Increafe in the Deitj. There is If ill but One De'ity^ Ofie Divine Nature^ that belongs to Each^ and is common to All. If you fo much as offer to multiply God in your Thoughts^ of theGov>mik^. 231 V^VNJ Thoughts^ you put the greateft Dilhonour Seum, upon him that can be imagin'd : You in Ef- VIII. led deltroy him. There is no Unity like his to be any where met with. Let him ceafe to be OnCy and He would ceafe to be God. Such is the Tranfcendency of the Divine Nature_,that there is no Room for any Multiplication^, or Competition. If we want a farther Knoviledge of this Unity y I confefs I know not what Me- thod we mull take to reach it. God only per- fectly knows his own Unity j He only knows po- fitively what it is. Our Notion of it is moilly Negative^ in Oppofitlon to Divillon^ claih- ing, or any Thing of that Nature between the Three. That which we know is_, that as there is but Owe Father^ One Son^ and One Spirit^ fo there is but One G o d ^- but how He is O-ae^ others may inquire that have more Leifure^ if they are fo difpos'd : For I for my Part^ think we may very fafely conclude^ that it our knowing more had been necelfary or requifite^ more would have been reveafd to us. But this St. Vaul here de- clares he knew moll certainly. And then, 2. As to the Apollles Knowledge of this, 'twas clear and fatisfadory, and he had no remaining Doubt concerning it. Nor was this a Knowledge that he attain'd with Diffi- culty^ or that w^as peculiar to himfelf. He did not firll acquire it by being caught up into the Third Heaven^ where he made fuch noble Difcoveries^ and met with fuch improv- ing and entertaining Sights. But this was a Knowledge that he had all along_, and that was common to him with other Chriltians. He does not therefore fay^ / know^ but^ IVe knov) that there is none other God but one. For this was what the whole Body of believing Chri- ltians kn(L'w as well as he. He and they too Q^ 4 knew 232 The Unity Serm. knew \t hoxh from Scripture and Reafon. He VIII. ^'^^'^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ Revelation under the Old s^^r\^ Tejiament^ as well as by Means cf the Difco- veries that were made him from Above^ by immediate Infph'ation: And others km-w \t too^ as well as he. The Apoftle here fpeaking of Things of- fered to IdolSj that he might fuit the Cafe he had at prefent under his Confideration, points in the firlt Verfe of the Chapter to fome that boafted cf their Knowledge^ and were pufF'd up with it. They went by the Name of Gnofiicks^ and pretended in feveral Things to know mere than Taul himfelf. But fays he_, We know that ive all ha^rje Knowledge, We have Knojvledge as well as they, who pretending to know more than others, do but betray their Ignorance. And if we know any Thing at all, we cannot but know this, that as Idols are nothing but the Fidions of Men that are deceived, fo there is no God but One : And whoever have multiply'd Dei- ties, To us Chriitians, there is none other God hut One, There cannot be more. This then we fhculd fix on as a Com- mon Principle, That there is none other God but One. And in difcourfing upon it, I propofe, 1. T o give fufficient Proof of the Truth of this Principle. 2. To clear it from the perverfe GlofTes of thofe that have mifreprefented it. And, 3. To fhew its Improveablenefs to feveral good and ufeful Purpofes. T. Let us confider the Proof we have of the Truth of this Principle, there ts none other God but One. And this admits both of i^^- tional and Scriptural Proof. And, I. As to the Rational Proof of this Prin- ciple^ that is far from being contemptible. of the Godhead. We may argue in this Cafe, from the ne- celTary Exiltence of the Deity. God would not have been an infinitely perfed Beings if he either were not necelfarily^ or were not necelTarily what he is. Now let us but offer to fuppofe there are more Gods than One^ and there will be no PoUibility of giving any Evidence^ as to each of them that they are necelTarily ^ nor can any good Reafoa be given^ why we fhould believe there are Two, or Three, or Five, rather than Ten^ or Twenty, or even Five Flundred Gods. Be- fides 5* if there were feveral Gods^ either they mult have the fame Excellencies, or ditFe- rent Excellencies, by which they fhould be difcriminated from each other. If their Excellencies were exa(5i:ly the fame, they all join"d together, could do no more than one alone : And why then fhould there be a Number ? And to fuppofe different Excel- lencies in the Divine Nature, isabfurd^ be- caufe that is what it is neceffarily : And what necelTarily is what it is, leaves no room for Variety. Nor indeed, have we any Signs of more Gods than one in the Management and Government of the World. We may argue alfo from the Infinitude of the Divine Perfection. For if there be a God, He muft needs be infinite in all Per- fections. But two infinite Beings there can- not be, becaufe either the one of them would include the other, and fo the includ- ed muft needs be Finite ,• or it would not extend to the other, and fo itfelf would not be Infinite. Thefe Thoughts appear fo Ra- tional^ and the Arguments they help us to^ carry fuch a Force with them, that it may be wonder'd they fliould not have more No- tice taken of them^ and be more generally difcoverd 234- The Unity SfcKM. difcover'd in the P^^^w World^ to the effe- VIII.. ^"?^ checking that Folythelfm and Idolatry K^/'-s^^ which univerlally prevaiFd. But St. faul has Rom. i. given us a good Account of this^ in the be- j 8, i9,©'c ginning of his Epiftie to the Romans. And we may obferve that a Prophet of the Lord who liv'd long before him_, when he had condemn'd allldols^ ordered that: God fhould Hab. ii. be fought in hts Temple ^ that fo the Faithful :io. might not admit another God^ than Him that had manifelted Himfelf in his Word. It is therefore highly proper^ that 2. We fhould fearch the Scriptures y where we fliall find fuch Proof of the Unity of the Godhead^ as is clear and ilrong^ and unan- fvverable_, upon Suppohtion that the Divini- ty of thofe Writings is but heartily acknow- ledg'd. And^ I. Let us look into the Old Teflament^ and we fhall find the Unity of God loudly pro« claim'd there from one End to the other. Deut. iv. 2^^ Lord is God in Heax'cn aho^e^ and in Earth 39. beneath ^ there is none elfe. Know and confider this in thine Heart, So that this is what G o d's Ancient People^ whom He had taken the Charge of above others^ were ordered to take fpecial Notice of^ and lay a particular Strels Peut. vi. ^PO^- Hear^ O Ifrael^ the Lord our God is one ^. * Lord. The JcTi^'s were ftraitly charg'd to hear this^ and let it be deeply imprefs'd upon them. And accordingly we are told by their Mafters^ that this was one of the Four Paf- fages which they us'd to write upon their Phy latteries^ on Purpoie that they might be con- tinually reminded of it.' And again^ Sec nowy Deur. fays G O d_, that J^ e-ven J am^ and there is XXXU.39. »o God with me. And again in the Prayer oi Hannah y we have this Acknowledgment: I Sam. ii. Ti^ere is none hefide Thee j neither is there anyRock of the Godhead. 235 like our God. And David freely owns the Serm* fame^ faying^ Who Is God^ fi-je the Lord ^ Or yjJJ^ 'jvho is a Reeky fa%'e our God^ And Thoit art ^^.^^y-^j God alone. The Prophets alfo commonly PfaLxviii. us'd the very fame Language. O Lord cf-^i. Hofisy God of Ifraelj that dvjellefi betweefi the //'.Ixxxvi. Cheruhimsy Thou art the Gody e^ven Thou alone ^ ^°' of all the Kingdoms of the Earth, And Te are my^^^'^'^^^^* Witnefjh faith the Lord ^ before me there was '^^ r/,' .|i',j God form'dy neither pail there he after me. And j^' Thu^f faith the Lord^ the King of Ilrael^ / am j/,. xllv. the firfiy and I am the lafly and hefides me there 6, 8. Is no God. Is there a God befides me^ Tea there lb. xlv.'j^ is no God: I kno7U not any. I am the Lord ^ and i8,ai,2^ there Is none elfe : There is no God befides me. And in Reality, Hints concerning the Unity of God are lo often repeated^ that it looks as if it were the Grand Defign of Mofes and the Prophets^ and the whole Old Ttftamenty to eftablilli it, in Oppofition to the Heathen Vk'orld, in which there was fuch a Multitude of Gods believ'd and worfhipp'd. And I can't perceive that we have the ieaft Occafion to be furpriz'd at this, if we con- fider that the firll Commandment of the De- calogue ran thus, Thoufialt have no other Gods before me. And it is therefore very obfer- vable, that the Body of the fe-ivs have been fo immoveably fix'd in the Belief of God's Unity, that ncv/ throughout their lafl: Cap- tivity and Difperfion, which has continu'd nigh upon Seventeen Hundred Years, they have not quitted this Principle : As is evi- dent from their Thirteen Articles of Faith^ compcs'd by Maimonidcs : ^ The Second whereof is the U?2ity of the BleJJed God ^ which f Cridcal Hiftory of liie Apoftlfs Cr^ed, p. 54. 236 The Unity Serm. 5s there explain'd to be true in fuch a pecu- Vlli ^^^^ ^^^ tranfcendent Manner^ as that no- yy^^<,-^ thing like it can be found "*". And in their Liturgy according to the Ufe of the Spamardsy which is read in their Synagogues in thefe Parts of the World^ in one of their firft Hymns^ which is an admiring Declaration of the Excellencies of the Divine Nature^ the repeated Chorus ^ is in thefe Words : AU Crea- tures both above and belojv^ ^^fi'^fj ^^^ wltnefs all of them as One^ that the Lord is One^ and his ISJame is One, And yet formerly^ no People could be more prone to Idolatry than this very Jewijh People^ notwithitanding that the Unity of the Godhead was fo clearly difcover'd to them^ and in Appearance fo firmly believ'd among them. Which is a plain Evidence that neither the cleareft Eighty nor the molt Orthodox Faith^ can of itfeif be able to cure Perverfenefs^ or check the Impetuofity of Corruption. But^ 2. Let us come to the New Tefiame?a; and we Ihall find that that runs in the very fame Strain^ and points us to One onely God. Our Bleffed Lord himfelf reprefents that Uiiity of G o D that is fo ftrongly alTerted in the Book of Deuteronomy y to be the Capital Article of Faith^ and the Worfhip that is thereupon Mark due to GoD alone^ to be the frfi and great xvii. 19. Commandment, And when the Scribe with vvhom He v\/as difcourfmg^ upon Occafion^ Vcr ^4. inimediately cry'd out^ There is One Gody and "^^ there * That celebrated Rabbi thus exprefles hlmfelf a- bout this matter. Mk Deus unus eft, non duo nut flu^ res duobus, fid unicus : Cujus unitas non eft fimilis indi- z'iduis, quje referiuntur in mundo : Nee unus eft fpccie, compleElente -plurn ijidividun : ^ Sed itn unus eft, ut nulla u^ntns fimilis ifti, in mundo rej^erintur. Hofts Mdiinonides de Fundamemis Legis. C^p, I o/'^/je Godhead. 237 tJjere is none other hut He : And to lozje him with Serm, all the Hearty and our Neighbour as our (elves ^ is yiTT wore than all ivhole Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices ; (^^'v'^ our Xor^ highly approv'd his "Difcourre;, and added^ Thou art not far from the Ki^rgdom of God. Which is a Signification that at lead He was well pleas'd with his Acknowledgment and Confeffion. Elfewhere alfo^ having a Refe- rence to the Book of Deuteronomy ^ He fays, HeaVy O Ifrael^ the Lord our God is One Lord * ; That is^ One J EHOv ^H^ And as our Blef- fed Lord himielf laid great Strefs upon this, fo alfo did his Difciples after him. They reprefent the believing of One God m Oppo- fition to the many Gods of the Heathens3 as a capital Article of Chriftianity. And there- fore when St. Paul would reprefent the Con- verfion of the TheJJalonians^ he fays Thej turnd i Thefl! i.' to God from Idols ^ to fer^ue the Li-ving and "True 9. God. And the fame Apoftle fays^ God is One. Galat. ilL That is^ He is One in Himfelf^ and One in ^°- . every Difpenfation : One to Jew and Gen- ^"^ ' ^^* tiles both. And again he declares_, That as '^'y- * - there is Ojje Lord^ One Faith^ O?;^ Baptifm^ fo ^ there is One God and Father of Jll. And again, he fays. There is One God : That is. One and no more. So that putting the Old Teftament and the New together, we find nothing plainer than this. That there ts none other God hut One : And from this Principle nothing Ihould move us. And now, II. I proceed to clear this Principle from the perverfe Glolfes of thofe by whom it has * Mark xii. 29. On which Text fee Dr. iVnterUyicTs, Eight Sermons. ^^^. 114, (3c. hnd PUcxi Dijvut» d^^Div.Je. Qhrijii Ejjenti^ Par. III. p. 227, &e. 238 The Unity Sfrm. ^^^ ^^^^ mifreprefented. There being na YyTy denying the Unity of the Godhead^ which is over and over fo plainly aflerted^ it has been the Endeavour of fome_, in order to the ferving of their own Purpofe^ to give it a wrong Turn^ that fo by the Help thereof, they might be the better able to evade cer- tain other Texts^ which when taken in their molt natural and obvious Scnfe^ are found to clafti with fome of their darhng Notions. I fhall mention Three GIolTcs of theirs^ of which they have been fo fond^ that they have not been willing to part with them up- on any Terms^ becaufe of the great Service they hope for from them^ in Building their beloved Bahel. The firft is this ^ That when the Apo- flle here and elfewhere declares^ That there is none other God but One^ his Meaning is^ that there is but 0?ie Supreme Godj without any In- timation but that there may be One or more that may be Gods in a fi:h ordinate Senfe. Tnelecond Giols is this^ That when the Apoftle iaySj There is none other God hut One ; this Limitation is to be underitood^ That there is none elfe that is of^ Hlmfclf\ and by Nature God,- or that is independent like Him. The third Glofs^ is this • That it is not more evident 3 that there is none other God but One^ than it iSj that the Father is He, be- caufe the Apoftle very exprefsly, and in io many Words, in the next Verfe but one af- ter the Text we are now upon, fays. To m there is hut One God the Father. I fliali touch a little upon each. And, I. It has been faid by fome. That when the Apoftle both here and elfewhere declares^ That there h mm other God but One^ his Mean- ing of the Godhead. ing \Sy That there is but One S//preme God -^ notwithftanding which^ there may be One or more^ that may be Gods in a fuhordinate Senfe. But in Return to this^ I have feveral Things to oifer. I. The wifer Tagans^ tho' they knew not how to get clear of Foljtheifmy were yet very far from fuppoling feveral frpreme^ independejit Deities. They commonly reckoned there was but 0?7e Supreme God^ and that the reft that were calFd and worfliipp'd as Gods_, were but fubordinate^ and under the Government of hmi that was Supreme. But tho' this was the common Senfe of the Gentile World^ yet I know of no Occafion^ Warranty or Encou- ragement we have from Scripture to bring this Tagcin Scheme into Chriftianity *. I can- not indeed pretend to fay^ but that they that had only the Light of i^ature to guide them^ might think they made a tolerable Provilion for fecuring the Order and Go- vernment of the W orld^ by fuppofing that there was a Supre-me God^ that had the Ma- nagement of other Inferior Deities under him_, who were all fubjed to his Controul : And this might encourage them to be for thofe Gods many^ and Lords many ^ of whom the Apo- ftle here fpeaks : And they might this Way hope to avoid that Confufion^ which an headlefs Rabble of thofe call'd Gods in Hea- ven and Earthy would have been attended with. But about any thing of this Kind^ Revelation is wholly lilent^ under Chrifilanityy as well as under Judalfm. If it be fuppos'd that * Aufi flint J inquk Chiyfoft. Arinni ^ Mncedoniiini Deum mngniim G? pnrvum iuducere, imo Deum erentiim, ficthni/wkm in Ecclefinm introducentes, De S. Tiin. c. 6, The Unity that we have One Supreme God^ how many and how excellent focver the Beings may be that He may have under him^ they can- not any of them be proper Gods. The fup- pofmg a real Supremacy in him that is above them^ according to the Notions of Scripture, overthrows the Deity ot thofe that are un- der him. For an Inferior God is a plain Con- tradidion. 2. I F any others befides the One God men- tioned in this Text_, are calFd Gods in the OUTefiamenty they are fo calPd^ either / and not a particular Sort of Deity only. And when he alfirms^ That there is none other God but Cncy he afcribes that to this One God, which he took from Uols. And when this Affertion^ That there is but One Gcd^ is of- ten to be met with in Scripture without any fuch Limitation added as that v/hich is pro- pcs'd^ it may^ I think^ be allow'd to pafs for a good Argument^ that that Limitation is not agreeable to the Mind of G o d : And it mull therefore be a piece of Arrogance_, for any at their own Pleafure to hmit^ what God has thought fit continually to exprefs without any Lnnitation^ and to alter his Senfe by their Addition. Nay^ 5. Such a Limitation would bring in a contrary Senfe to that which the Apoftle intended to convey. For it intimates as if there were feveral true Gods^ and fuch as were properly fo called, but that One of them only was ofHimfelf. But this by no means fuits the Apoftle's Purpofe_, which was to transferr all Deity from Idob^ to the One True God. Upon this Suppofition, a Vagan might in Rea- iomng outdo the Chriitian. For he might fay, I am free to grant, there is but One God of Himfclf ; But this is nothing to me, who wormip Mer^ry^ Minerva^ Mars and Hercu- les, For I con t efteem or worfhip them as Gods that are of themfelves. I own and confels them to be Gods that are born : But Itill if they are but true Gods, tho' not Gods of thetnfel'vesy I am far from Worlhipping in vain. And thus by the Help of fuch a Li- mitation, the 1 orcc and Edge of this De- claration of the Apoftle would be much a- bated, and the PiJgan would go off in Tri- Tiniph, and there vvoXild be no replying to him. of the Godhead^ him. Nay^ when the Apoflle fays^ /re hjow that an Idol is mth'mg in the World -^ an Idolater might come in with this Limitation_, and fay^ That he only meantj that 'tis nothing of hfelf: And that there being many real and true Godsy in Heaven and in Earthy any Thing that is worfhipp'd befidcs the One God^ is not an Idoly provided it be not worfliipp'd as a God of itfelf And thus they tjiat are for luch a Diftin- dion as this^ furnifh Men with an admirable Exciife for Idolatry^ which the Apoftle (had he been fo difpos'd) might have prevented with Eafe^ by faying^ that there were only Two or Three Gods that were to be rcligioufly wor- fhipp'd^ or that there was but Owe that was God of himfilf ; and that if there were any other Godsy they were fo by Means of him who was God of hlmfelf And his fpeaking in fome fuch Manner as this^ would molt cer- tainly have been much more agreeable to his Wifdom and Charity too^ than to exprefs himfelf as he has done^ if we are to under- itand that only in a certain Senfe^ and with a Limitation^ which he has exprefs'd fimply^ and without any Limitation, by which he has laid an unhappy Foundation tor Contention and Error coo^ iu a Thing of the laft Mo- ment. ?. Another Glofs is this j That it is not more evident, that there is none other God but One^ than that the Father is this One God^ as is declar'd in the next Verfe but one, whch fays. To m there is hut One God the Father. And this is the Glols which Dr. Clarke de- clares for. And it is indeed undoubted. That the Father is this One God ; and the Sc^t and Holy Ghn(l are fo too. If the Son is God^ and the Holy Ghoft God^ as well as the Father ^ (as has been before didiinctly prov'd) then x\\c K 3 FatlicYj. 2^6 The Unity Serm. Father^ Son^ and Hdy Ghofi, nccefTarily mull be VIII. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^'^* ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ Apoftle would not ly^-'^\j have faidj To zts there Is none other God but One : He would rather have faid. There are no other Gods but Three. And as great a Clamour as fome Men make againit this^ it is a Con- ciufion that upon the ftrideft Search appears to me very jult and natural. And as Things Itand^ I cannot fee^ either how it can be avoided^ or why it fhoufd be contelted. For fince there are Three^ Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofiy to whom the Divine Nature and At- tributes are afcrib'd in Scripture j what mult we do ? Mult we calt off the Unity of the Di- vine Effence ? No certainly : That is too frequently and plainly alTerted^ for us to have the lealt Room to call it in queltion. Mult we then rcje(5i: or overlook thole Places of Scripture^ which attribute Dl'vinhy to the Son and Holy Ghofi^ as well as to the Father ? That is v/hat we canaot well do^ without cafting off thofe Books of Scripture that con- tain fach Things^ or proving the Texts cited to be fpuriousj or criticizing upon them in fuch a Manner^ as to turn them to another Senle. But this will not do : And therefore here mult we fix^ That Father^ Son^ and Spirit , are this 07ie God. But this is declar'd againit by Mr. Emlyn^ v/ho fays^ * Ihis ivill not be a good Confcquefice^ tmlefs the Three be caWd God in the fame high and exalted Scnfe^ in which there Is hut One G o i> alone. For fince there is a Senfe in vjhich there are Gods many^ and a Senfe of the Word God J in lvh':ch G o D is fald to be but 07te^ * See the Advertifemenc Inferred between the Appen- dix CO his Narrative, and that which he calls An Hum- lie Jnqidry into the Scripture Account r/Jefus Chrllt. of the Godhead. the ^tefiio?i will bc^ IFhtther in that Scjife in -ivhkh God h [aid to be but 0?jc^ any but the Father be [aid in ScriMurc to be G o Dj tho' in fame Sevfe the Son may be caWd fo too. In Return to whichj I have thefe Things to offer. 1. That all the Thrcc^ Fat her ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofiy are in Effe(5l declared to be G o Dj in the fame high and exalted Senfe in which there is but One God alone^ by the Charge given for our being baptiz^'d in their Name. And this is more than being calPd God^ if the bare \J^t of that Name be all that is hereby intended. Each of them is hereby declar'd to be God in the fame Senfe^ and all are decla- red to be but One G o d^ by the Dedication requir'd to One as well as Another^ without any Difference : Which Dedication to Each as GoD^ warrants fuch an Expectation from Each_, as the One God alone can anfwer ^ and inferrs fuch Duties owing to Each^ as can be due to the One God alone. So that if there be but One God alone^ Each of thefe Three muit be this One God^ or our Bapdfmal JDedicarion will encourage Expedations that cannot be anfwer'd^ and inferr Duties that cannot be proper_, and fo leave us in wretch- ed Confufion. 2. There is no Senfe^ in which there truly are ^nany Gods. The Apoitle fpeaks here indeed of Gods ?na^y : But to prevent Miftakes^ he tells us plainly^ they are but caWd Gods. 'Tis a meer Fid:ion_, and groundlefs Ima- gination that there are ma?ty Gods. The Apoille detefts the Thoughts of it at the fame Time that he mentions it : And he op- pofes the Chriftians One G o Dj, to the many Gods of the Pagans. And this Author by af- firmingj That there is a Senfe^ in ivhich there art Gods many, m Effed contradids the Apo- R 4 ftl<^> The Unity ftlc^ who fay?^ T'jere is vonp other God hut One: that if there is a Senfe in -which there are Gods many J it is a Pagan Senfc^ and very remote from the Senfe of the Apoille. 'Tis a Senfe that no Way becomes a Chriltian Writer to exprcfs^ becaufe it is both inconfiftent with Reafon and Revelation. St. Taul declares^ he hne-w otherwife : And one would think fo Ihould all that converfe with their Blhks, 5. There not only is a Senfe of the 'ivord Godj in which God is hut One j but there is ^o Scriptural Senfe of the word God^ in which the True G o D is more than One. Magi- ftrates are indeed call'd Gods^ and the Devil is call'd God^ but all the World knows and owns that fuch Expreffions 2iVQ figurati'vej and not to be underftood properly. But whenever the True God^ and he that properly is God^ is fpoken of in Scripture^ He is reprefented as but One ; and fo One^ as that He cannot be mul- tiply'd. We are there alTur'd^ not only that there is but One God^ of fuch a particular Sort^ but that there is but OnQ True and Real God of any Sort. And therefore for this Author to fay^ That there is a Senfe of the word God^ in which God is but One^ falls vaftly fhort of the Truth : For if there were any Senfe^ in which there were more true Gods than One^, the Unity of the Godhead would be intirely over- thrown^ and it would be but a vain Thing to acknowledge it. And, 4. W H E .V the 'Father is faid to be the One God., neither the Son^ nor Holy Ghofi can be ex- cluded 5 And the Reafon is, Becaufe there is i)ut One God. Were there indeed more true Gods than 0?^^ then the Father might be a God in one Senfe, the Son in another, and the Holy Ghofi yet in a third : But if there is but One God^ then if the Son ^nd the Holy Ghofi too is of itZ^e Godhead. is truly God as well as the Father^ the Father^ Sony and Holj Ghofi mull be but Om G o d j or elfe we fliall multiply the Deity ^ under a Pre- tence of fecuring his Unity ^ or make the Deity contemptible^ under a Pretence of advancing the Father's Pre-eminence. If the Son and Spl- rh are not God in the fame Senfe as the Father^ the belt that can be made of Them^ is^ that they are the Father's Creatures ; and if ihy the Senfe in which They can be call'd Gods, will be much too low^ for them to be proper Objeds of Adoration. And this^ with what has been offer'd before^, may be fufficient^ in Return to this Difficulty. 1 now proceed^ III. To fhew you the Improvablenefs of this Thoughtj That there is none other God hut One, to ieveral good and ufeful Purpofes. And^ I. We may from hence inferr^ That the Arians and Socinlans have little Reafon to in- grofs to themfelves the Title of Unitarians ; as if they were the only Perfons that were zealous in, Handing up for the Unity of the Godhead. For we that are for a Trinity in the Deity y according to the Account given us of God in Scripture, are as much for the Unity of the Divine Nature, as they either are or can polTibly be. When we indeed ftand up for a Trinity in the Deity^ they often confront us with the l/w/V; of ^od : But that is not the Matter in Difpute between them and us. As much as we diiFer from them in other Particulars, we yet can fay, with St. Paul in the Text, I^Fe know that there is none other (jod but One. We bjoir this, as well as the moil zealous Unitarians that are, and are as free to pwn it as any of them. We are as ready to grant 2^0 The Unity Seum, gi^ant as they to defirCj That if a Trimtj m VIII. ^^^ ^^'^^y neceiTarily infcrr'd Three <^ods^ that would be a fufficient Argument againft it. But that is what we are as free to deny as they can be to defire we (hould. Nor can 1 fee that with any Shadow of Reafon^ they can pretend to rank us with Deniers oiCjod's Unity ^ unlefs they could gi^e good Evidence that the Diilindion which we (following the Sacred Scriptures) fuppofe to be between the Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ is inconfiftent with it. But of thisj in the next Difcourfe. 2. T H E Notion of the A£ircwmtesy who appear'd betimes in the Chriltian Churchy and who were afterwards followed by the Ma7iicheesy and held Two Gods^ a Good one^ and a Bad one^ may be from hence confuted. The fir ft Article in the Creed was defignedly op- posed to thefe Mardonltesj upon this Account. And we have Rcafon to be very thank- ful that the Scriptures are fo clear upon this Head ,• and fo fitted to prefcrve us from this pernicious Error^ by which as valuable a Man as St. Auitin liimfelf was in no fmall Danger of being carry'd away. The Mar- clonltes and the Mankheei after tliem held Two Self-exiitent Principles^ the one the Author of all Gocd^ and the other of all Evil, and reprefented both of 'em as Gods^ and in a perpetual Conteft with each other. By this Opinion of theirs^ they really dei- fy'd the Devil^ or Prince of evil Spirits, making him a Rival wiih God, and intitling him to a Right cf receiving divine Honour and \yorfhip. And this Opinion prevailed more, not only in the Vagan World, but even among many that were calFd Chrlfilans, than we can eafily imagine. However, here we may ftand our Ground ; JVe km-iv there IS of the GodheAd.^ Is none oth.r (jod but One. In this the Scriptures are fo very clear^ that tho' we fhould have not only that Difficulty to grapple with. Whence then came E-vil ? (which was the very Thing that led many aiide) but leveral o- thers added to it, we need not be fiiaken. For that Man that will be brought to heii- tate as to thofe Things in whicti the Scri- pture is plain, by Ditficulties that oiFer in his Way, which he is not able to folve to full Satisfaction, is never like to be eafy or fteady ,• but bids fair for remaining unjettkd all his Days. 5. The Clearnefs of the Scriptures as to the Unity of God J has a great Tendency to fix our JVorfi'ip , and keep us from being there in Uncertainty. If indeed there were fever al Gods whom we were bound to have a Veneration for, we might well enough be in Confuilon. But vjhen we know that there is none other God hut One^ how can we be to feek ? I can't fee that the Trinity in the Deity need perplex us. For whether we worfhip Father^ Son, or Holy Qhofi diftindly and apart, and ap- ply ourfelves feverally to them, for thofe BleC- fings which the Scriptures incourage us to exped: from them 3 or whether we addrels ourfelves to the Father^ through the Media- tion of the Son^ by the Help of the Sfirlty we Hill know it is but One God with whom we have to do. Neither will the Father re- fent the Honour we give to the Son or Holy Ghcfi ,• nor eicher Son or Holy Ghofi rcfent the Ho7Jour we give to the Father : And therefore we are fafe, and may be eafy ; and the Unity of the Godhead is our Security that we run no Hazard. 4. Since 2^2 The Unity Sekm. 4. S I n c e we fo certainly know that there is VIII. "^'^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^'^^ ^^^j ^^ i^^^y irately conclude ^/^/"VJ ^^^^ ^^^s o«f Go^ will admit of no Partners or Rivals_, in Honour, tVorjlnj), and Obedience. The Command which our Saviour urg'd upon the Mac. iv, Tempter_, Thou jhalt worjJjip the Lord thy God, 10, and him only jlmlt thou ferve, from hence appears highly reafbnable ; and the bringing in any Partners for Worfliip with him^ (as did the Taga7ts heretofore_, and the Tafifts at this Day) from hence appears altogether unreafonable^ and downright Idolatry. Xho* the Vagans wor- Ihipt many Gods, yet they comiiionly own'd one Chiet among them^ and as for the Inferlour Gods, they look a upon them as his Deputies_, Lieutenants^ or Miniifers ^ and pretended that becaufe of the Charges committed to 'em^ there was a fort of Honour and Worfliip due^ which it concerned them to give. They rec- koned it an Honour to the Supreme God, to have a number of Gods under hini^ Obje^s of Worfliip. And the Divines of the Church of Rome, argue much at the fame Rate at this Day^ as to the Nature and Office of Angels, and Qanonix.'d Saints, and the Degree of Wor- fliip they reprefent as their Due. But this one Text_, We knovJ that there is none other God but one, might be enough one would think to ftrike them dumb : or at leaft it may preferve us from being influenced by their Suggeftions. If there be but one God, then is it plain Idola- try to Worfliip any other but him. 5". Since there is none other God but one, wc may very warrantably conclude^ that they that are Devoted to hini^ fliould be of o?.e Ephef. iv. Heart : And the Apofl:]e writing to the Ephefi^ 3? ^'c. ans, has drawn this Inference ready to our Hands. Since God is one, they that (erve himj, and ai:£ Hearty in his Intcreft^ ought to be of the Godhead. one in AfFedion at Icaft^ if not in Judgment. This is very becoming the Children of One Father y and Servants of One Mafier and Lord^ as well as Perlons that are animated by one Spirit^ and profels one Faith. This is a Thing that would much recommend Religion^ and help to fulfill our Saviour's Prayer_, who begg'd of his Father that his Difciples and . Followers might be 0?7e^ as r/j^e Father ^WJ^""^^'"* Son are One. And the Want of this fhould'*'^^' be lamented. 6. Since there is none other God but One^ it fhould be the common Concern and Care of us^ who are favour'd with a diftind Know ledge of this One God^ to love him fuperla- tively^ and with a fmcere^ intire^ and un- divided Aifedion. When the Cry founded in Ifrael^s EciTSy Hear^ O Ilrael^ the Lord c«r ^^^^•^^' God is one Lordy this Charge is immediately ^' ^* grafted upon it^ 7hou jlmlt love the Lord thy God with all thine Hearty and with all thy Soul^ and with all thy Might. This is the belt Ef- fed the Senfe of God's Unity can have upon us : 'Tis what it naturally leads to. 'Tis . « this One God that has gl^cn us Life and Breath ^^ "' a7^d allTiyi7igs 'j and that daily loadeth us '^^'^^ pf * Ixvlii. his Benefits. We in Return^ fhould give him j^'. our whole Hearts. We fhould all choofe this One God for ours^ and cleave to him ever after. We fliould freely and yet deliberately tell him^ that He is the only One we can be fatisfy'd to pitch upon for a Portion : pp . ^... That we have none in Heaven hut him^ and * nom on Earth that we dejire befides hi?n. Arid if we are but thus difpos'd_, He will become ours, and we may hope at length each of us to be able to fay with David^ 6 God, TIjou art ^^^' ^^^^^' my (jod : And this will argue us to be inex- *' preilibly happy. The 2 54 ^^^^ Unity Serm. The Gods of the Heathens really were VTII contemptible^ and not worth the having, y^^^^^-s^^^ For they could hear no Prayers^ fupply no Wants^ fatisly no Defires^ and help to no Bleffings that were needed : But in having Pf lv*r ^^^^ ^"^ ^^"^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ Things. It iL^ ^^^' ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^y^ '^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ 5^^^^ ^^ ^""^^y pr.Ixvii then cry out_, God^ e^jen our own Gody jhaH C. hlefs us. Tho' He is but One^ yet there is enough in him to make us ail Happy. He alone, tho' One, is as able to give us full Satisfa- ciion^ as if there were a diftind God for every one of us. If we have but him, we have all at once. And tho' each one that has him^ has all^ yet the Reft that equally depend upon him, and are equally interefted in him, have never the lefs : For there is in him, an Infinite Fulnefs. It's but a poor Comfort to know that there is a God, and that there Is none other God but 07je, if He be none of ours. In believing that there is a God, and that this God is One, we do no more than the very Mahor^ieians. For they alfo beheve a God I and it vv^as one cf the fir ft Dodrines that their celebrated Prophet Mahomet pro- pagated among his Arabians, that there was but One God ^y and that he only is to be worftiipp'd, and that all Idols were to be taken away^ and their Worlhip utterly abo- lifh'd. What do we then more than they, if we only believe God's Unhj, and ftop there? Let us be fo wife, as to adl under the In- fluence of this Belief, and fix on this One Cod as ours. In Prideauxs Life of Mnhometf p. 1 7. of the Godhead. I N Other Cafes the Singularity of a valu- able Thing, is an urgent Argument to quicken Care to fecure our Propriety. Where we find but 0?ie Thing of a bort_, we are apt upon that Account to be the more defi- rous to have it ours. If there were but 0?;^^r>^,^ faiisfy you from himfelf, and as fully ad the Part ot God to you^ as if there were a ^i- ftind God for every one of you. He wiU piide you bji his Cotmfel now j and hring you here- after to his Eternal Glory. Sera*, 257 SERMON IX. I C o R. XII. 4, 5, 6. iVbijy ?Z?^r^ ^r^ Diverjities of Gifts ^ hut the fame Spirit. t^nd there are Differences of Adminifirations^ hut the fame Lord, And there are Diverfties of Operations^ hut it is the fame God, which worketh all in aU. A V I N G (hewn that the Father is God^ Salrers^ the Son God^ and the Holy Ghcft God^ hall,T«e/- and that in the fame Senfe^ and fet ^^y Lec- before you the Unity of the Godhe^, I Ihall ^^^e, Apr. now offer fomewhat^ as to the Confiftency ^^- ^^i*^- of this Unity with fuch a Dlfrin^lon between Father y Son^ and Holy Gkofi^ as w^e hav^e Hints of in Scripture^ and endeavour to defend that 2^8 The Distinction SerM, DlfilnBlon^ againft tliofe who are crying out at j^ every Turn^ Hoiv can thefe Things ht ^ \^/ryj^ And in this Cafe^ I fhall take my Rife from the Text propcs'd^ where we have Three fpoken of, as joint Agents on the Be- half and for the Benefit ot that one Body the Churchy into which all that profefs them- felves Chriftians are baptiz'd^, and of which all true Believers are the living Members : And yet thefe Three are but that 07ie God Ver. 1 8. who (as 'tis intimated in the Context) hat/j fet the Members^ every one of them In the Bodj^ as It hath fleajcd Him, So that tlio' "iiJe know that there Is none other Cod but One^ we yet do^ or may kno-w^ that t\v\S One is Sfirip^ LQrd^ and Go J , and yet but One, notwithftanding the Dl'verfities of Operations, Adminifiratlons, and GtftSy that may be obferv'd refpedively. Gifts are afcrib a > to the Spirit, and Ad^mnlftrations to the Sony and Operations to the Father, who worketh all and In all ,• and in All there are Dinjerfitles , of jKinds. and Degrees^ which may be freely own'dj and have all the Strefs laid on them that they deferve^ without at all breakhig in upon that Unity of the Godhead that has been already fet before us. In the One Di- vine Effence or Nature^ there is Father, Lord, and Spirit, from whom are all Operations, Mi-* mfiries, and Gifts. They all proceed from One God, Lord, and Spirit, and are manifefted io to do^ we may fee they are all direded to the Good of that One Bcdy the Churchy as * they all began in perfed Unity, So that we have here a plain Trmlty in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, Here is in Reality a Threefold Trinity : A Trinity of Di'verftties and Differences, a Trinity of Faculties, and a Trinity of Gi'vers. in the Go x^uEAD. 259 Here is a Tr'mUy of DJver/itks^ for they Serm. are thrice mentioned, tho' in Reality they jx, may be faid to be manifold ,• even as many_, ^^v^ as the Things that are diverfijy'd. The FacuUks mention'd are Three j ^'^fts^ Adminlfin^tlons^ and Operatloris, Thf (jlz/ers are alfo Three : The Father^ the Son^ and the Sph-h. And thefe are all comprehended m^ and manag'd by_, the fa?Ke GoJy who worketb Jill In all. And yet even this Unity is not without Dljlmtuon ,• Gifts be- ing peculiarly afcrib'd to the Sfirlt^ Admlnl- firailons to the vSow or Lotd^ and Operaiiom to God the F^fA^er : For He is the Fountain of all Dlverfitles of Operations ^ as the Son the Lord is the Manager of all the Differences of Adml- nifiratlonsy and the Spirit the Diltributer of all thofe Dlverfitles oi Gifts ^ that at any time are obferv'd or found in the Church. And all the gracious Gifts of the Gofpel are beftow'd, all lacred Mlnljhles are guided_, managed and fucceeded^ all wonderful Operations are brought to pafs^ by the joynt and equal Condud: and Co-operation of thefe Three Divine Per- fons. M E T H I N K s that Man mult wilfully iliut his Eyesj that fees not here 2. Trinity^ even the very fame Trinity that is taken notice of in our Baptifm * : And yet this Trinity mult confift with Unity ^ by Reafon tiiat there is no one Thing we know more certainly_, than that there is none other God hut One. Some that have written upon this Subject- have taken Notice of a fivefold Trinity. There'? the Ciceronian TrinUy^ wliich conufts in Three S z Relations^ * ^'ee on this Text, ?Ucxt Difput, de Div. J. Chrijil BpntU Par. Ill, p. 219, ^ zzz. 26o The DisTiNCTiOiNT Relations^ Capacities^ or Refpeds of God to his Creatures : The Cartefian Trinity ^ which makes Three Divine Perfons^ and infinite Minds and Spirits to be but One God : The Tlatenick Trinity ^ which Dr. Cudworth * lays^ was a TrbiityofGods^ of which the fecond and third were inferior ^ and which Tetauius af- fipms t to have given Life to yirlanlfm in the Chriftian Church : The ylriftotelian Trinity ^ which makes the Three Divine Perfons One God, as having one and the fame numerical Subllance : And the Trljiity of the Mobile^ that has been, and is held to this Day, by the Ge- nerahty of Common Chriftians, and Divines too^ who without pretending to explain, are for receiving what the Scripture declares, concerning the Sacred Three in whofe Karnes we were baptiz'd, together with what follows from thence by necelTary Confe- quence. For my own Part I am intrreiy for a Scriptural Trinity^ and am for contending for no more upon this Subjed:, than I can find in my Bihky either in exprefs Words, or natural Confequences : And if any will call this a Mohb^fl) Trijihy^ or the Trinity of the Mobile ^ tho' I may be concern'd for the Difrefped they this Way fhew to Revelation, yet will not this in the leaft abate my Refped for the Dodrine, or Readinefs to Hand up for it, in all fuch Ways as I can difcern to be pro- per, and ^likely to do real Service to the Truth. I here propolc, ' I. To give fome Account of that !>///«- tlion b^XVIQQn- Father y Son ^ and Holy Ghof-^ that * IntelleB. Syft. pag. 549. t JbeoL Dopn. de Trm, JJib, I. cap. i. in fZ?^ Godhead. 261 that is taken Notice of m the SacrecJ Scriptures. II. To fhew the Confiltency of this D///V Blon^ with that U7Jity m the Godhead^ that has been before aflerted^ and make fome Return to what is alledg'd in Proot of an Inconfiftency. And^ III. To fubjoyn fome luitable Reflexions. I. I (hall begin with an Account of that Dlfiinclicn between Father^ Son and Holy Ghofiy that is taken Notice of in the Sacred Scrip- tures. And here I fliall do Two Things. 1. Shew you^ That a Dlfilntllon there is between thefe Three^ Father ^ Sc7t and 5p/V/V ; and that the Scripture takes Notice or this Difihjcllon^ tho' it reprefents Each of them as GoDj and all the Three but as Qjie God. 2. Co N SI DER how far the Scriptures go^ and what may be gathered from thence^ with Relation to the Difilncilon there is between them. And_, I. Let it be obferv'd. That a DlfilnBlon there moft certainly is between thefe Three^ Father y Son^ and Holy Spirit ^ and the Scrip- ture takes Notice of it too ^ notwith- ftanding that it reprefents Each of them as God^ and all of them but as Owe God. That there is a Dlfilntllon between them is very plain^ both becaule ^.^fre;^/^ Things are fpo- ken of them , and becaufe they are fpoken of in a dijfh'ent Order. - I- There mufi: be a DlftlnBlon between Father y Son^ and Holy Spirit ^ becaufe there are different Things fpoken of them in Scrip- ture. The Father is faid to beget^ the Son to S ? be 262 The Distinction' be begotten^ and the Holy Spirit to proceed, Nay^ they are in Scripture brought in as fpeaking of one another^ and to one another^ and therefore there is a Neceffity they fliould be dijt'mtt from each other. We are told^ John i. I, That th^ Word was with God^ not in him^ but i' with him ; and therefore dlfihB from him : And that He was in the Beginning with God, He was with the Father^ when all Things were firft created_5 which neither is nor can be all one as if it had been faid_, that He was with Ver. 14. himfelf. 'Tis added^ The Pf'brd was made Fkjlj ; which neither is nor can be all one as if it had been faid^ that the Fctthcr or the Holy Ghofi was made Fhjh. And when the Holy Ghofi is faid to have proceeded from^ or been fent by the Father^ or the Son^ it neither is nor can be the fame^ as if He had been faid to have proceed- ed from himfelfj or to have fent himleif. The Rom.viii. Father is faid net to have [fared his own Scn^ hut 31. dell'vered him up for us ^'M \ and the Son to be Tohni.iS. ^^ ^^^ Bofom of the Father ; and to have had a Ih vil «; Glory w'th the Va-tlicry before J he PFcrld was : Nei- * ther cf which could have been^ if He were Matt. XX. ^lOt dfi.nci from Him. The Son is alfo faid 28. to giije hli Lfe a Ranfom for Many ; and to live Heb. vii. e^ver^ to makt Jnttrcijjion for m. And the Holy ^5- . Ghofi is faid to renew and fmciify us^ and to Eph. IV. j-^^i ^^j. ^^^Q ijj^ u^y of Rtdcmft':on. Thefe are ^°* Things that are fo very dljferent^ that they very plainly intimate a Dfiirt'ticn in the Agents to whom they are reipe6liveiy afcrib'd. For hv.w can they be any other than dlfiintiy if the one does wnat the other dues not.^ That thus it iSj we have the beft of Evidence ima- ginable from Scripture. For we there have ... th.^ Father brought in declaring Christ "to Matth.ui. 1^^ his well-beluvcd Son ; and the Son receiving ' ^'^' Baptifhij- and the i:fc'/^ G^o/ defcending upon ' him in theGo'DUEk d. him as a Dove^ and all at once. We may fafely fay^ that this could not be^ if there were not a D^filndkn. 2. These Three, Father^ Son^ and Hjly Ghofiy are fpoken of in a chferent Order, For fometimes one is firft mention'd^ and fome- times another. In the Baptijmal Charge^ Matt. 18. They are n>ention'd in their natural Order ^ of i9' Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft. In like manner St. John^ fpeaking of the Witilefles to th^ Truth of Chnftianity^ takes notice of them as the Father J the IVord^ and the Holy Ghvfi, i John v. But at other times they are rang'd very dlf- ?• ferently. Thus in the Text I am upon^ the Holy Spirit is firft nam^d^ then follows Chrifi^ who is the Lordy and God who is the Father^ comes laft of all. And it is the fame alfo_, when we are told^ That there is One Spirit^ Eph. iv: One Lord^ and One God and Father of All, But 4, 5, 6, then at other times Chrift comes firft^ then follows the Spirit^ and the Father comes laft. Thusy fays he, through hlm^ i. e. Chrifi^ we both^ Ih. il 18. that is^ ./^^-f ^nd Gentiles y ha^ve an Accefs by one Spirit unto the Father. And elfewhere, the A- poftie begins with Chrifi^ conies next to the Father y and ends with the Spirit -^ f^yi^gj ^^ whowy that iSj in Chrifi^ ye are built together for an Habitation of God through the Spirit. So alfo in his clofmg Benedidion to the Corinthi- ans ^ he places the Son before the Father ^ wifh- ing them the Grace of the Lord Jefus Chrift be- iCor.xili. fore the Love of (jod^ as wefl as before the 14. Commimion of the Holy (jhoft. St. John alfo places the Spirit before the Son^ wifhing the Severi Churches of AJia^ (jr ace from the Seven Spirits Ktv , u before the Throne ^ before he wiflies it to them4>5- from Jef/is Chrifi. And this I take for a ve- ry good Evidence^ both of their Equality^ and of their Dipncllon. 'Tis an Evidence of their S 4 Equality j 2^4 The Distinction' Serm. Efmlity ; becaufe if they had been unequal^ IX. ^^ "^^y reafonably fuppofe they would al- y,^^^^^ ways have been mention'd in that Order that would have given feme Intimation of it. And it is alfo an Evidence of their DlfiinBion ^ be- caufe it is molt reafonable to apprehend^ that if they had been undiftinguifli'd^ they would have been always mention^d in the lame Or- der^ without any Variation. A DlftinEilon then there is and mull be_, between the Three in the Deity : and any Hypothefis that confounds them^, IS for that Reaicn to be rejeded. It is a grand Objedion of Dr. CUrke againit the common Hypothefis on ih^ Trinity^ That it brings In a Conftifion ofPerfons *. And the Ob- jection would be unanfwerable^ if it did bring in a real Ccnfujion : Tho' at the fame time 'tis grcundlefs^ if it leaves Room for all the Difilnttlon that the Sacred Scriptures make between them : Which I take to be the real Truth. I proceed then^ 2. T o confider^ hew far the Scriptures go about this Matter_, and what may be ga- thered from thence^ with Relation to the £)/- flirSion between the Sacred Three. I (hall endeavour to ftate it in the following Propo- fitionSj which deferve to be vv^eigh'd^ and attended to. Trof. I. These Three are fo dlfihiB^ thaf one of 'em neither is^ nor can be the other. The Father neither is^ was^ nor can be the ^on:^ nor the ^on the Father -^ nor the HolyGhofi^ either Father or Son^ but dlflintt from both. The ■ ' See his Anfwer to fome ConfideratiQns, ^c. J&g^ ^57, andaU along. in the GODHEAP. The Vathcr neither is_, nor can be the ^on. For He never came down from Hea- yen^ nor left his Glory there : He never took upon him the humane Nature^ nor did He ever fufFer or die^ make Atconement for Sin_, or intercede for Sinners as their Advocate, or rife from the Dead^ or in any Refped ad the Part of a Mediator. In like Manner, the Son neither is, nor can be the Father. For He never begat ^ or had a Son^ nor did He ever make any one Heir of all Things, nor fend any one into the World to die tor Sinners, nor receive Attonement_, nor offer ro be reconcil'd through the Mediation of another. And then the Holy Ghcjl^ is nei- ther Father nor Son. He proceeds from the Fa^ John xv. ther 5 but not from himfelf He was to glorify 26. the Sc7i^ and rccel%'e of -what iv as his : But Hel^.xvi.15, could not be faid to receive of himfelf, that which was his ov/n^ and glorify himfelf by fo doing. Withal ^ his coming depended up- on the SQn\ departing^ and afterwards fend- ing him. Fie \s> plainly d'lfiingulp'd both from Father and So7j by his Defcent upon our Sa'Z'l^ our at his Baptij?y/y at which Time we are told, the Spirit of God defce?7ded like a Doz^e^ and lo^ a MatchJIL Voice from Heauen^ fij'^^^y ^^^'-^ ^'j ^y bclo'Z'ed Son^ 1 7« /;; 7rhom I am vjell pUafed. In this Cafe He was nianifeflly dijlmgujhi'd^ both from the Son on whom He lightcd_, and from the Father^ who fpake from Heaven concerning his Son. And therefore in ancient Times^ when a Man wa3 known or fufpeded to be an /irian^ it vv^as a com.mon Saying to him. Go to Jordan^ and thou IV lit fee a Trinity. Father ^Son^ and Spirit then, are evidently fo diflmB^ as that the one is not the ether. And therefore it was not vvithout good Reafon that Tertullian wrote againft Tiaxeas^^ who affirm'dj That /'; 7vas one and the [ami 266 The Distinction SeRM, A^^ Ferfon that ivas caWd by the three Names of IX. Father J Son^ and Spirit. And yet tho* the 1^,^^^^ Son is net the Father ^ nor the Father the Son^ nor the Holy Spirit^ either Father or Son^ yet the Son and Spirit may be^ and are_, the One True God, as well as the Father^ becaufe they partake of the one Divine Nature, with all its Excellencies, Properties, and Operations. The Son is One G o D vvith the Father^ becaufe He has the fame Spirit with him : And the Spirit muft be one with Father and Son^ be- caufe He is the Spirit of the one, ns truly as He is of the other. Trop. 11. S u c H a Difiijiciion muft be al- low'd between Father^ Son^ and Spirit ^ as may be futiicient to anfwer the Parts and Purpoles that are feverally affign'd them in the Chri- ftian Oeconomy, They are indeed One in Na- ture, in Knowledge, in Prefence^ and in Energy and Operation : And yet if there be iiot (o much DiftifMicn own'd between them, as is neceifary to juftity the diftihB Attri- butions that are feverally made to them in Scripture, our facred Writings, for which we pretend to have no fmall Value, muft una- voidably fall under Contempt. I'll here on- ly faften upon the ^x^2it^' ovk o{ Redemption ^ in which the Divine Perfections are repre^ fented as peculiarly confpicuous. The fcrip- turai Scheme of that Great Work ftands thus : The Father fends the Son to acquire Salvation for us j and the Son fends the Holy Spirit to ap- ply it to us. To conceive this, without any Diftlnclion between the Father ^ Son^ and Spirit y would be a greater Difficulty than any which the Dodrine of the Tri^ilty^ as it has been ge- nerally held in the Chriftian Church, can be juitly (aid to carry in it. The Nature of Satisfa'cilcn^ in the Godhead. Sattsfa&ion requires a D//?";;^;o;/ in the Dehy. For he that fuiFers for Siiij, muft be diftin- guifh'd from him that exadsbatisfacflion. And no mere Creature is able by his obedient Sufferings to repair the Divine Honour. G.jd aflaming the Nature of Mar.^ was alone capa- ble t)f making that Satlsfict'on that the Gclpel ipeaks of. The F^f/jer required an honourable Reparation for the Breach of the divine Law. The Son bore the Punifhment-, in the Suffer- ings of the humane Nature which He aflum'd. The'Blelfed ^^//vV by fandifying us^ quaHfies and fits us for the receipt of the fileilings pur- chas'd for us. The Foundation for all this is wanting^ if there be no D'Jlhi^lo^i between the Sacred Three. Tho' therefore the Di- vine ElTence be but One^ yet we cannot help admitting a threefold DiJthjHion in it. We mud fo far diitinguifh Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofij as may be futficient to fuit the Frame^ and anfwer the Defign of Chnltianity^ or elfe we muft declare that to be a Religion^ that is wholly aFidion_, and that has nothing to fupport it. Trop. III. T H o' the Father is difiinguiP}\l from the Son^ and Father and Son are difihi^ from the Holj S fir it ; yet are they not ^;- fringtiijl/d by any Thing that is proper^ pe- cuUar_, or eifential to tliQ Deity. Tho' they are dlfi'mgui^iid one from another by proper Charaders^ yet are ail the Eifential Attri- butes and Operations of the Deity common to them all ; and the Divine Nature is equal in them all. So that the Son is not a /ijfe- rent God frcm the Father^ nor the Sinrit from Father and Son. There are not feveral Godsy tho' there are feveral that have all Divine Perfections, It cannot with Truth be laid^ ''■ that 268 The Distinction' Serm. that the Father is one God^ the Son another IX. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^b Spirit yet another God : They ^^^^yi^ are all Three but Om God; nor does the D'lfilnBion afTerted^ hnply any Multiplication of the Divine Effence or Nature. St. John tells us^ The Word -was God; But he does not fay^ He was another or a fecond God. The Holy Ghofi is alfo reprefented as G o d^ but not another^ or a third God, Any Notion_, Term or Expreflion that would int'err a Tri- nity o^Godsy is on that Account to be rejeded. St. Gregory Naz.lanz.ene^ in one of his Sermons^ anfwering feme who thought the Dodrine of Three Gods would follow from owning Three Terfons in the Godhead^ fays^, That tho there are Three in whom the Godhead is^ yet there is in them Three hut One Godhead *. And whereas it is query 'dj If thefe Three are not difiingwp^d by fome Terfehlonsy how are they at all difiinguijWd ? f . I anfwer^ Tho' the Scriptures reprefent them ;5s having ail Divine Perfedions in common^ they yet dlfilngmjh them by their Relation to each other^ and by their different Concern and. Agency in the Salvation of fallen Man. Trop. IV. Tho' Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi are difi^nguifi'd from each other; yet is there no JDl^lne Nature which is neither Father^ nor Son^ nor Holy Ghofi:. It having been commonly af- fertedj That in the Deity ^ there is one Effence' or Nature^ and Three ttrfons^ it has been faid by fome^ That then there mult be Four to whom Divinity belongs, 'vlz,. The Dl^Ane Na- turc^ and the Three Divine Ptrfi)7u. But this is * Greg. Na:(. Ornt. XXXVII. De Sj>. San^o «? 9 t Emlyn\ Tvadts. ^ag. 165* in the Go'DVL^x d. 26^ is a perfect Blunder. For there is no Divine Sfrm. Nature but what fubfifts in the Three Di'vine j^ Terfons : Nor can it be jultly faid^ that God f^^/^J^ did exift in Order of Nature ^ antece- dently to a Trinity ; for a Trmlty in the Dtltj is as neceffary as the Exigence of the Deity. Trop, V. The whole Dl^jlne Nature is in Father^ So7j^ and Holy Ghofl^ and in each of them confider'd diftindly. 'Tis to G o d that we are devoted^ when we are baftiz^'d in the Name of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft 5* and we are therefore devoted to G o d in that Way and Manner, becaufe He has thus manifelted himfelf unto us : And be- caufe they are each of them Go d, we are. therefore in that Solemnity devoted to each of them drflivcfly . Every One of thefe Three hath not a Part, but the whole Deity in Him- felf. The Father therefore is the One Only True G0B3 and to be lov'd, and worfhipp'd^ and liv'd to as fuch ^ and 'tis the fame alfo as to the Son and Holy Ghofi, And no One of them is more Wife, Holy, or Powerful, or more Perfect in any other Refpe^ than the other Two : So that there is no Room for any Thing like a DWifion. And whereas it is faid by a Writer that has diftinguifh'd him- felf upon this Subjed, That if each Ferfon in the Trinity has the Perfe^ilo7j of the whole Trini- ty, then One is as good as all Three '^ : I con- ceive it will then be time enough to conhder of that, when it has once been fliewn how without all the Three, the Chn/ian Schewe as it is delivered in Scripture, can be ftated and cxplain'd, fupported and defended. * Emlyris Trads, pag. 165. 270 The Distinction Sekm, IX* ^^^P- ^^- Fathee^ cVo;?^ and Holy Sfirtty \j^-^ are more dtfihEl; from each other j, thaji they are from the Dlvlm Nathrc which is common to them All. They have different Names and Re- lations , whereas the Diru'm Nature that is in each^ and the effential Perfedions that belong to \ty and that concurr in thofe divine Works that are externalj are intirely the fame. The Sabdlians reprefented God as One that was fometimes cail*d Father^ and fometimes Son^ and fometimes Holy Ghofi^ becaufe of diife- renr Effeds : In the lame Manner as feveral Attributes are afcrib'd to the fame G o d^ be- caufe uf different Effeds. But the different Notions of Father^ Son^ and Sfirit^ that are given us in Scripture^ and the different Pro- perties and Works afcrib'd to them^ plainly fignify more than a Three-nam'd Unity. Our Johnv. Sauiour {^L-ySy as to tht Father ^ there is another 3^- . that beai eth Witnefs cf me ^ and of the Spl- lb. xiv. ,,/^ ]^Q f^ys^ I vviU ask the Father y and He '^' Ihall give you another Comforter. 'Tis afwthcr, and a77othery and not the fame. Nor is it bare- ly another Name that was meant. We can't be haptiz/d into a bare Trinity of Names y nor can mere Names bear Witnefs. If the Holy Ghofi I&.xv.26.was a mere Name^ He could not ttjiify of C H R I s Tj, as 'tis declared He lliould. Trop. VII. We may be fat'sfadorily and ful- ly Convinced of the Difi.na'icn between Father ^ tion^ and Holy Ghofi^ without pretending to allign^ or fo much as to be able to conceive, the particular Gromids cf that Ufihtlion. Thefe are not unfolded to us ui Scripture,- nay^ I den t know that they are fo mucn as touch'd on there. And therefore methinks a iate Wricer takes abundantly too much upon hun^ when in the Godhead. when he tells us^ he will tmra'vel the mtvkate Lahjr'mth of this great Mjftcry^ fo as to help ns to as clear an Jj7iderjlandh%g of it^ as of any other Doftrine of Chrlftianity *. But alter all^ he has left it as much in the dark_, as he found it. There is alfo another Author that has made a Noife^ that appears veyy angry with the Three Hjpofiafes or Subfiftcnas^ and reprefents Creation y Redemption ^ and Scndificatlony as the Terfonalitles that confiltute the Three Perfons^ Fa- ther^ Son^ and HoiyGhoft \. And by fo do- ings inftead of making Tilings clearer J he en- deavours to create Confulion. Nor is the common Way of the Scboolmcn fatisfadory. They tell us^ ft That God is Three Ferfons^ as He is Self living y Self knowing y Selflo'ving : And is no more than Three Ptrfinsy becaufe thefe are the only effential^ immanent or in- ternal Ads of God. But to make the Dz/jwif/;- cn between the Three Ferfins in the Deitjy to be the fame with what there is between the Mind and its Ads_, will I doubt leave us wholly at a Lofs^ as to thofe Diverfitles of Gifts y Differences of Adminifirations y and Dl'ver- Cttles of Operatlonsy which this Text fpeaks of in the Cafe of the Sacred Three. However^ to pretend to deny there is any DifiinlUon between the Sacred Three^ becaufe the Grounds of it are conceaPd from us^ would be to of- fer Violence to the plain and frequent Decla- rations of the Holy Scriptures^, concerning the Deity of the Son^ and the Holy Sprit, Prop. * The Scripture Trinity intelligibly explain d, pag. lo. t Clendon's Treatife of the Word Per fen ^ pag. 178, 179, ^c. tt See Mr. Stephen Nye's Inftltutions concerning the lioly Tiinit^. pag. 5^ ^, ^r. 272 The Distinction Troj>. VIII. Whereas amon'g thofe that \ own this DiftlnBlon to be real and not ima^ \ gmary only^ it is by fome affcrted to be Modal J while others affirm it to be Ej/ential ; and fome contend that it is Specifical only, while others will have it to be Numerical ,• I not being able to find any fachWords as thefe in the Bible ^ am for dropping them in the Debate. 1 am a great Enemy to dark- Job ning Connfel by Words without Knowledge ^ and xxxviii. running into Heats about different Ways of *• Expreliion_, where the Thing meant, may be the fame. It had been well for the Chri- ftian Church, had there been due Care ta- ken all along in this Refped. I cannot but highly approve of the Temper that is dif- cover'd in a Letter from a Council of A- kxandria to the Church of Antlochy in which they advife them not to dlfpnte upon the SubjeS'i cf the Hypoftafesj (about which fome were inclined to perpetuate a Debate) becaufe they that ownd Three Hypoffafes in the Trinity, and they that oivnd but One^ were of the fame Sentiment^ and only differ d in the Way of Ex-preffi- on *. I am very inclinable to think it may have been much the fame^ with fome that have contended, whether the Dtpnttlon in the Trinity were Modal^ or Efjmtial^ Speclficaly or Numerical ; they have meant the fame Things but different Words have confound- ed them t- The Creek Church generally us'd the Word Hjpofafis to denote the DlJtMion there is * Vid. Athnnnf Op. Tom. i. f. 574, C^c. t Vid JVerenfdfii Dijfert. de Logomachiis Eruditorum] Cap. II. in the Godhead. is between the Sacred Three ,- and that Word the Crlticks fay properly lignihes Subfiajzce or Eeing *. And becaule Three Hypofiafes in this Senfe of the Word_, was look'd upon as implying three Gods^ a confiderable Dif- pute arofe. It was therefore declared that this Term was in this Cafe defign'd to fig- nify^ not a feparate Being or Subficvnce^ but fomething more than a Islame ,• and intend^ ed to intimate a Suhfifience. JBut the Lathi Church not fatisfy'd with the Word Hypo- fiafis which in their Apprehenfion lignify'd Siibfiance or Being, brought in the Word Ver- {en. And I cannot fee there is any jufl 'Occafion for Offence at that Wordj while it \s own'd to be intended only to fignify the Difi'mctlon there is between Father^ Son^ and Spirit f. Dr. Clarke fays 1^ Ihcre Is not in Nature any other Notion of a Ferfony than a^ it fignlfics an intelligent Agent or Being : And adds^ That whencrjer the l^Vord Is us^d otherwlfe^ no Man ca7% tell what It fignifies. But for my Part^ I fay with Archbifhop I'lllotfon ^, That there are Three Differences m the Deity _, which the Scripture [peaks of^ by the Names of Father^ Son and Holy Ghoft^ and e'very where [peaks of them^ as we tife to do of Three difllnbl Per- Jons : And therefore fee no lieafon why In this Ar^ T gument * The Latins generaHy difowa'd Three Subftances* Faujiinus therefore fays, mirnynur illos Catholicos pro* haripoffc, (jui Pntrls (J Filii (3 Sjfiritus San^J trcs fubjl (I'll t ids confitcntur, t See an Account of this Matter, in Forbsfu In^ Jlru^. Lib. I. cap. ii. §. 8. I Reply to Mr. Nelfon, 8cc. p. 40." * See his Sermons concerning the Divinity ani Incarnation of ourBlelTcdSAvieuft, Serm, U./» »^f The Distinction fTument we jlwuld nicely ahfialn from ttfing the Word Perfon^ nor can fee any fufi Reafon to mar r el at this Term *. And now I go on^ II. T o fiiew the Confiftency of this D/- fi'inBlon between the Sacred Three^ with that Unity in the Godhead that has been before afTert- edj and make fome Return to what is alledg d to prove it inconfiftent. I Ihall not itay to fhew you how reconcileable this Difiintlion in the Deity is with the Divine Sirriplicity •\y about which feme have odd Notions : Nor ihall I touch on fever al other Objedions that have been made. I think it may here be fufficient to make fuch Remarks as thefe that follow. I. I T is reprefented as moft grofsly ab- furd and ridiculous to hold fach a DiflnBi- on in the Divine Nature^ while yet it is own'd to be but One. It is faid^ How can one he Three^ and Three One ^ But the Queftion is^ Whether we meet not with fomething like this in our Bibles ? And whether thofe Sa- cred Writings for which we have Reafon to have the higheft Veneration^ don't intimate to usj that tho' there is but One God^ there yet are Three to whom the Divine Nature with all its eflential Excellencies and Per- fections properly belongs ? If they give us this Information^ then is it on them^ and their Divine Author that thefe Gentlemen pour * See on the Word Pcrfn^ Princlp, contre les Socin. far Th. le Blanc, Sedl. I. ch. i. Art. II. f. 9. t See that Objedion anfwer'd in Mr. IV. Lorimers Scriptural Demonftration of the true Deity of the E- tQi'iialWord, ^. 59, C^w in the Godhead. 275 pour Contempt^ when they throw out this Serm. Reflexion. But tho' it may well enough j^, grieve us^ to find them fo audacious^ as in v-t^n^ fuch a Manner to arraign the Moft High^ (for which without Repentance they will have a fad Account to give) yet can I not per- ceive that any fuch Regard is due to them^ as that we fhould own that to be Inconfiflmty on which they will venture to pafs a Jeft^ when we have it from the very belt Authority^ that thus it is ! However_, 'tis no new Thing for the Chrifilan Scheme to be ridicul'd about its Trinity in Unity. For that prophane Wretch Lucian ^^ who liv'd as long ago as in the Year of our Lord 176^, who is famous for his witty Dialogues^ in which he fo mifera- bly infulted the poor Chriftians^ in his Thl- lopatn^y (or fuppofe it was drawn up by fome other Author as fome have afferted^ it is to me much at one) fpeaks of a God that was one of three^ and three of one^ which he reprefents as moft monltroufly ridicu- lous. 'Tis molt certainly the God of Chri- Itians that is there referred to^ and infult- ed. And the Paffage fhews that it was at that Time the Current Apprehenfion of the" Tagans ^ that the Chrlftlans belie v'd a God 3 that was One and yet Three^ or Three in one Deity. Socinus took Notice of this Paf- fage with Surppize^ and did not ftick to declare^ That he knew nothing in all Anti- quity more clear for the My iter y of the Tri- 7uty^ according to the Modern Notion of it. But thofe People jultly deferve to fall under a general Contempt that will be banter'd out ot their Religion by a profane Jelt. St. Vaul T 2 was See tn Mojnty VarU Sacr4, Vol II, p^ x85^ J 87. The Distinction was of another Mind. For he declares with Vehemence^ That what others efteem'd a Caufe of Blufhingj was to him a Ground of Triumph and Boaftmg. G o BforbU^ fays he_, t/jar Ijiwiild glory J fiz'e m the Crofs of Christ- This was the Matter of his Glorying^ as much Freedom as others took to run it down. In- deed the whole Dodrine of Salvation hy the I Cor i ^^^^^ of C H R I s Tj was to the Jews a Stumhllng- ^ ' ' block^ and to the Greeks Foolljlmefs. Men of in- quiriilg Reafon^ and a flaihy Wit^ could not digefl the Wonder of the hcamat'wn : and it appear'd to them a molt monitrous Abfurdity^ to talk of a Virgin's conceivings and a God's being born : It let them a Laughing^ to hear of the Death of the Prince of Life^ and theRe- furredion and Afcenfion of the crucify'd Lord of Glory They thought it the abfurdelt Thing imaginable^ to exped Life from One that w^as himfelf fubjeded to Death^ and BlelTed- nels from One that was made a Curfe. Such Things as thefe^ together with a Tr'mity in Unity y and Unity m Trinity^ were what fuch Wretches as Celfm^ and Porphyry^ Julian and Lticlan^ ridicuPd as monftrous. But both in Matth.xl. ancient and Modern Times,, Wlfdom ts jufil- ^9' fied of her Children. 2. Tis faid^ That 'tis fo Iwpoflihle^ that there fliould be but One G0D3 and yet Three that equally poffefs all Divine Perfedions^ that no one of common Senfe can believe it. But we have this from a Revelation^ the Di- vinity of w^hich is well attefled, and it is ma- nifcft^ that there is no Impoffibiiity in it. And if we may be allow'd to declare Things jwpojjibhy whenever we are unable to con- ceive the Way or Manner of thenij I don't fee how we can avoids running into the ut- moft Confuiion. There are leveral Things that in the Godhead? that we are bound to believe^ of which we are not able to form any diftind Concepti- ons. But if upon that account we'll pre- tend to lay they are iinpajjlble, we in effect refufe to take the Bounds and Meafures that God has fix'd^ and prefume to fix others for ourfelves. None can think a Trinity in the Deity to be mor Q iwpoffihley than Hcodemr^fy a Malter in Ifrael^ thought that Nevj Birth to be^ which our Sa^jiour preach'd to him^ and re- prefented as abfolutely neceffary to his feeing^ the Kingdom of God. Tho' he own'd our Lord J E s u s to be d! Teacher come from G o D_, he yet cries OUt^ Can a Man he born wheyi he ts f?/^ ? Joh. lu. 4,^ Can he enter the fecond time into his Moth^r^s Womb and he horn ? But was the New Birth therefore impofihle I No ; far from it I This was only his grofs Mifconception. And the Cafe is juft the fame with thofe that reprefent a Trinity in the Deity as impoffihle. But_, 5. 'Ti 5 iaid^ That to ailert but one Divine Eilence, and Three that equally partake of ic^ is a downright Contradldlon, To which I an- Iwer^ I. That the only Pretence upon which this can be imagin'd to be a ContradiBion^ is for this Reafon^ Becaufe we cannot conceive how it can be : And if we may reprefent every Thing of that Nature as a ContradiBlon^ we Ihall never have done. Several of the Di- vine Perfections^ Such as Omniprefence_, 3iternity_, and Prefcience of future Contin- genciesj can no more be accounted for by us_, than a Trinity in Unity. We are no more able to fay^ how God fliould be a Being without a Beginning, or how He fhould be able certainly to forefee contingent Events at a Diftance^ or be at once prefent in all Places^ than how there ihould be Three that T 5 equally 278 The Distinction Serm. equally ^zvt^ikQoitht One Divine Nature, And IX. what can more appear to be a ContradiHion v„o^->^ even in Terms^ than that God fhould be made Man^ and the Eternal die ? But if fuch Things as thefe^ tho' dearly manifefted in the Scripture^ muft be faid to carry a Con- tradiBicn in 'em^ becaufe we are unable to ac- /count for 'em^ or are unable readily to recon- cile them^ we may as well lay the Scriptures afide as of no farther Ufe^ and follow our own Fancies^ without pretending to own a Revelation. For what can a divine Reve- lation fignify that muft be under our Cor- redion I By giving into fuch a Method^ we open a wide Gap to Sceptic ifm and Infidelity. I addj 2. That tho' a Trinity in Unity muft be own'd to carry in it no fmall Difficulty^ yet can it not confiftently either with Truth or Juftice be faid to be a ContradiBlon^ becaufe we don't pretend that Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofiy are Three in the fame Refped in which they are One, We don't aifert a Trinity of Gods which would really be a ContradlBlon^ but ^ Trinity in the Godhead. Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofiy are One v/ith refped to the Godhead, and the Perfedions that belong to it ; but they are Three in their Relations to each other^ as well as in their Relations to the Creatures_, and particularly to Man_, and that as redeem- ed^ fandify'd^ and fav'd. And wherein lies the Contradi(5i:ion of this ? They are fo far Ihree^ that different Things are afcrib'd to them^ according to their different Relations : And yet (as Gregory Naz,lanz-en expreifes it) "^ E^ery One of them has an Unity with the other , 'XO lefs than that which He has with hlmfelf, by rea* [on Orcit, XXXVII. de $}. 5. in the Godhead. 279 [on of the Identity of Effince and Tower. ThisisSERM. no ContradlBion^^ becaufe it is no denying and jv affirming the fame Thing in the fame Senfe. ^^/^s^^^ Perhaps it will be faid^ and it has been acflual- ly faid^ That to fay the Father // God^ and the Son God^ and the Holy Ghoft God^ and yet there are not Three Gods^ hut One God^ zs therefore a Co7itrad:Itlony hecattjc the Term God is In the fame Tojit'ion^ both affirrnd of Three ^ and deny^d to be^ long to more than One. But 'tis anfwer'd^ That the Term God is net in that Pofition affirmed of Three feparate Beings^ but only of a Being that is elTentially One^ notwithftanding a tri- ple DlftlnHlon: And therefore each may be G o Dj and yet all T'jree but One God, vvith- Qut any ContradlBlon : For no Mortal can prove. That there can be no U^/^?^ that can make all the Three^ One Beings One tt S^o;/, One G o D 5 or that ilich an U?iion implies any thing of an Impoffibility. 3. 1 T would certainly be much more modefi^ to afcribe the Difficulty of our conceiving this Matter, to fome other Caufe^ than to its carrying a ContradlBion in it. All mufl al- low that Boethius was a great Man_, not only as to his Rank and Quality^ but alfo his Learn- ing and Piety : And he writing upon the Trl- nUy^ (which Difcourfe of his is yet extant, and well known to the Learned) reprefents the Difficulty of our conceiving Turee In One^ and Ojte In Three ^ as arifmg trom our Imagina- tions ^ which are fo fiWd with the Divifion ani Multiplicity of compound and material Things^ that it IS a ^ery hard Matter for them fo to recoiled themfelvesy as to confider the firjl Principles and Grounds of Unity and Diverfity, And the ta- king any fuch Method as this, is certainly much more becoming fuch dependent, dim- iighted Creatures as we are^ than to pretend T4 * 28o The Distinction Serm, a ContradiBion^ m a Matter that is unavoid- IX. ^^^y ^tf^J^^^d with fo much Obfcurity. \y^Y^ 4- I cannot difcern that we have the leafl Reafon to be afham'd_, frankly to ownour- felves altogether ignorant^ How the FatheVy Son^ and Holy Ghofi fubfift in the One Di'vlne Na- ture. For we may well be ignorant of itj lince God has not difcover'd it ta us. The ' Scriptures no where tell us^ either in what Ma7jner the Son is begotten of the Father ^ or in what Manner the Holy Ghofi proceeds from Father and Son. And how then can we pretend to fay^ how thefe Three^ Father ^ Son^ and Hcly Ghofi fubfift in One ? And it no way becomes us to determine the Way and Manner ^ where the Scripture is filent : It may and ihould be enough for us^ that the Thing itfelf is reveal- ed. Since it is fo^ if there be a Contradlcllon m it^ God muft anfwer for it_, not we. As for the U7uty of G o d_, we may rationally con- clude it_, as well as read it in Scripture : And therefore there we may be faid to walk by Sight. But as for the Trmlty \n. the Deity ^ \\s enough for us to believe it^ becaufe we have it reveaPd to us in our facred Records^ that there are Three to whom all divine Per- fedions and Operations do belong. And if any ask us^ How this can he ? 'Tis enough for us to fay^ We know not. If this be cliarg'd with being a Contradu^m;^thc Reflexion is caft on God rather than us. If it be faid^ that if it be a CGntrad:Biony we may conclude it cannot come from God^ and therefore the Drift of the Argument is to convince us it cannot be reveal'd^ and we are miltaken in fuppofmg it : I anfwer^ That when once we hnd it re- veal'd^ we may from thence conclude^ it can- pot be a Contraditi'ion^ and that the fuppoling it to be onCj mult be a great Miftake. Ana the in the Godhead.' 281 the ArgumePxt^ (to fay the leaft) is as ftrong SeRm. on this Side as t'other ,- and I confefs _, I ^ think much ftronger : Becaule we have far ^y^l^^ better Evidence that the Dodrine of the Tri- nity is contain'd in Scripture_, than can be given on the other Side^ that this Du- drine has any thing in it of a real Contradi- Bion. If it be faid^ We are led by Prejudice in interpreting Scripture in this Senfc^ J think we have much more Reafon to lay^ That thofe of the oppofite Sentiments ^ are led by Frejitdiccy to charge this Dodrine with a, Contradltiion. But befides^ they themfelvcs that bring this Charge againft the Dodrine of the Trinity y cannot but own when they are urg'dj that the Di^'ij^e Ejjince is Infinite^ and therefore beyond the Grafp or Fathom of fi- nite Creatures. When therefore we plain- ly difcern by our infpir'd Writings^ that tho* there is but OneGoY)^ yet the .Vow and Holy Ghofi are as truly and properly this One God as the Father himfelf ^ for them to fay this is a Contradi^^iGn^ is to fall to Reaf'oning about the Dl^jhe Ej/encey that is own'd to be infinite^ juit in the fame Manner as if it bore a Pro- portion to our dim Light^ and fb was li- mited and bounded. And thus while they charge others with a ContradlBlony they fall into one of the worft Sort of Contradltiions themlelves. But what are we^ that we offer to take upon us at fuch a Rate as this ! Is not the Effence of the Deity Infolte ? How then can we pretend to fay^ how far its Perfedions and My finks may go^ andvvhere they muft ftop^ or elfe there will be a Co7Jtr a diction ? He that can do this upon good Grounds^ mult be able to comprehend the Dlvhe Ej]evce^ ' jogecher with the Myfierks which it con- tains. The Distinction tains^ which molt certainly is too much for finite Underftandings. Nor will it be enough to fay^ in fuch a Cafe^ That however 'tis as to other Things^ the Unity of God is fufficiently compre- hendedj and that that gives a Right to charge with a Coniradlcilon^ where that Unity is own'd in Words^ and opposed in Reality. For befides our underltanding of the Nature of Unliy^ it would be plainly requifite that we fliould alfo comprehend that Property^ which is faid to contraditl this Unity ^ and that is Trinity, "i This fhould be fo far comprehend- edy or underftocd at lealt^ as to be plainly difcern'd to be altogether inconfiltent. For in order to our having a Right to fay that any two Properties are ccntradlchry^ it is not enough to have a diltind Idea of one of them.; We mufc clearly fee them both toge- ther ; or we Ihall not be able fairly to point out the Contradiction ^ fince it may lo fall out_, that that of which we are ignorant^ without any thing like Inconfiitence^ may agree moft peri^clly \vm\ that which is known. It would indeed be requifite that we fliould have a complete and diftmcl Idea of all the Proper- tics that belong to the BlefTed G o d^ in or- der to fhew wiierein a Trmlty of Perfons con- tradicts an Unity of Effence : And by Confe-r quence we mull comprehend that which is incomprehenfibie^ than which no Contradlcil- on can be more gx-ofs. Or elfe we fliall fall into another Abfurdity, which is^ to deter- mine as to the Way and Manner of a Subjed:, which we not only do not comprehend y bat which never can be comprehended by us. I fliould think it would rather become each of us to fay^ with Gregory Naz^lanzen^ I cannot think of One ^ but I am foon da^lsd with tlK in the Godhead.^ the Brlgbtnefs of the Three : nor can I difcern Three y but I am foon brought hack again to One *. And now^ III. I am to fubjoyn fome fuitable Refle- xions. Andj I. From what has been ofFer'd^ it plainly appears^ That there is no Neceility of our being either Sabelllans^ or Trltheljby to avoid being Arlans. It has been afferted by fbme. That all that fpeak out about this Dodrine^ if they are not Arlans ^ muft be driven either CO SabeUlanlfm^ Or Trlthelfm. If they are No* mlnal Tr I nit arlans, they fall into the former : If Real^ into the latter. If they are Nomi- nal Trinitarians ^ they alTert the lame Indlvl- dual Subftance^ under Three different Modes of Subfiftence ,• and that isfaidtobe Sabeilla- nlfm. And if they are Real Trinitarians and own Three diltind Subfiftences^ then they are Trlthelfis. But I think it our fafelt Way to adhere to Scripture^ and then we need not be either one or t'other. We need not be Sabelllansj who own'd no Other Trinity but of different Appearances and Manife- ilations of God to Mankind. And this we fufficiently efcape^ if we own^ That tho' there is none other God but One j yet that Oite God is Fa- ther^ Son^ and Sfivlty who each of them equally pofTefs all Divine Perfedions^ and from whom as diflind^ are all thofe diiferent Operations^ Mlnlfiratlom ^ and Gifts^ that my Text fpeaks of. Nor need we be Trlthelfis^ or own Three Gods. For we may ftill acknowledge that Fa^ thery Son and Sprit ^ are much more One^ than ieveral * Sfrm, de Sacro Ba^^, The Distinction feveral Citizens are Ove^ m the Community of the fame City ,• or than Men are One in partaking of one Nature. We may ftiU ac^ knowledge freely^ That as the Divine Ejjence wonderfully excells all other Beings, fo alfb does it in its Singularity, and the Simplicity of its Unity wonderfully exceed the Unity of any other Beings. Sahellim deny'd any Diftin- 6llon of Terfons in the Deity ; while Anus ad- mitted the DlftinBion of Ferfons^ but rejeded the Unity of Ejjence^ or the Community of it. But we have no Occafion to do one or t'other, nor ihall we if we follow the Scrip- tures. For joyning the DifilncHon of Father^ Sony and Holy Ghoji^ with the Unity of the Godhead ., we may effectually fecure the Chrl- filan Scheme y and avoid wliatever would un- dermine or overthrow it. 2. Another Refledion I would make, 3S this. That it 5s at any Time a great and manii'efl; Weaknefs, for^ us to let what is conceald fi'om us, and is not to be compre- hended, hinder us from adhering firmly to what is difcover'd and reveal'd. Why ihould we deny either the Unity of the Di'vine Na- ture ^ or a Trinity in the Deity ^ on account of our not knowing how it is that Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ partake of the One Divine Nature i Or how it i$ , that Three can be One^ and One Three ? An Effence that is Infinite^ may w^ell enough be fuppos'd capable of ha- ving a great many Properties that we can- not explain ; nay, that we fliall never be able to comprehend. I don't fee how we can help admitting a great many Things of that Sort. We can in Reality no more underlland the Way of the Creation ^ than how there ihould be ^^ Trinity in the Deity, For who can tell which Way it .was^ that Nor- thing in the Godhead. thing became Something? Or if it fhould be laidj that Matter is eternal^ we may ftfely defy any Mortal to tell us, How a Being that is lb imperfed as Matter^ fhould be and fubfilt of itfclf from Eternity. I in this Cafe fay_, jubfifi of itfclf , becaufj' in rea- lity^ that would be the Cafe of Matter^ if it was not created. And if we might ad- mit of nothing in Religion that has a AIj- ftcry in it that we cannot comprehendj I cannot fee but that cur Light muit bound that of G o d's Revelation^ and be the Mea- Ture of his Light ; than Vv^hich nothing could be offer d that was more ridicu- lous. F o R my Partj the mere I conhder Things^ the more fully I am convinc'd^ that it is enough for us_, for God to reveal to us any Thing that is myflerlous^ how difpro- qortionate foever it may be to our Light. This is fufficient to warrant our receiv^ing tho' we cannot comprehend it : Becaufc then if there be any Thing ftill hid- den from uSj as to the Way and Manner ^ there is yet fomething that is clear^ and that isj the Revelation^ and the Truth of it. And I think we may fafely appeal e- ven to Reafon itfelf upon this Head^ Whe- ther it is more jult and fit^ to rejed what is clear and reveaPd^ on tlie Account of what is hidden and incomprehenfible ,• or to keep filent about what is in itfelf incompre- henlible^ on the Account of what is clear and reveaPd. I cannot fee^ why we fhould Itick to affirm the latter of thefe Two to be every Way more proper j moft for God's Honour, and our own Advantage. But this will na- turally come to be confider'd more diltind- ly in the Sequel. S E R M. 287 SERMON X. Jeremiah VI. 16. Thus faith the Lord, Stand ye in the Ways and fee ^ and ask for the old Paths, "where is the good IVay^ and vjalk therein , and ye jloaJl find reft for your Souls. ^HEN the Ancient Jeivijh Church Salrers- grew degeneratej there was a great hall, T^d'/n Mixture of falfe Prophets with the -'^'^^ Lee- True and Faithful^ and it was no ^^'^ ; cafy Thing to diftinguiih between them. It ^^"£- -^* was thcFetore a main Part of their Work^^^'^* who really had a Prophetick Miffion^, to deted fuch as were but Pretenders^ who took upon 'em to bring Meflages from God, tho' He never fent them. Jeremy whole Miflion was well attefted^ gives this as one Characler of fuch, a little" before my Text, Tbac 288 The Old Scheme and New That they healed the Hurt of the Daiighter of his Feoplejl/ghtljy fiyi^gy Pe^ce^ peace ^ when there _ ^ _ 'iVfl!i,.7io Fcafie, And he adds^ That they were Jer.vi. 14. grown fo audacious_, as not to be ajlmmi Ver. 15. when they had committed Ahomination '^ neithcY could they blufi^ even when the Event dif- prov'd thcm^ and gave them the Lye. This OGcafion'd great Struggles^ and the People were divided^ and neither knew whom to believe^ nor to whom to adhere. A Rul^ therefore is here given them for their Con- dndy and by following it^ they might hope to get through the Difficulty. They are charg'd from God not to proceed rafhly^ but to ftavd in the JVays and fce^ that is^ conlidef^ and carefully make Inquiry. They were to itskfor the old Paths. They are bid to confult jintlquhy^ and note the Path which their Pi- ous Progenitors^ the old Patriarchs^ Abraham^ Ifaacy and Jr/coh had walked in. They were to mind the good Way^ which fuch as they were had choien^ and found lafe and com- fortable : They were to take care to walk therein^ and continue fo doing ; and then it was promis'dj That they jhould find Reft for their Souls ^ and have good Satisfadion they were lal^*^ and in no Danger of mifcarry- ing. iNf like Manner^ in the Chrlfthm Churchy there have been^ and ftill are great Contefts with relped to Truth and Error. And that upon no Head more than the Doctrine of the Trlv'iijy which is the Subjed I am upon; And how can we take a better Way than to fol- low the Prophet's Rule^ when we have accom- modated it to the Circumftances of our Cafe .^ There are fome that tell us^ That the Sche777e they have happily fallen upon as to this Dodnne^ is clenr and fafe^ and no ^ ' other compared, as to Antiquity. 289 other Is Defenfiblc : While others declare an oppolite Scheme^ to be much more fully con- firm'd and evidenc'd, tho' it be not without its attending Ditficulties. What then can be more proper for us^ than to fiand in the Way and fee ^ and diligently confider and com- pare^ and ask for the old i'aths y inquiringvvhat they held about this Matter that received Infcrudion from our Saviour himfelf^ or fate under the Miniftry of his Difciples^ and their SuccelTors ? What more fit^ than that we ask (and that wdth Concern) PVhere is the good Way ? and walk therein. This moll certainly is a likely Method to find refi for our Souls, It is my Defign to compare together the two oppolite Schemes y the Old^LndthtNew^ up- on this important Head of the Chriftian Do- ctrine. By the Old one^ I mean_, that which has generally obtained in the Refor?n'd Church- es_, and that does fo to this Day. "By t\iQ Nev^ Scheme y Lmean^ that diiFercnt Set of Noti-* ons concerning Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ which fome would obtrude upon us^ and which they applaud as much more rational and accountable, . This New Scheme has appear'ci with feveral Faces at different Timesj ac- cording as Men have had different Turns to ferve : And it is not well fettled unto this very Day , nor is it eafy to fay wher^ it will. But that I may not be to feek in profecuting the Argument, I (hall chiefly take Mr. jEw/>» and Mr. Whifion for the Standards. of zhAsNeiiA Scheme ^ and that the rather_, becaufe they be- ing more open than fome others^ 'tis more eafy to difcovcr what it is they intend and aim at. And yet I fliall not. wholly pafs by others neither^ where I can perceive the con- fidering what they have offer'd, to be likely to ferve the Caufc of Txuth, 290 The Old Scheme and New Serm. I ihall then fet myfelf to purfue a Com-* ^^ parifon between the Old Scheme and the New, ^^/^^^"-^^ under a double View^ firfl: with refpe(5t to Anticjuity : And fuppofing you to ask for the Old Pathsy I fhall endeavour to give you what Satisfadion I can in a narrow Compafs. And then^ Secondly^ 1 fiiall take the pains to com- pare them together^ in themfclves^ and their own Nature^ as to the Objections to which they are exposed, and the Difficulties with which they are attended^ c^c. fo as to fhew you that the Old Scheme truly points us to the GoodTVay^ the Way in which we may hope to fina ^^^Jtfor CUT Sotilsy in a Matter of as great Moment as this Part of the Chriftian Do- ctrine muft be own'd to be^ by all that duly confider it. I begin with comparing the Old Scheme^ and the New upon the Dodrine of the TVi- mtj togethier^ with refped to Antlquhy^ that fo I may give Satisfaction to fuch of you as here ask for the Old Paths. But I am fenlible at my Entrance^ of a double Difficulty. For it may be very plaufibly faid_, That in fuch a Cafe as this^ its hard to referr the common People to Antiquity y where fo much Time and Pains is needful to pafs a certain Judgment^ and where even the Learned themfelves arc fo much divided. They that have taken the inoft Pains to find out the Senfe of the And^ ents upon this Head^ give a very difFerent_, ajid in fome refpeds contrary Reprefentation of it. And one that has very lately llgnaliz'd himfelf upon this Argument^ freely tells us^ That * this Contrcvcrjy is of a U others the moft nice and intricate y and that it is verj eajy for a fVrii rmr t Pi'. Uj^^^i^^^J> A^fwer to Dr. IVbithys Reply^ p. 27, compafd^ as to Antiquity. 291 Writer y that has a mini to It^ to confound a7jd puz- Zjle fitch Readers as hai'e not been conquer fant in it. And it may feem as if this Method were like- ly to create Confufion, when the Supporters of th New Scheme^ (after all that Bifhop Bull has offered in Proof of the Antiquity of the cp- pofite Scheme) continue to affert with fo much PofitivenefSj that they have the Generality of the Writers before the Council of Kice on their Side. And to this it may be added^ That the referring to Antiquity for Satisfadi- on about the Trinity^ ' will ot all People ap- pear to come with the worlt Grace ^ from thofe that in other Matters can make light of the Ancients^ and are fo free and forward in palling Cenfures upon 'em ; and that in a Way that difcovers no very profound Refpect for them. I dare not fay^ as Sandlus^ That the Scrip- ture not being of prl'vate Interpretation ^ -we mufi Interpret it according to the unanlmons Confent of the Dolors of the Frlmlth'e Church ^. This JS carrying the Matter much too far. The Scri- pture is the only proper Rule of Faith : And nothing could by the Ancients_,any more than the Moderns^ be added to what that offers to be believ'd. Nor do I think the Proof of the Trinity fhould be fetch'd from the ivz- thersy but from the Scriptures, And yet feme having rais'd a great Noife and Clamour^ as to a mighty Change in the Faith in this Refpedj fmce the hrft Settlement of Chrifti- anity, I think it maybe ofgoodUfe tofee^ that the very fame Fahh^ as to the Subftance ot it^ was derl^jdfrom Fathers to Fathers f^ la the iirit Ages of the Church. • Uj But ♦ Kucl. Hijl. Fxclcf. Lib. !. rag. 228. Lib, dc S)'n, iS'/c, Script^ 292 The Old Scheme and New Shrm. But I defire it may be obferv'd_, That it X, is not bare Jntiquity I in this Cafe referr t03 l^'^fs^ abftradling from real Goodnefs, If a Path Job xxii. be Old^ but not Good^ it may with Safety be 15. rejedied. There is an old Way -ivhlch wicked Mm ha^je trodden : And it is to be detefted^ let it be ever fo old. But if asking for the old Tatbsy we find they point us to the Good Way^ it may not a httle confirm us^ to find it An- cient. Truth is in all Cafes of the greateft ' Antlcjuhy, if we were but able to trace it up to the Fountain-head : And yet it cannot be deny'd^ but that Error may fometimes have the more Wrinkled Face^ fo as to impofe on fuch as don't fearch with great Care and Caution ^ and therefore the Name of Jntlqul- ty fhould not lead us blindfold : and yet real Ajmqultyy when well prov'd_, is a good Evidence of Truth. The beil Proof of Antiquity ^ both under yudalfm and Chrlfiianltyy is to be fetch'd from the Sacred Scriptures. It has been much de- bated among the Learned^ How far the Do- ctrine of the Trinity was known un- der Jndalfm, and can be prov'd from the Old Teftament, In'tht general its plain e- nough_, fuch Hints Were then given of that ^Dod:rine^ as with the Affiftance of the ad- ditional Light given us by the New Ttfla- men't^ may contribute not a little to our Con- firmation. We are therefore told_, That our Luke 24'. LordJ e s u s bcglmilng at Moles and all the Pro^ 27, 'phetSy expounded to his DJfclples in all the Scriptures^ the Tlo'ings concerning^ him [elf : Among which undoubtedly p thojfe ancient PaiTages are included which bear Witnefs to his Divi- nity_, in Conjundion with the Father and Holy Spirit^ as well as thofe which fignify'd be- forehand his Suffer ingSj Refur region andUni- verfal compar^d^ as to Antiquity. 293 verfal Dominion. Nor is the Proof of the an- cientncfs of this Dodrine that is this Way to be colledcdj at all to be made light of *. But 'tis to the Writings of the Nev^ Tt-fiament \wq Chrifiians mult fly as our la ft Refort^ for Proof of the Old Paths J and Satisfadion as to the Good. ^j.Whatfoever cannot be prov'd from thence^' may be fafely rejeded as upftart and novel.. And therefore in fetting before you fuch! Evidence as I have done^ that the Old Scheie is deliver'd to us in the Holy Scripture^ I have given you the beft Proof imaginable of its real Antiquity ^ and fuch as the common Peo- ple muft be allowed capable of judging of^ as well as Men of Letters. And yet lince the Patrons of the Ntw Scheme^ do with fo much Pofitivenefs commonly afTert^ That the firlt Writings among Chriltians^ after thofe of the New Tefiamenty are intirely favourable to their Notions ; and are from thence fo ready to inferr^ that in all likely hood we are miitaken^ in the Senfe we put upon our Sa- cred Writings^ in the Paffages that are com- monly cited from thence upon this Head^ I think it may be a Piece of Service to the Truths to lliew^ that this is a groundlefs Suggeftion. And tho' it is notorious^ that a particular tracing the Sentiments of thofc that liv'd in the firft Ages of the Churchy with Refped to the Trinity^ is a Thing of which all are not of themlelves capable_, yet v/hen they hear what is alledg'd on both Sides, I cannot fee why they may'n't pafs a tolerable Judgment in this as well as in other Matters. Nor is there any great Dan- U 3 ger f See Dr. IQiight's Eight Sermons in Defence of I he Divinity of oui- Lord JesusChrist, C^c. 294 ^^^ ^^^ Scheme and New Serm. gcr attending the Difquifition^, fo v/e do but X, adhere to our Principle^, and while we in ^^^,^1^-^^ order to the detecting the Falfhood of their Suggeftion^ have recourfe to the firft Chrifti- an Writers^ lay our main Strefs upon the Scriptures, When we inquire into the Senfe of the Fathers y we need not {et them upon a Le- vel with our Sacred Writings^ or fancy them free from the common Defers and Infirmi- ties of other human Writers. We may have all the Refped that is due to them or their WorkSj and yet ftill fuppofe them to have all the Imperfedions with which any have juftly charg'd them : And we may be con- ilrnVd in adhering to the Truth which the Scriptures deliver to us upon as momentous a Head as that of the frlnltyy by finding it ge- nerally own'd by thofe Wtiters that we have remaining^ that fucceeded in the Church to thofe that were infpir'd ; and obferving that they are on our Side^ unlefs fo far as they con- traaid themfelves and one another. And this Convidion I Ihall endeavour to faiten^by an Indudion of Particular s^ out of the remaining Writings cf the Three firit Centuries^ after our Holy Religion took Place in the World. I T cannot indeed be deny'd^ but that there is a great deal of Truth in the Ob- fervation ot St. Jerome *^ That before Arr^s appear 'd in the Worlds the Fathers deHver'd many Things innocently^ and without taking fo much heed to their Words as they might have done ,- and indeed_, fome Things that can hardly efcape the Cavils of wrangling Spirits : And yet in the main their Sentiments concerning the Trinity^ were the fame that are embrac'd to this Day^ ty thofe that ad- I.iere to that which I call the Old Scheme. A5 * A^oi II, Contrn i^uffn. compar'dy as to Antiquity.^ 295 As to the/r/ Ceniuryy all agree, that we Serm» have very few Writings now extant. The ^ chief of them are the Epiftle of Sz. Barn^rbas^ ' and the Book calPd the Rtfiai- oi Hermas^ and the Writings of St, Clement of Rowc. I begin with the Epiltle of St. Barnabas^ the Frame and Contexture whereof is own'd by Dr. Caoje t ^o be intricate and obfcure, made up of uncouth Allegories^ and forc'd and improbable Interpretations of Scripture, And yet, even in him we have this Palfage i And the Lord took upon him to fuffer for our Souls ^ tho He was Lord of the whole Earthy to ivhom God faid before the Foundation of the World ^ Let ms make Man after our Image and Likenefs, This fmgle Paffage is an Evidence that he was in the main m the Old Scheme ^ and is not to be reconciled with the New, And even Dr. Wloitby 4. owns. That aU the Fathers from th^ Apoftles J'imes^ were of Opinion^ that ^od the Fa- ther in the Creation^ /pake to his Son and Spi- rit, or at leafi to the Son, in a Way of Confulta- tion about making Man f^. And if fo, they could not be in the New Scheme^ which itands upon a quite different Bottom. Hermas's Fafior^ is a Writing that fome have highly applauded ; But Bp. Pearfw^ fays, tit 't:is a Book that almoft all in our Days condemn, tho' Bp. JSw/^muft there be.excep- ted, who applauds him and his Performance *. For my Part, I fee no great Rcafon to adr- mire him or his Work. But be it as it will as to that, we in him have this Paffage ; Tloe Sou of God is wore ancient than all the Creatures^ u 4 t t Life of St. BnrnnbtiSy pag. 19. I StriEluYce Patrum in Genef. pag. i. tl See alfo Dr. Kjiight\ firft Sermon, fag. 5, (^c. t-l-t Find. Igiiat. Par, I. cap. ill. * Def. Fid, ^ic. Seii, I. cnp, ii. §. 3, ^c. 296 The Old Scheme and ^ e w fo^that he was prefent with his Father In Council y_ about producing the Creatures : The reconciling which with thtNcw Scheme^ \s I coniefSj be- yond my Skill 14.. But the chief and molt valuable Writer' in the firft Century ^ after the infpir'd Authors of the Jslew Tejtament^ is St. Clement of Rome, He it mult be own'd^ is blam'd by as great a Man as Thotlus "^_, as one that did not /peak fo highly of our Blejjed Sa'viour^ as were to he de- JiPdj (of which Cenfure of his great Ufe is made by our Modern Arlans^ and Arlanlz^ers A- and yet St. Bafd f quotes a remarkable Pal^ fage from him^ concerning the 7rlnlty^ in thefe Words ; But Clement the Elder fays^ God lives y and the Lord Jefus Chrlft^ and the Holy Spirit, By which Words he intimates^ that God the Father y and Jefus Chrlfi^ and the Holy Spirit^ are the Living and True G o d^ whom^ forfaking Idolsj we are alone to worfliip and adore. And tho' we don't now meet with this Paf- fage^ either in his firft Epiftle to the Corln- Wtans^ or in the Fragment of his fecond Epi- llle^ wfiich is (till extant^ yet it might per- haps be in that Part either of his firlt or fecond Epiftle which is now wanting. Or if not^ we may (I fhould think) fo far depend upon St. Bafii^ as to conclude that fuch a Paflagd ns thiS3 was in his Days to be found in fome or other of his genume Writings : And there- fore we may be allowed to make the very ' fame U K/W. Petavli Theol. Dogm. deTiimr. Ub. II. Cap. 8. §.4. ^c' Kon eft ujiius perfni.c Hlccre, faclamiis fid im/tginem (^ fimilitudinem noftrnm • jcd neque diver- fit Deitatls. Nnm- plurnlitns horum vcrboru7?J, i. e. facia- mus, (^ noftram, Patris & Filli Perfonnsfignlficat. Quod nutem fingtdnriter imaginem dicltf una Dait^.s, una vici tus utriufque fortiin^t mnmfcfta'tur, Faufti. de Tiihit.' * Vld. BMotL Cod. CXXVI. t lorn. If- p. '358. -E^rr. Pn-'ft 1639. compar'd^ as to Antiquity.' 297 fame Ufe of ir^ as if it was at this Day to be Serm found^ in its proper Place. Nay really^ in Y * that very Epiftie of his to the Qorlmhiajis ^^^^^s^L^ lOvhich we have ftill in our Hands, and which ^^ next to the Scriptures is one of the moft va- luable iPieces oi Ant'ic^mty wc have_, he, as Mon- fieur Le iV/.y'w^ obferves ^y freaks ofChn^rwt as a mere Man^ hut as of One whom y/hh the Holy Spirit, he -was not aJljam'J to joyn with GoD. For thefe are his Words : Ha've -ivemtOne God ^ and One C H R I ^ Tj ^nd One Holy Spirit fi^ed abroad ijpon 7is ? This is plainly the Language of one in that Set of Notions about the T r i n i t y, which I call the 0/^ Scheme. But then, as to thofe calPd St. Clement's Confiltutions y Or the Jlpofiolical Confihutions f, which fome have afcrib'd to him as the Au- thor^ * Varin Sncra. Vol. II. pag. 153, c^c. t Upon careful perufing the Apoliolical Conftitutions more than once, I cannor help thinking that that Man muft have fome veiy great OccaGon for them, that can give 'em the reading, as Mr. PVlnJicn has pubiifli'd 'em, and think 'em genuine. What can any Man make of fuch a PafTage ns this 5 (Book 2. Sed. 15.) Tenths of Salv/itlon, nre the fir ft Letter of the Knme ofjefus ?. Can any Man in his fenfes, think fuch a Strain as this could come from the Apoftles, which occurrs, Book z. Sedl. 18 : Thou fljalt not cnH thy Btjhop to Account^ nor wntch his Ad-miniJlrtitio7i, how he does it, when, or to vohom^ or rrhcre, or whether he do it well^ or ill, or indifferently ; ^r'hc has one who will call him to Account, the Lord Gcd, who fut this Adyniyiiftraticn into his hands i Me- thinks this is a Maxim that is admirably fitted to fcreen and favour a corrupt Clergy 1 For my Part, I know not how to think that Determi- nation about'M/rrrM^^r Apoftolical, that occurs, Book III. 5edl. 31. in thefe Words : Once ?7!Arrying according to (he Law is Bjghtmis ; feco?jd AUniagej after the promifc: 298 T^f Old Scheme ^«^ New Ky*>/^>^ Serm. thor^ which Mr. Whifton out of his Zeal foF Y ' the Purity of the Chriltian Religion, (or ra- ther for Arlanlfmy for which he hopes, from thence to have confiderable Supports) would obtrude upon the World as a confiderable Part of the Ginon ot the Noif Jefiament j it is ai^ Wo^^ proynlfe are mcked ; third Marriages are indications of in^ contine'ricy-y but fuel) Marriages as are beyond the third are manifeji Fornicationj atidunquefiionableVncleannefs.^on can I imagine, that the Apoftles lliould quote the Sibyls, as is done here, Book V. Se6V. 43 : Or that they would reprelent Lent as of Chrift's own appointment, as is done here, Book V. Sedr. 45 ; or lay a mighty ftrefs upon fraying towards the Eaft^ as is here done, Book VII. Sect. 63. Or that they fhould put upon fraying for thofe that are departed in the faith ; as is alfo here done, Book VIII. Sedt. 66. Thefe are things that upon divers accounts appear xo me incredible^ , Nor can I think the Apoftles could reckon it worth their while to provide a Fly. Clap for the Communion. But I think verily he muft have an Head peculiarly turn'd, that can reckon it an obfervation deferving Strefs, that the Books of the C(?w/?/>//^/(?»j are Eight in Number, and that this Number is Twenty two times repeated according to the Letrers of the HebrexQ Alpha- bet in the 119th Plalm ; which Pfalm (its faid) feems to be as it were a Prophetical Encomium upon, and recommendation of, the Laws, Statutes, Judgments, and Precepts, contained in thefe Conftiturions. Effay on the Apofi, Confiitut. p. 291, 293. I (liould take Chri- ftianity to be a very whimfical thing, if it gave any jreal encouragement to fuch enormous Fancies. Nor can I help thinking that Man to be much at ^ lofs for Evidence, and willing to take and lay hold of any thing for Proof, who cites feveral Ancient Writers to prove the Coufiitutions genuine, of whom heyctowns that they never lo much as faw them, which he acknow- ledges to have been the cafe of Tertullian, and Cyprian, and Ephrem of Edcffa, whom he yet produces in com- mon with othei's, to encreafe the Number of his Evi- dences, p. 394, 412, and 581. ' But compar'dy as to Antiquity. 299 Work generally reckoned fpurhm and corrupt Serxu by the Learned of all Perfuafions. Among v the Papiftsj their greateft Men^ fuch as Beliar- mine^ Baronimy Farron^ and Tetavimy declare it their Opinion,, That thefe QonjiiuLUons are doubtful^ uncertain^ apocryphal^ falfe^ cor- rupt. But 'tis hard to keep from fmiling to find fuch a Writer as Mr. Winfton comp'aining vviih fo much vehe- mence of the Power of Prejudice , in the Cafe of Monf. Daille , who wrote warmly agalnft thefe Conftituti^ onSf pag. 438, when he himfelf fhews himlelf fo mi« ferably over-run with Prejudices , in a variety of I^- ftances : As when he prefers his beloved Conjlitutions to the univerfally acknowledged divinely infpir'd Writings of the Nf w Tejiament : declaring that inftead of Corredt- ing the Conftitutions by St. Jolms Gofpel, (where they dilTer from each other) we ought to Correci the prefenc Copys of St. Johfi by the Ccnjlitunons : Nay, that this is to be done, in many Cales, wherein there appear^ a variety' between the ConHitutions, and the Gofpel Hiftory. p. 688. ^ As alfo when he intimates his raifed Expecftation,^ that the Notions fupported by thefe ConHitutio^is will exceedingly contribute to the fetting up or promoting Chrift's Kingdom in the World, which he is impati- ently loolcing for : Both which are fuch glaring Prcju^ dices on his part, that they make the particular menti- oning of others the lefs needful. After all, he that would fee thefe ConHitutions clear- ly prov'd Spurious, may coniulc Dallxus de Pfeudepl^ grr.phis Apofiolicis ; and l^ottcns Large Preface to his iidition of the Epitlles ofSt. C/^wewf, Printed at Cnm^ brid^ey in '&vo. 17 18. And a Trad: of Dr. J^icJj. Smnlbroke, intit. The Pretended Authority of the Clemen^ tine Conflitutions confuted. 06t. 17 14. Thele AfoSloUcnl InHitutions, Mr. iVhi^on declares in 17 1 1. (Hiiloricnl Preface y p. i.) to ht an Original, Divine and Sacred Book^ of our I^eligion : And ibid. pag. 88, that upon a full examination, he takes their Sacre4 Author ityf 300. Serm. The Old Scheme and New Serm. r^P^3 adulterated^ and of no Authority or ^ Significance in Religious Matters. And there- fore we have no Reafon to wonder that Dailies and Rl-vety and Bhndel^ and Dr. Ca've t? and the moll Learned among the Proteftants^ are for difcarding them.- Which is very 90nfiltent with owning^ that they have fe- veral valuable Things intermix'd. And as to the Recognitions^ which have been ^fcrib'd to the fame St. Cleme?ity they are yet lefs to be regarded than the Confiltutions. And I believe there are few that are at the Pains to read them^ as Mr. Whlfion has pub- lifh'd 'em in E^jgUfloy but what will readily fall in with that Opinion *. The Authority to be unde^iiable: And pag. loi. that they are equal in their Authority to the Four'Gofpeh -, and fujferi- our in Authority to the Episfhs of fingle A^oBles. And xd Aj)p. to the Hi§l. Pref. p. 5 1. that it is the moft Sa- cred of the Canonical Books of the Nevp Testament. And in this Year, 1711. in his large Preface in return to my Lord jKottingham, pag. 8. he fays, he is slill more cer* tainly affurd of the genuinenefs of thefe Constitutions, '^ t In his Prolegomena to his Script. Ecchfiaftic. Hift. Litcraria. pag. 9. he has thefe Words : In CanonihuSj (3 Cojijlitutionihus Apoflolicis y 7iuUibi non occurrunt fexceyi- ia de Tcmplis, altaribus, confecrationibus, veftimentisy fejlis publicisy jejuniis, de miffis, baptifmi tempore, (3 ad- minijirandi modo, de exorcifmo, poe?iitentia, monaacha^ fu, (3 infinita alia, .avo Apojlolico ?iondum nata. . * Mr. JVhiHon as much as he applauds thefe %co^r nitions, yet owns that there ave feveral Chronological tni^ak.es in 'err] ^ Prim. Chrift. revived. Vol. V. Pref. p* III. and that the Work was not drawn up by Clemeni: himfelf. Pref. p. 18. and yet he commends the Boole for its internal Characiers of Honcfty and Genuinenefs. Pref. p. 48. and conchides it a voork^of an Authentick. vature ; of the greateH Vfe and Advantage to the Church af Christ ^ and derivd from the Co'fnp anions of the Apc^ mcsi compar^d^ as to Antiqinty. 301' The Writings of the Fathers in the fecond Serm- Century that remain ^ that have been re- X. ckon'd to deferve molt Regard^ are the Let- \^,^^^<>j thefe finaller EfifiUs 'which the Learned fo carnefi- ly contended^ were true and genuine ^ are flahily tmworthy of fo great a Man as Ignatius^ and by no means agreeable to the Chara5ler we ha-ve of him in Eufebius^ Jerom^ Chryfoftom^ &€. f. Nor is he himfelf lefs itrenuoully oppos'd here- in by Mr. Wotton 4.. There does not appear to have been any one of Air. /^^//?(7w's Opi- nion in this Refped before him, except Mo^ rlnus : And Bp Fearfon v/onder'd at him 4-1- But in all Probability he'd have wonder 'd yet more at Mr. Whlfton^ had he liv'd til! now. Dr. IVhhby alfo reprefents it as no eafy Tiling to reconcile this Writer to himfelf, or exculehis Inconfiftency *. But not Haying to debate thefe Matters^ I fliall 6nly oblerve^ That even Mr. Whtfon himfelf, after all his Caution^ has left thofe Things in Ignatius'^ Epiltles_, which favour the Old Scheme, For in his applauded larger Epiftles^ there isKfhis Exprefuon^ Tor what does a Man profit me^ If be jhall pralfe mty and blafphcme my Lord? not cwnlng him to be GoD bearing Flejh about him ; ^n G^oKoyuy CLV70V fet^Koo'o^^v 05or **. While 111 the fmaller it itands thus: For what does a Man profit me^ If he fljall pralfe me^ and blaf- fheme my Lord^ not confejfmg that He bore FuJJj a- bcHt him ? /XM ouaKoy^v avtov ^ct^y.o^'^^v •\, Now the t Ihid, pag. 10, and p. 20. - i Pref. ad Clement. Eplft. Cant, impref An. 1718.. U Vind. Ignat. Cap. V. * Prefat. ad Difquific. Modeft. pag. 5. ** See P0jifion\ larger and fmaller Epiftles ofi^- »/^^'*/;. p. 5,16. The Old Scheme and New the not confeffing thisj could not be proper Blafphemj'y if He vvas not truly and properly God. And again_, I wljlj you all Happmefs in our God J ESUS<<^HKi SI +. And if He truly is our God ; and fo our G o d^ as that we have all Happinefs in him^ the higheft Ve- neration mull: moft certainly be his Due. And this is a main Thing that the Old Scheme contends for. And in the Epiftle to the ;Epbe/iansy there is this remarkable VafCigQ ; We hanje alfo aThyficlan^ our Lord afid God Jesus C H R I S Tj, tbe onelj begotten Son^ aitd the Word before the tVorld began ,- Who afterivard became Man of the Plrg'm Mary. For the Word ii^as made Flejlj, Being hcorporeal^ He was In a Body ; Being Impajjlble, He was in a fajjible Body^ ■ Be- ino- Immortal^ He was hi a mortal Body : Being nfe^ He was liable to Corruption *. Which PaP- fage was afterwards cited both by Theodoret and Athanafiiis^ againit thofe that had errone- ous Notions concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.. Of St. Tolycarpy another Writer m the fe- coflu Century^ we have nothing remaining but a fmgle Epiftle^ and a few Fragments. Among the latter we may reckon his Prayer at his Martyrdom^ that is mentioned by Eufc- bim t, which was clos'd with this remarkable Doxolo^y : Wherefore concerning ail Things ^ I pralfcy and bTefsy and glorify Thee^ through the Eternal High Briefly Jeius Chrift^ Xy beloved Son^ thro^ Tvbom^ to Thee^ with Him^ and Thy Holy Spirit^ be Glory ^ noWy and throigh euerlafling Ages. And this is the more remarkable^^ bccaule St. foly- carp * Ibid. p. 360, 361. "t Ibid. p. ito, 125: t Eccl. Hift. Li]?. 3. cap. 15, compared ^ as to Antiquity. 30$ carp was an immediate Auditor of St. John^ if Serm, not of other Apoftlcs *. X, The Church of Smyrna alfo conclude their ^^^^^ Epiftle concerning tne Martyrdom of this holy Man^ in this Manner 2 Brethren^ we omjh you Health in the Lord^ ivhllfiyou walk according ti) the Go/pel of Jefus Chrift^ with whom Glory be to the God and Father^ and to the Holy Ghofi^ for the Salivation of the Saints whom He hath chofen. And Co they exprefslyafcribe to the Holy Spirit toge- ther with the Father and the Son^ divine Glory and Honour^ and as much diftinguifti between the Son and the Father^ as between them both and the Holy Spirit. And I muft confefs^ I cannot fee how the moft zealous for the Old Scheme^ Gould in this Refped be able to ex- prefs themfelves more frankly or fully^ in io narrow a Compafs. Aripdes alfo who liv'd a little after St. Voly^ carpy in the Reign of the Emperor Mrian^ according to Eujtblm fj and Jerom \.y and the Roman Martyrology^ offer'd a Eook to the Em- peror about the Chriftian Religion^ in which there was an Oration which he publickly pro- nounced, in the Prefence of the Emperor, in Proof that Jesus was the Onely God. And if^ as Petavius himfelf obferves fl, in this Oration^ tho' it is not now extant. He prov'd Chrifi. to be the Onely True God, he own'd the Con- fubftantiality of the Verfons Without any Diffe- rence or InecfHality, X jufiln * \VIch Refped to ch'u Doxolog; of Sr. Polycdrf, I referr the Reader to Bulli Def. S'id. Nie. Sedt. II. p. 53. And to Dr. l^nterUndh Anfwer to Dr. pPhitbys R«* ply pag. 28. G?c. * EccL Hiji. Lib. IV. 4. Catal. Script. Eccl. tl Dogm, Lib. IL cap, xu Par, X. ^o6 The Old Scheme and New Serm. Jupj^ Martyr comts next ; and he^ in that X * which. is caird his kcond Jpologj^ replying v^^^^-s^ to the Unbelievers who accus'd the Chrifti- ans as Atheifts^ for their refafing the Wor- Ihip of Idols^ declares that Chrlftians are no Athelfis ^ for that tho they defph^d and con- temn d thofe that the Gentiles faljly caWd and efieernd Gods _, yet they rellgloujly honour d and oiwrjhipp'd the Triune G o D^ li^ho -was djfiingmjlid by Three Terfons. And by this Paffage of his^ we are furnifh'd with a lufficient Anfwer to the bold Challenge of Mr. Whlfion^ as to the ihewing one fingle Catholick Tellimony be- fore the Days of Athanafim^ which amrm'd the Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ to be the One God of the Chriitian Religion *. For I think this does it efFedually f- The plain Senfe of Juftln in that PaiTage is this^ That as for the Chriitians^ tho' they had no Va- lue at all for thofe whom the Gentiles efteem'd and worfhipp'd as Gods ; yet they moft re- ligioufly worfhipp'd the True G o Dj Father ^ So?/y and Holy Spirit. And therefore_, if either the Son^ or the Holy Spirit was not the True G o Vy the Cbrlfilans would be guilty of the very Fault of the Gentiles ^ in Worfhipping one 'or another^ that in Reality was not God. Often alfo in his other Writings does Jufiln declare * Prim. Chiift. revived, VoL I. Hlft. Praef. f- clxx. ^-^KeiVQVTii^ -nv 'TTA^'' ajJ^I^ i\\oV lK^'Qv]dLy'TnUllCLTt 70 'rejxp^ntaov ffz&o(xiQct i^ Tejcavv^^. Apol. 2. It is indeed faid , he joyns Angels too as the Objedls of Wor- fliip ; but we may very tairly underftand the PafTage of Angels as being taught by the Son joyntly with us, ra- ther than as to be wornilpp'd by us joyntly with the Father and Son, and the Prophetick Sprit. Upon which the Reader may confulr Bp. Bull's fhort Animadvcrfions on the Antmkctilfmiis or Gilbert QUrk^* compar'^d^ as to Antiquity. 307 declare Christ to be the true^ and natu- ral^ and proper Son of God ^ and to be caird God and Lord^ the Lord of Hofts^ and the God of Ifraely in the Old Tefia7nent : And he fignineSj that it was He that appear'd to Abram and Mofes^ and the other Patriarchs^ and was worfiiipp'd by them as their God. And in his Dialogue with Trypho the Je-w^ he declares^ that the Son is a different Tcrfon from the Father^ hut not of a different Nature, I T has indeed been atlirm'd by fome^ That it was Jufiln that firft brought the Opinion of the 'Son's Prarexiftence before the World waSj and the Creation of the World by him^ out of the School of Vlato into the Church of Christ : But that Suggeftion has been fufficiently anfwer'd by Bp. Bull *. Irenam in his Book againft Herefies^ which is as hkely as any to give us a right Notion of Frlmltix'e Chrijilanlty ^ ^^ySj, That Cbrlfi :s with the Father^ the God of the Livings who both (pake to Mofes_, and was manlfefied to the Fa^ thers f. And that Author Arguing with the proud Valentlnlans^ who pretended to a Sort of Omnifcience^ has this Paffage ; * For thou^ O Man^ art not unmade y nor dldfi thou always cc- exlfi with G o D^ as did his own IVord, And af* ter wards, fpeaking of the Father^ he fays. For there ts always with him his Word and M^ifdom^ the Son and Spirit, by whom^ ayid in whom Hs made all Things freely ^ and of his own Accord ,* and to whom He fpake^ fry'^^^i Let us make Man after our Image and Likenefs '\\., And il^deed, it X 2 looks * Prmit. ^ Apofiol. Trad-lflo de Jcfu, Cm; Dkln. In^ tioduEl. i- Llh.lV. cap. II. ^ Lib, II. cr:P, 4?, n Lib, IV. c^f, 37^ 308 The Old Scheme and Ne\v looks as if this Writer was not. very friendly to the New Scheme^ that Mr. Whlfion is fo an- gry with him for faying fo much of the Sen'i Eternity "*". A T tne fame time with Irenaus^ liv'd Victor the Bifliop of Rome^ till whofe Days^ the Fol- lowers of Artanon afferted^ That the Succef- fors of the Apoftles concurred with them^ in holding Christ our Sa^jiour to be a mere Man. This Truth (which would at once have fubverted the whole Dodlrine of the TrhiUy^ ) they faid^ was taught and preach'd univerfally till the End of the Se- cond Century^ anci the Beginning of the Third ; but then it was adulterated f. But to prove this to be ^ grofs Miltake^ Eufeblus appeals to the Holy Scriptures^ and the Wri- 'tings of the Fathers^ who liv'd before F7^or ; fuch as Juftln^ and MUtlades ^zndi Tatlany^Ltid Cle^ meni\,3.nd IreTj^-eus^^.nd Melho^who (he fays) all of 'cm ailerted Christ's Divinity. He appeals al- fo to the Tfalws and Hymns that were in thofe Ancient Times written by the Chriil:ians_, and commonly ufed in their publick Worfhipping Affemblies^ in Praife of Christ^ the Word of G0D3 which afcrib'd Divinity to him. And the altering of thefe Hymns ^ was afterwards one grand Charge that was brought againft PW of Sawofatum tlie Bifliop oi Antioch^ who was de- pos'd for his Heterodoxy. Theophllm o^ Antioch in his Book to AutolycuSj faySj That the three Days that preceded the crea^ tion of the Sun and Moon, were Types of the Trini- ty, that is of God J and of his Word^ and of his Wifdom. . And * See Append, to Pilm. Chrift. revived VoL V. fag, S, 9- t Eu^ehiu Hjft. Ecchf Lib. V. cap. xxviii. compctr'dy as to Antiquity, ^op And Athenagoras in his Embafiy for the Ser Chriftians has this PalTage ; I'VJjo can hdp adml- X.^* ring to hear that we that own GoD the F^ther^ and God the Son_, and the Holy Spirit^ declaring their Tower In Unhy^ and their Difilntlion in Order^ jlwidd be caird Atheifis ? By which^ as Le Moyne well obferves *_, he acknowledges the Divi- nity of Father^ Scn^ and Holy Ghofi^ who do not make Three Gods^ but are One God in Nature and Effence^ but dljiln^ from each other in Order^ and in their feveral Sub- fiftencies-, very agreeably with the Account of the Nicene Council. Clemetit oi Alexandria is a moft Itrenuous Af- fertor of the Trinity. In him we have a full Con- -feflion of it in thefe Words: * There is One Fa- ther of the Unlverfefine Word of the Univerfe^ and One Holy Spirit which is e^ery-whcre prefent. He fpendsthe whole eighth Chapter of his Padagc- gue^ mproving^ That all the Attributes of the Father are common to the Son with him^becaufe of the fame Divine Nature common to Both : And that whatever is faid of the Father^ a- grees alfo to the Son : And in the Clofc of the whole^ he praifes the Trinity in thefe Words ; To the onely Father and Son_, Son and Fa- ther^ to the Son that is Teacher and Mafier^ together vnth the Holy Ghofl : Who is All in One 5* a7^d in whom are all Things : By 7vhom all Things are one j and by whom that is which always is ; Of whom all are Members : Whofe me the Glory and the Ages : who is eijery Way Goodj every way Beautiful ^ every way Wife^ every way Jujt ^ To whom he Glory ^ now and for ever. Amen. Where we have One God in Three Terfonsy as plainly as in the Writings of Arha- nafius himlelf. X : Mr. t Varin Sncra. p. 168, 1 F^dflgog, cap. y. 3 1 o The Old Scheme and New- Mr. WVifion indeed fays *^ That Clew em's lait and famoufeft Work_, ftyl'd his r^o7L/7r^^^ Origin of the Sabellian and Athanafian DoBrines of theTnmzVy takes up Schllchtlngius's Sugge- uion_, and lays^ That Tertullian fully and fre- auently allows ^ and Infifis^ that his Hypothefis con- cernivg the frolatlon of the Son and Spirit^ their Unity of Subftance ^ and the Myftery of their O eco- nomy ^ was really and p' overly derWdy not from the Ride of Faith ^ nor from the natural Import of the Scriptures^ nor from any ^pojlolical TradiHony to none of which does he e^uer appeal for fuch Notions ; lut merely from the Proclian Dotlrlne^ and the Pa- raclete o/^Montanus. But it is a mere Fancy, that as far as I can perceive^ has nothing to (upport it. For TtrtulUan himfelf (who moft certainly may be allow'd as capable of giving an Account oi his own Sentiments and their Grounds^ as Mr. VVldifton') declares^ That he always held that Faith which he inculcates in his Difcourfe againft Praxeas, He not only did it after his Acquaintance with Montanus.^^ but long before. Nor had he his Doctrine of the Trinity from Montanus^ but from the Scri- ptures. For (fays he) Scripture omms O- de- 7nonJh'atio7iem O* diftinciionem 'Trinitatis oflendmit, AH the Scriptures hold forth the Reality ^ and the Difiin^ion of the Trinity f- And prcfently after he aflerts^, That this Rule wan ctirrenty from the Beginning of the Gofpelj even before the very firfi Heretlcks^ and much mure btfore Praxeas^ ii'bo WJsbut late y and ofTefterday. We belie -je One one- ly GOD^ but under this Dlft>c?jfatlon (which we call ^tKovoy.UJ that his Word^ who ca?ne out from Hhn^ by whom all Thmgs were made^ and without whom * Treat, ofthe Right Ule of the Fathers, BQok\l.p^6<). \ C9ritr,Vrnx» cap. xi, The Old Scheme and New -ivhom nothing Tvas made^ is the Son of this One onely God. And that He was [mt of the Fa- ther Into the Virgin^ and born of her both Man and G O Dj Son of Man ^ a7id Son of GoD^ and najfid Jesus Christ; n'ho fent from the Father the Holy Spirit^ the Paraclete^ the San- Bifier of the Faith of thofe who beliez'e in the Fa- ther^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft *. By which he as plainly intimates^ that he does not herein deliver his own private Opinionj or the peculiar Opinion of any other Do- diox^ or an Opinion that arofe and fpread in the Time oiVraxeas^ or a little before , but the common^ prevailing Opinion of the whole C^- ihol'ick Churchy as he well could do in Words. S o that depending on the Reprefentations of thofe^ who have learnt the Art of forcing their own Senfe both upon the Sacred Scrip*- tures^ and upon other Writings^ is neither wife nor (afe. In the mean Time^ it neither can be dit- own'd^ nor need it be conceaFd, That Ter- tuUlan does fay^ That there was a Time when the Son was 7iot f. But in fo faying^ I don't apprehend it was his intention to deny his Eternity ; * Banc I{eguUm nh initio Bvangelii dccucurriffc, eti/im 'a7itc priores quofque Hctreticos, nedum /inte Praxeam nuperum (^ heUernum. Credimus unicum Deum , fub h/7c tnmen difper ^,um, Pnrndctum, SmHificatorcm Fidei eorum, qui ere- dmit in Patrcm, (^ Filium, G? Sp, $anHum. Ter t. conL. Piax. cap, xi. t l-ib, ndv, Ecrmo^emm, compared ^ as to Antiquity. 3 1 5 Eternity : He rather referrs to his Prolatlon before the Formation of theWorld^ till vvhich_, He was not what He was afterwards. But not itaying upon this^ I referr the Reader in the Margin^ to fuch Authors as I think have ofFer'd what with candid Perfons may be fufficient to clear him "*". And thus I have done with the fecond Century. The moft celebrated Writers of the third Century^ are Mlnucius Felix^ Hifpolytus^ Julhit Africantts^ Orlgen^ St. Cyprian^ Nuvattany Gre^ gory the Wonder Worker^ and Dennis ot Alex^ 4indria. Minutlus Felix wrote a Defence of Chrlfilanl^ ty in Anfwer to the Objections of the Va- ^^;;/3which muft be own'd to be aii elegant^ and yet is a fuperficial Writing : And die Au- thor of it rather fets himfelf to fhew the Ri- diculoufnefs of the Pagan Sentiments^ and to confute them out of their own Writers^ than to explain or prove the Chriftian Dodtrine^, in its elTential or peculiar Principles. I fee no Reafon therefore to wonder at his Silence about the Trinity. But HippolytHs wrote a Book concerning God Three and OnCy or the Triune God: Which Title alone_, (had we no more to pro- duce from him) is a plain Evidence of his be- ing in a quite contrary Scheme of Notions^ from that which Arlus afterwards endeavour- ed to fpread and propagate. The fame Hlp-^ folytus alio tells USj That we can ha^ve no right Conception uf the One G O d_, hut by helk'vlng in a real Father^ Son^ and Holy Gholt f. And he i.t .'■ ■ . .. . ' * LeUoyne, Varia Sncrn. Vol. II. p. 216, 117, 6c. And Bulli Def. Fid. Nic. t VU. Op. ex Edit. Fdrklf. Tom, IL pag. %'. ccn-^ $ra Noetim, - - . .. 3 1 6 The Old Scheme and New he clofes with this Doxology : To Him be Glory and Voiver^ together with the Father and the Ho- ly Spirit^ In the holy Churchy both now and through everlaftlng Ages *. Julius Africanus is a Chronologer and Hi- ftcrian^ and no Explainer or Detender of the Chriitian Faith ^ and therefore we have the lefs Reafon to exped any Light from hiqi about the Trinity, And yet St. Bafil tj, from the fifth Book ot his Chronicon cites a remarkar ble Doxology y in thefe Words ; f^e render Thanks to Hlmy who ga've our Lord Jefus Chrift to be a Savlpury to whom with the Holy Ghoft^ be Glory and Majefy for e^ver. And the great and Learned Orlgen^ who comes titxt^ (of whom St. Jercm 4- gave thi^ CharacJ^r^ That none but the Ignorant can deny hut that next to the AfoJrleSy he was one of the greatefi Mafiers of the Church) wrote much up- on this and other Parts of the Chriftian Dor- dirine^ and there is not any one of all the Fa- thers from whom we might have expeded more Light than from him^ had we but had his Works intire^ or had not even rhey that are in part preferv'd^ been fadly mangled and adulterated. Which is a Thing that \z much to be lamented. However^ tho' none of the ancient Writers were worfe u(ed than he^ ei- ther as to his Reputationj or as to his WorkSj, yet he being own'd by feveral among the An- cients that defended liim^ to have been in the common Sentiments with Relped: to the Trl-^ nltyy notwithftanding that in fome Things re- lating to it_, he exprefs'd himfelf a little dif- ferently * Ibid, pag. lo. \ De Sp. Sanclo, cap. xxlx. [ P7\efat» in Lib, de J and NW^V^^ If few, feveral would be apt to be dIflatlsfyM, either on the account of fome apprehended Defedl in the Perfons pirch'd on, or becaufe fome others were abr lent, whom they might take to be more difinterefted, or more experienc'd, or fome how or other better i]ualify'd than thofe imploy'd. Let this be got over, and the Number agreed to be Twelve or Twenty ; 'tis query'd, Who muft be the FcrfonSy and how they fhall be determined ? 'Tis not at all unlikely, but Mr. li^hifto7i may as to this, think himfelf as fit to diredl as any Man : Whil^ others (and perhaps a Majority) may think him the moft improper terfon of any, to have the leaft Concern in fuch a Meeting, or be fo much as prefent at it. His Allega- tions that he has publifliVl, or any Additions he fliall rnake to 'em, may be fit to be confider'd by the Re- ferees ; but he being one that has fo indecently re- fled:ed on the Sentiments of the Generality of Chri- ftians in fome capital ?vlntters, and that has been very free In afperfing feveral of his Superiors, and that has been cenfur'd and condemn'd by the Convocation, it may be thought no way proper for him to be a Refe- ree. And '^ou'd not ^is fpoil all ? Would not Mr. PVhiflon reckon himfefr fadly injuv'd, freely pour oiu his Invetibives, and declare agninft all Proceed- ings r Would he not prefently defpair of any good Succefs? Well, to prevent his Clamour, Til fuppofe this £«- fehUn Gentleman (for an Ari^ny it feems, he is no loni',er) to have pafs*d the Pikes, and to be admitted for one : 'Tis query'd, What we muft do for the reft ? Shall Dr. H^atcrland be another ? I'm afraid he and Mr. Whiftcn would never be able to agree, either v?hnt "Xejiimonics to allow for /luthaitick,, or when they had la- hen^llthoje things into wf.ture confiderntiui thnt vcerc nc' ccffary to dcteryninc, (3c. And 1 might fay the fame as fo feveral others, likely to be propos'd. Belides, fome piay be fit for fuch Employment, and not willing to in- compared ^ as to Antiquity, ^^r and pofitive^ and vehement in running down Ser\k all that differed from them. ^ And unrsJ gage In it ; others willing, and not fit ; and others both willing and fit, and yet obje(fled againft. Some thac are admitted may prove very troublefom : And after all, fome muft be excluded that may be aggrieved, anci ilrive to prejudice others againft Proceedings, and thac way do abundance of mifchief. But that I may advance, V\\ fuppofe the Number -fixM, and the Perfons too, ft! 11 Td fain know who caa oblige them, neglecting their own Atfairs, to continue meeting fo often, and for fo long a time together, as will be neceifary to bring Things to an Head ? Or fuppofe one cr two in the Company fliould be of an alfuming Spirit, able to bear no contradidUon, and perpetually jangling if Matters are not carried iheir Way : What muft be done with fuch ? And how fliall they be re- ftrain'd, that buiinefs may go forward } Let it be yielded, that the Cbnirmnn fliould be (b far impower'd. But then again I query, who m.uft this Chnirmnnhe} Of which Side? How chofen ? And vhe;herhe muft be always the fame? Or cho fen each time by a Major Vote ? Lefs things than thefe have before now, rais'd a Flame in Meetings from which there were great expectations. ▼.' But that we mayn't fpoil fo good a Defign In the very entrance, let us fuppofe it determin'd, that the Ch^lrttiari be cho!en each time by the Majority prefent, and that the Majority alfo determ/me, bow often the Meetings rna|l be re^^eated : Yet ftill when they come to Debates, they may be at Crofs Purpofes nil the rpdy, which Mr. Pi^j. complains, was the cafe between my I.d. N. and him. "Well, what if when the Conferences are begun, the Referees can't agree, \vhr.t Tejlimonics are Authc7itick^} Mr. IVh. declares himfe.f certainly adur'd, that i\\t Afo- fiolical Ccnfiltutions are genuine, and is for equalling them to Scripture, if not for preferring them ; while others declare th?y fee not the leaft value upon Citations ' from 332 The Old Scheme and New Serm. And (as I was hinting at the Beginning) X,' tho' the Scriptures are the ody :^ule of Faiph ; U^^>J y^^. I think it may be allow'd to add to our SatisFadion and Comfort^ to find upon Search that we are in the old Paths which have been trodden from any fuch Apocryphal Books, or Spurious Pieces ? Or what if rhey wholly difarree about other necelTary Prelhninarles ? What muft be done ? How can they proceed ? The DlfFerences may be fo great, and mana- ged with fuch Anunofi:y, that they may fall tcgtiher by the Ears ; and can this do any Service ? Or fuppofe they (lioyld go on, till they come to fome JfTue (dio' nothing can be more unlikely) what will be the Confequence ? Say that they r.gree in Ibme few things, and differ in many more, Where will be the great Advantage ? Let the fumm of the Conferences be Printed : Who wilJi be the better } PoiTibly after great pains taken, there may be fome Efcapes : may not ihofe when dlfcover'd, be improved by ftanders by, to the difadvanrage of the Referees, and the fruftrating all their endeavours ? Will not every Man be ftill as much at Liberty to judge for himfelf as before? And when Men of Senfe find the Referees differ from "am in their Sentiments, will they not be apttocenfure 'em as partial, byafs'djjliu' imposed on ? and thereupon write againft *em, and rW 'em down ? And what if af- ter all, the generality of fober Chriftians fhould agree vjholly to drop the Fathers in the Debate, and keep to Scripture only, taking that to be the beft Inter- preter of itfelf ? Would not all the Pains taken about the Fathers then turn to a poor Account ? And what, if after fuch a Conference here at Home, and a Deter- mination on one Side, there fliould be another abroad, r.nd the Dererm/ination there fliould be oppofre ? Will not Perfons ftiil be as much to feek as ever? Upon the Whole, I tuke this Projedt to be Chime- y'lcnly and fo far from being likely, if it were put in execution, to Vrcveyit rJl further Occnficn for Difpute find Ccntrcverfy^ as is pretended, that it would rather create new Controverfies, that would never come to -i^ End, and "do a great deal more Hurt than Good. compared ^ as to Antiqiiity^ ^c^c^ v-or^ trodden by thcfe who liv'd in the C/mrc/j of Serm. C/jrifiy next atter the iacrcd Writers. For my v own Part J I freely grant^ I fhould conclude my felf fafe^ keeping clofe to Scripture^ tho' I had few if any of the Fathers of the Church oji nw Side : And yet when 1 take my Notions ot the Trinity from the Word of God^ to find the Body of the Writers in the moft early Ages of the Chriftian Church concurring, is no fmall additional Satisfadion to me. It is a real Pleafure not only to have good Com- pany, but Occafion to obferve. That the Truth in io capital a Matter continu'd for fome Time m the Churchy before it was re- markably corrupted. B UT in the Clofe of all, I cannot forbear oblerving. That tho' we may upon good Grounds be fatisfy'd, that we are in the old Vaths^ the Paths that are not only Scrip- tural, but have been alfo trodden by thofc that came next after the infpir'd Writers,- yet there is one Thing farther neceffary to our finding Refi to our Sci/lx^ and that is. That we live agreeably to the Doctrine we own^ and make a right pra6lical Improvement of it. Without this, all is as Nothing. For what does it fignify to fix in the Truth upon Search and Inquiry, and bold It In Unr ight confine fs^ when we have done ! That will but heighten our Guilt, and aggravate our Condemna- tion. As much as I am for adhering to the 0/i ScJjcmCy I yet freely own, that if two Perfons offer, of which the one is m the right, and the other in the wrong, upon the Trinity^ or any other capital Branch of the Chriitian Do- (ftrine, if he that is in the wrong be re- markable for a pious and holy Lile, while he that is in the right, allows himfelf in known 334 The Old Scheme and New Serm. known Vice and Impiety^ I fhould be much y^^ more inclinable to efteem the tormer than the latter : For I take Error joyn'd with Itrid Piety^ to be vaftly preferable to Truth joyn'd with known Ungodlinefs : At leall^ I am fure it will prove better to the Parties concern'd^ in the final Iffue. And I can- not help being of Opinion, That a wicked life is the worlt and molt dangerous Herefy. Nor am I here alone ; for the Learned Dr. Waterlandy as zealous as he is for the Do- drine of the Trlmty^ has yet deckr'd. That every Hcrefy m Morality^ is of more fernicioiis Con- fequencey than Herejies in Points of Tojitkue Reli- gion ■*'. Let us therefore all make it our earnefi re- queft to Almighty God, That together with Orthodox Notions ni our Heads, we may have upright and honeft Hearts j Llearts truly de- Voted to Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ and then we fiiall find the Truth will have a dif- ferent Reliih from what can otherwife be ex- pected : And it will efFecrually fecure^ both our prefent Peace and Comfort_, and our eVerlafting Happinefs. * See the Cafe of Arinn Subfcrlption conlider'd, and the feveral Pleas and Excure;s for it, particularly examined oiid confuted, /. 7. SERM. 335 SERMON XI. Jeremiah VT. i6. This faith the J^ OK d, Stand ye in the Ways and fee ^ and ask for the old Vaths^ where ts the good Way^ and walk therein , and ye Jhall find reft for your Souls. HEN Travellers meet with more Scilreis- ways before them than one^ 'tis rec- hall,T«ff. kon'd a peice of common Difcretion^ day ' Ltc^ ^o Hand ftill^ and make enquiry, which leads cure ; to the Place they are defigning for. And Sept. 6» the very fame Courfe as all Men are for tak- ^ Tid- ing in a common Journey, does the Pro- phet here advife the People of God to take, in their Motions towards that refi of Sottl^ which is earneftly defir'd by all that know how to value Thmgs accordmg to their De- ferc. Hardly any comnarifon Cv-iu bw more natu- ral 33^ The Old ^chtmt preferable to Sfrm. ral or more common^ than that of the Courfe Yj * we feverally take in this prefeiit Life to a Journey. Every one is travellings and defigns and defires to bend his Courle towards Refi and Happinefs. And it not a little concerns us to take care^ not only that we fet out well^ but that we take right Roads and Paths^ if we defu-e to get fate to our Journeys end. The Grand Inquiries we are to make are about Truth and Error^ Good and Evil. The Prophet here direds to inquire for the Old Tatbs^ and the Good Way : And the Diredioii is to the full as proper and fuitable for us noWj as ever it was for the People of God in former Times. This fliould be our Way farcicularly as to the Dodrine of the Trinity^ on which I have difcours'd with fo much freedom. We fhould ask for the Old Taths^ and inquire where is the Good Way^ and Walk therein: And thus (ioing we fliali be moft likely to find Reft for our Souls, There are two Schemes particularly^ that here are offered to us^ and I have undertaken to compare them together, with refped to Afitiqulty^ and as to Eafe and difficulty ^ and the other things which are icverally oifer'd to recommend thern^ and moft ufually alledg'd in their favour. I have offered that upon the Head of Antiquity^ as may I think give fa- tisfadion^ that the Body of the Reformed Churches is with refped to this Part of the Chriftian Dodrine^ truly iJi Poffeffion of the Old Taths; I. e. thofe Paths which are not only markYl out by the infpir'd Writers of the Nt7i> Teftamcnt^ but which were alfo taken by thofe of the greatell note and emi- nence^ who came aker them in the Chriftian Churchy for the Three firfl Centuries. And I am now to ihew^ that this i.s alio the Good the Neiv^ on many Accounts. 557 Way^ and has a great many Things to re- commend it^ beyond the other Wayj for which fome are fo exceeding zealous : And I fhall fet myfelf to compare the Two Schemes together^ In themfel^esy and in their Confequen- ces ; confidering them both Defenfively ^ and Ojfenfively ^ and inquiring^ How the Abet- tors of eachj both fupport their Principles^ and encounter their OppofiteSj and which do it with molt Clearnefs_, Strength^ and Solidity. And there are Six Heads ^ upon which my Comparlfon here will run. For I propofe to compare them together_, I. As to the Troof which they fevcrally produce. II. A s to the Additional Tleasy with which the Proof produc'd^ is on each fide, fought xg be fupported. III. As to the Objeciiovs which they fe- verally make againft their Oppofites. IV. A s to their Aim m their Management_j" and the Method they ufe to reach their End. V. ni confider which Scheme is moft cal-- culated to promote true Fiety. And^ VI. Which conduces mofl to the Comfort o£ the Upright and Sincere, And I am hot aw.ire^ that there is any thing needful to a juft Comparifon^ but what may be reduc'd to one or ether of thefe Heads. And, Z I. I 338 The Old Scheme preferaMe to I. I begin with comparing the Old and the New Scheme upon the Dodrine of the Trinity together^ as to the Proof which they feverally produce. Both of 'em plead Scrlptm-e and Anti- qiiity for their own Support : But its an ealy thing to obferve they do it in a different manner. I begin with Scripture^ which is urg'd on both fidesj in Proof of their feveral Prin- ciples. The Patrons of the New Scheme al- ledge the Scriptures in their own Favour^ and are forward enough to boaft^ that by them they carry their Point. But then at the fame timCj they wofuUy leffen the Credit of the Sa- cred Scripiures as the only Rule of our Faith y * which has from the firft been a diicriminating Principle^ between us^and thofeof the Church of Rome, It is alfo their way to fallen upon one or two particular Texts^ by which they are for interpreting all the reft ^ whereas they that Hand up for the Old Schem^ at the fame time as they adhere to Scripture as the only Rtde of Faith J are alfo for intently obferving the main current of it^ and for interpreting particular Texts that offer^ according as that leads. Dr. Clarke indeed charges thofe that are for th6 Old Way ^ with picking out fomefew Jtngle Texts of Scripture^ ' i^ifiead of attending to the whole Scope ^ and gerieral Tenour of It f. And if this were true^ it would molt certainly be ve- ry wrong. But I think it is evident^, that the * if it be fnidy (fays Mr. Pi^ljifton) That the known Books of the New Teftament arc thefncred I{ule of Faith and Praclife for the Church, Imvji reply that this is falfe in Fa^. And afterwards, vo^Jlrangely mijiahs the Na- ture ayid Defign of tbefe Sacred H-]iti?igs^ if we ejleem them as the proper B^ile of Faith and Practice among Chrijiians, Elfay on the Apollles Conftitudons. chap^ z. pag. i6z, 163. jf Iiurqdudiott to Scrij^r. Dodrlne, pag. 19: the New, on many Accounts. 359 the Zealots for the New Scheme^ are here the Serm.' guilty Parties. For they are continually ^I harping upon thofe Words_, Ady Father is great- i^rv">0 er than I "f- That Text with them is the only, or at leaft the chief Standard. Where- as It is the common_, open Declaration of all that I have met with that are in the Old Scheme^ that they are for carefully obferv- ing how all along the New Teftammt^ thofe Perfedions which are moll defcriptive of true and proper Divinity^ are afcrib'd to the Son as well as the Father^ without any dif- cernable Difference made as to any real Ex- cellence : Which is in a Meafure alfo true_, as to the Holy Ghofi. The Adherents to the Old Scheme are for underftanding the Scrip- tures they produce in their natural^ con- neded Senfe, according to their true Gram- matical Conftrudion: Whereas the Follow- ers of the New Scheme rack and torture the Scriptures_, to force their own Senfe out of 'em y and criticize upon 'em in fuch a Man- ner^ as often to extrad that from 'em, that never was m 'em_, and could not be intend- ed by thofe that wrote 'em, v/ithout run- ning into manifeft Inconfiftencies. They that are for the Old Scheme take the Scriptures as they are tranfmitted to 'em by the Churches of Christ that were before them, who cannot reafonably be fuppos'd to have corrupted 'em in any Thing that's effential ; nor could have been able to do it, even tho' they fhould have been that Way inclined : Whereas the Men of the New Scheme raifefuchObjedions againft thole Texts which they cannot anfwer, as Z 2 tend "t And yer Pct/ivius fhews thar rhey make riot fox; them. Jkcol, Dogm, d^ 7iin» J-ib, 11. cap. lu \ '34-0 The Old Schtmt prefer ahle to tend to make the Sacred Scriptures contem- ptible. They (like fome whom the Church heretofore reckon'd among her worit Ene- mies ■*"_,) at every Turn cry out of falfe Co- pes^ and Interpolations^ and take a world of Pains to render thofe PalTages fufficlom that make againft them : they often put fuch In- terpretations upon 'em^ as look as if they intended to ridicule 'em, and are more re- markable for nothing, than their Boldnefs in wrefiing^ what ought to be taken juft as it is deliver'd. Each Branch of which Charge may be eafily made good by a variety of Par- ticulars. And then as to Antiquity^ the Patrons of the New Scheme^ either palm upon us fuch forg'd Writings as the ApofloUcalConfiitutlons for good Authority, or they boait of having thofe on their Side whom the Chriltian Church generally difown'd, and caft off: And if the Fathers drop any thing that feems in the leaft to favour them, they make a great Noife with it, without confidering what their View was, or how, what they -are fo much for applauding, can be reconciFd with plain and exprefs Declarations of their Senfe m other Places ^ and without making a pro- per Allowance for the Heat of Difpmey under the Influence of which it has in all Ages been common, even for Writers of Worth, for Fear of one Ey'treme^ to run into another. And when any Thing is produced out of the fame Writers againft them, they are no more mov'd^ *■ Irencetii, Lib. III. cap. 2. Speaking of the Hereticks of his time, exprefles him felf thus : Cum ex fcripturis arguuntur, in accufntioncm ccyivertuntur ipfnrum fcriftu- rarum^ qunfi non reBe J'd'eei7itj7icquefmt ex eiutoritfitCy ^ ^uia mrie fun dicUj &c. the Nevy, on many Accounts. mov'd^ than if the A-ithors cited dcfcrv'd no Regard. Whereas they that are for the Old SchtmCy finding their Notion of a G o d that is One in Jhree^ and Three in OnCy generally pafs current in the Church from one Age to another, are thereupon juftly the more confirnVd. However, they (as it becomes 'em) are free to allow for Slips, either before Matters had been fully debated, or in the Heat of Difpute. They are not for pre- fently running Authors intirely down with Contempt, upon finding here and there an unwary Expreffion in 'em. And when upon cafting up their Accounts, they perceive they have the Stream of the Primitive Writers for 'em, they are thankful : And yet Itill admit the infplr'd IVriters only for the Rule of their Faith y to which they inviolably adhere, what- ever may become of the Creiit of other Au- thors. Let any Man then judge, which of thefe Two is moft likely to be m the Rig-ht. Bur, ^ ^ 2. Let us alfo compare the Old Scheme and the New together, as to the Additiond Pleas y with which the Proof produc'd is fought to be fupported. They that are fond of the Neoi^ Scheme talk big, take much upon 'em, and vaunt as it they were the Feople^ a72d Johxii Wifdom jljotdd die with them : Whereas they that are for the Old Scheme ^ are content to believe and acquiefce in what is reveal'd, tho' they know they mull not exped to fathom ; and they pretend to no more than fuch an Evi- dence as Preponderates, with which they think it but reafonable that they fhould be fatisfy'd. The Zealots for the New Scheme plead, that with them are the Men of the brighteft Parts, and the greateft Penetration ; But they that are for the Old^ being little Z I affcded 342 The Old Scheme preferable to Serm. affeded with fuch fvvelling Words of Vanity^ XI. which fliew only the Iniolence and Scorn ot V.^..^^^ thofe that ufe thcm^ plead that their Scheme beft f'uits and falls in with the other main Heads of the Chriitian Dod:rine^ fuch as the Incarnation of the Son of God^ his Satlsfa^iion^ and confequent Glory_, his Vriefily Office ^ and the Doctrine of Santtification^ which they are not by any means for having juftled out of their Religion^ or cavill'd or quibbled away : And this is a Plea of great Weighty and not eafily to be anfwer'd. T o me it is very evident_, That there are feveral Things of no fmall Moment^ in which it highly concerns us to be as clear as may be^ which are much better accounted for by the Old Scheme y than by the New, T H T s is the Cafe of the Incarnation of the Toh. 1. 16. ^^^ of G o D. St. John tells us_, Jloe Word ovas made Fleji?^ and dwelt among m^ or tabernacled with us. Humanity was^ in the" Cafe of our Bleffed Savmr^ fo inhabited by the Divinity^ fe Tim. ^^^^ ^ ^ jy-r^i^a^ truly manlfefied in the Flcjl^ or Jii. i6.' humane Nature of Christ. This the Old Scheme is clear in^ and it afferts it in fuch a Manner^ as to be chargeable with no Incon- fiitency. Whereas the New Scheme^ neither leaves Dlvi7tity to inhabit_, nor Humanity to be inhabited by it. It does not leave Divinity to inhabit. It makes the Son at belt but a Creature ^ and irt that do all its fine Flou- riikes iifue. For if He is but a fuhordlnate God^ let him have ever fo many or 16 valuable Ex- cellencies above other created Beings^ He ' will at lait be no more than a Creature ori- ginally. Nor does it leave Humanity to be inhabited by the Divinity. For what is Huma- nity without a Soul^ but a mere Clod of Clay ? "Kow they that are thoroughly iagag'd in tnis . " Scherr?e. the New, on many Accounts. ^4.5 Scheme^ allow our Bleffed Saviour no humane Soul at all. The IVord according to theirij fup- ply'd the Place of that *. So that inftead of God tahernacUng amongft Men^ we fhall at beft have only a noble_, fuperfine^ fuperan- gelick Spirit^ alTuming an humane Body. This is the molt they can make of G o d ma- nifefi in the Fiejh. Nor does the Ne-oj Scheme better accord with the Scriptural Account of the Dodrine Z 4 of ^ Mr. li^nfion frankly owns, That this was a mam Thing that led him into the Ariaii Scheme, and that he look'd on the Difcovery of this, as one of the moft certain and important of all others, as to the Points of the Trinity and hicarnation. Hiji. Pref. ^re- fi^id to Priyn. Chriit. re^ivd. Vol. I. p. 6. And this was the true ancient Ariajiifm. Athnnnfiu^ affirm'd, that the y^rMw^ maintained. That the heavenly Mind in Christ, fervid inftead of an human SouL XecT$. Tom. I. De Incamat. Chrijli /idv. Apolin. p. 6iS. Theodcret (ays, that the Aria7Js and Eu7iomia7is held. That our Saviour's Godhead perform'd the Office of the Scul. Divin. Decret. Epit. ca^. xii. p. 124. Aufttti fays, the Ariajis held, I'hat Christ took only a human Body without a Soul. Di? Here/ cap. Iv. p. 182.. Thus doing, they made the Humanity of Christ imperfedt. For had He only afTum'd a Body, and wanted a Soul, He would have had but half the humane Nature, and fo would have been but a partial Redeemer, faving the Body only, while the Soul was left to perifli. Sec Crit. Hift. of Apoftles Creed, p. 250, 251. Dr. Clarice is not open upon this Head. For when it was objeded to him. That he fuppos'd the Divine Nature fupply'd the Place of the humane Soul in Christ ; he anfwers. That on w/ch Side foever the Queftion be determin d, it makes no Alteration in hi* Scheme. Anfwer to the Author of fotnc Confidernttom, ^e. p. 219. Whereas this is a Point of that Moment|^ that I fliould think it aifeds any S.che7ne whatever. 344 The Old Scheme preferable to Serm. of Redemptions than it does with that of the XI. Incarnation. For it neither leaves Room for ^w'-^^r^^ fuch a Redemption as the Gofpel (peaks of, and Mate. 28. fo much applauds ; Nor does it leave us fucH 18. a Redeemer as is a fit and fuitable Objed of Bph.i.22. the Trufl and Confidence which we are re- quir'd to put in him. It makes but a very- poor Bufinefsj of that which the Gofpel re- prefents p us as a Thing to be peculiarly 2, Cor. V. admir'(i_, That He ivho knew no Sln^ Jliould-l^e ^^' made Sm^ or a Sin-offering /^r 745^ t^at ive might he made the Righteoufnefs of Go D In htm : And it leaves us fadly at a Lofs to make it out^ Thac 'Adls xx: we are pm-chas'd Tvlth God's oivn Blood '^ and that ^\ , ... God laid down his Life for us; and that the ijoh. 111. j^^j^ ffffer'dfor the Unjufi^ to bring us to GoV>. 1 Pet iii ■^^^ ^^^ Scheme alfo gives a much better 1^8. ' * ' Account than the t^ew^ of Christ as Media- tor ^ and of his Advancement in that Capa- city. According to this^ all Rower was truly given to ChrisTj, notwithftanding what lie was and had before : And all Things were put under his Fcev^ notwithftanding that He really was God over All Blefj'edfor ever, . He had 0- riginally an univerfal Lordfhip belonging to him : But at his RefHrre^lon^ He received that full Power in both his Natures^ which He had before poiTefs'd in one only. But here^ they that are in the New Scheme appear to be in great Confufion. They conferr a Divinity to which there was no Original Right : And bring in 3. Mediator of a quite different Nature from him that is to be mediated with. In tlie mean time they pretend^ that the 6'o^zs aciing by Delegation m his Office^ argues his Inferiority of Nature. But in this they are ma- riifeftly unreafonable. For why may not one be Delegate to another^ without being of an iyfcrlor Nature ? And how can the Sons be- ' ' ' ' ^ " "^ the New, on many Accounts. 34.5 ing delegated by the Father to adl: the Part of Shrm, our Redeemer y argue his being of an inferiour XL nature to the father^ when the very Office v^/->yrC^ which he is delegated to^ is fuch^ as no inferi- our nature could be able to fultain ; and the honour confequent upon it too great^ for an inferiour nature tO receive. Nor does the New Scheme give us any to- lerable Account^ how the Holy Ghofi comes to be joyn'd and fet upon a Level with the Father and the Son in the Commiffion for Ba- ptifm : Nor how that work of Sanctificatlon which is peculiarly afcrib'd to him^ and in which he is the proper Agent^ comes to be as necefTary as the Work of Redemption^ of which the Son is the Undertaker. 'Tis pleaded however in Favour of itj that it faves the Unity of God, and keeps that in- tire. But fuppofmg (without granting) ic fhould in that llefped have fome Advantage^ what Amends can that make us for its obfcu- ring and overthrowing the main and mod Capital Parts of the Lhrlfiian DoElrlm^ with which it is not to be reconcil'd ? And what fhall wc at laft do with our one God^ without a Sa'viour and a SanElifier^ capable of anfwering the Ends of their refpedive Offices in Order to our Salvation? I cannot lee_, how either that or any otherPlea that can be urg'd^ can yield folid batisfadion under fuch a Defed ^ or how that Scheme can be right_, that fhuts out any Parts or Branches of thatDodrine^ which the Scriptures reprefent as necefTary to be entertain d and taken in. I go on^ 3. To compare the two Schemes together as to the Objcdlons which they feverally make againft their Oppofites. Thefe are many on each fide : And I think it may be well worth Qur while to conlider ^ which of the ^^6 The Old Scheme prefer ahle to Serm, ^^"^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ jufter^ and the better prov'd. ^j Each fide complains that the other has its ^^^^.^YVJ ^'^ffi^^^^^'^^^ ? ^^^ ^^^h ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^"^^ Difficulties of their Oppofites to be infuperable. Where- as it being very evident that there are Diffi- culties on each Side^ the fairelt Way and the moft rational^ would be to weigh them in the Ballance together^ and fee which out- weighs. For a Dodrine to be attended with Difficulties^ is not an Evidence that it wants a folid Foundation ^ and we fhould be much in the wrong prefcntly to conclude it iralfe. For perhaps the oppolite Notion may upon fearch be found to be liable to yet more weighty Objections. And I mult own I am much miitaken if this upon Search be not found the Cafe as to the Old Scheme and New with refped: to the Trinity. As to the Old Scheme^ I freely own it has its Dijficultles ^ and they are great ones toOj, and fuch as 1 don't fee how we can exped: to get over. But then if the Nai/ Scheme has yet more and greater Difficulties attending it^ 1 think v/e fhould ad unreafonably^ if upon that account we thought of an Exchange. The Patrons of the Nav Scheme are ready e- nough to magnify our Difficulties^ who are for adhering to the Old : But in the mean time they overlook their own. When we urge upon 'em thofe remarka- ble Words of the Beloved Difciple^ who wrote his Gofpel on purpofe to filence Cavils againft his Mailer's proper Divinity^ in the John i. I. Beginning was the Wordy and the Word was with Gody and the Word v^as God ; they reprefent it as a Difficulty that is neither to be born with_, nor got over_, that the Word fhould be the fame Cody that it is faid he was with. But why not the fame God^ when it is fo evident from the whole the New, on many Accounts. ^47 ^^/>/ whole ftrain of the New Teftament Writings^ Serm. that He has the very fame Perfedlions with ^j him whom He -was -with : and whom he was 0L>itb in a particular Manner ^ and that before any Thing elfe was ? But in the mean time, they overlook a yet greater Difficulty which that Text expofes their New Scheme to. For how odd mull it needs appear for the Apoltie to alTert^, that the IVord was not only in the Begin7iivgy but ivas with the Supreme God^ and in the very next Claufe to add that he was himfelf an mferiour God ! And how much worfe a Sound has it^ for him to declare him^ tho' a Creature^ to have been m the Begifmlng with God ^ and then in the very fame lireath to declare him Creator of all Ttomgs • for that all Ihlngs were made by hlm^ and without him was 7iot ajiy' Thing made that was made ! This is a Difficulty with a Witnefs ! 'Tis big with Ab- furdity^ and draws after it the utmoft Con- fufion ! The Admirers of the New Scheme make Difficulties J where there are none but what are eafily got over : Thus they boggle at owning the Son to have been properly Eter^ nal^ and necelTarily exiftent^ and yet at the fame time to have a Name gl^'cn him ahoue e-ve- ry Name^ in Confequence of his Sulferings «nd Death , tho' thefe are Things that may be eafily reconcil'd : But then in the mean time^ they make light of Difficulties that really are infuperable. Thus they will have an high- er and a lower GoD^ the one Supreme ^ and the other Subordinate^ and to thefe they (fome of 'em) add a third that is fubordlr/ate to the other two ; tho' by the fame Reafon^ and in the fame Way^ there might be Three hun- dred as well as Three partaking of the Divi- nity ; Nor have they any Thing fohd to offer 348 The Old Scheme preferaMe to offer to prevent it^ under Chrifilanitj^ any more than under Vaganlfm. They that are tor the New Scheme ^ bring fever al Charges again ft thofe that adhere to the Old^ vi^hich they cani?jot prove^ and to which they themfelves are much more liable. Thus they accufe them of contradicting them- felves m holding Three^ of each of whom it may be faid^ (and that in the fame Senfe) that He is God^ while yet they declare there is but One GoD^ and not three. But this is manifeftly unjult. For when we fay in the cafe of /^/jr^fj that each is GoDj, and that altogether they are but One God j whatever the Ideas may feem^ they are not really repugnant. We there mean no more than this^ That each has fuch and fuch eifential Perfedions belonging to him. We own indeed^ That we cannot fee how this can be reconcifd with the Belief of One GoD^ any rnorje than how certain and infallible Prefclence can be reconcil'd with the Cdnthigency of future Events foreknown. In one Cafe and \n the other^ we believe upon good Evidence^, not doubting but that the Ideas are conneded^ tho' we can't fee how. To fay this is a Ccmradl^tlon^ is to charge the BleiTed God with contradicting himfelf. In the mean time the New Scheme has real Con- zradicilons attending it : For \t hrft makes a Creature the Creator of all Things^ and then fuppofes this Creature to be chang'd into a God ^ than which I don't fee how any Thing could be Itarted that was more monftrous. Again ^ the Patrons of the New Scheme charge thofe who ftand up for the Old^ with being either Jrlthelfts or SabeUlans : But very unjullly. They are not Trltheifts -^ for they hold but 0^;e God^ and aifert_, that they are the very fame Perfcdions that are confpicu- ^ oiis the NeW; on many Accounts, ^^^.p ous in Father J Sorty and Holy Ghofi. Nor are Serm* they Sabellia?iSy becaufc they hold Father ^ Son^ XL ia^id Holy Ghofi y to be really dlfiinBy and are s^v^ zealous for fuch a Dlfilnctlon in the Dt-///^ as is a fufficient Foundation of thofe fever al Relations and Operations that are afcrib'd to the Sacred Three in Scripture. In the mean time they give us too good Ground to charge them both with Folythelfim and Idolatry. For by owning a Supreme and Suhordhiate God^ (which Diflindion runs quite through their HypothefiSj and is the Bafis of it) they un- avoidably bring in more Gods than One^ which is intirely contrary to the Tenour both of the Old Ttfiamtnt and l^ew. And making Christ but a Creature^ and yet workup fmg hinij when the Scripture charges us to ivor- fij/p GoD onel/y they run into Idolatry. And tho' they plead the Command for giving hini Worjlnp in. their own Vindication^ yet will not that excufe 'em^ if it be contrary to the Fundamental Rule of religious IVorjlnp^ that confines it to God alone. And the belt Saho that the molt extenfive Charity can devife for 'em^ is only this^ That 'tis to be hop'd they are not aware of the Tendency of their own Principles ; which yet is no Reafon againlt our urging it upon them^ in. order to their Conviction^ whatever it may be againll proceeding to an abfolute Condemnation of 'em^ upon Suppoiition that their Hearts may be better than their Heads. Again 5* the Abettors of the ISlew Scheme charge thole that are for abiding by the Old one^ with adding in fome Cafes to the Text of Scripture^ and pretending to Ipeak plain- er than the Holy Spirit has didatedj which would be very blameable if true : But in the mean time^ they themfelves are grofsly guil- ty. 35o The Old Schtmt preferaMe to ty. Our Lord Jesus not long before his Crucifixion^ offered up a Requeft in thefe Words : yind now O Father ^ S^^^'^fj ^hou me w'lth Toh. xvii. the Glory which I had with thee before the World was. They will have the meaning of this to be^ ^vhich thou decreedfi we^ or defignedfi for me^ before the World was : tho' there is not the leafl: hint of a Decree or Defgn^ but our Lord plainly fpeaks of his athial Tofjejfion. And when the Scripture often fays abfolutelyj that there is but077cGoD^ they are mightily for addinj^ the Word Supreme^ and that without any Warrant or Foundation for it ; there being no reafon to apprehend that the Sacred Writers had any Intention to limit the Senfe of fuch Declarations by Supreme^ they not having given the leaft Intimation of it. And m like Manner^ when in a great variety of TextSj the moft glorious Divine Attributes are afcrib'd to our Lord Jesus Christ^ they without any Warrant will add Reltri cations and Limitations^ when yet they won't allow of any fuch Limitations in the Text wherein the very fame Divine Attributes are afcrib'd to the 0?2e GoD^ notwithltanding the Ex- preffions us'd are equally general^ and ap- pear to be equally extenlive. One of the Advocates for the New Scheme charges thofe that are for the Old^ with fub- verting Christ's Mediation^ which would moft certainly be very Criminal^ were but the Charge well grouncled. If^ fays he^ Chrifi is Supreme God^ when we addrefs him as fuchy It muft he without a Medlatour ^ or he mufi Mediate 7vlth himfelf The Divine Nature Is precluded from wedlatl'/?gy becaufe that Is to he fought to as the ul- timate ObjeB through a Mediatour : And the hu- mane nature way know nothing of our Cafe^ nor bow to re^refm^ or recommend Us to God^ And fo the New^ on many Accounts. 3^1 there Is no Mediator left to interpofe 7vith the Su- ^reme God i and the Lord Jesus /'/ turnd out of his Office y under pretence of ghjtvg him higher Ho- nour ^. I anfwer : It being God-Man ^ that is the Mediator J we may and ought to difcover our Senfe of his being fb^ in all our Addref- les to the Deity in general : And yet we are not deny'd a Liberty of particularly applying to him as Mediator^ in any Part of his Of- fice ,• in which Cafe^ we cannot be faid to need any one to interpofe with him for us^ becaufe of his Itill retaining that Nature of ours^ which he alTum'd in order to our Re- demption. And I take this to be very a- greeable to the Scripture Reprefentation of this Matter. For we are told^ that In that he pjeb. li; hlmfelf hath fuffcred^ being tempted ^ he Is able to 18. fuccottr them that are tempted. Having in our af- fum'd Nature been varioufly tempted and tried_, he is therefore the more meet to be a com- paffionate Helper^ to fuch as are at prefent under Temptations : And by Confequence^ he is the more fit to be apply'd to by 'em for Re- lief. And He was accordingly diredly ap- ply'd to by St. Paul^ and that with Succefs. ^ Cor.xil.' But the whole of this^ I fhould think would 2- appear a vain and empty Flourifh^ to one that confidersj that the Neji^ Scheie overthrows the Dodrine of Christ's Mediation intirely, by taking away the SatlsfaBmij which accord- ing to the Scriptures is its only Foundation ,• and by degrading him that fliauld execute that Office fo low^ as to leave him incapable of difcharging it^ for want oi Merit to fup- port him. ^ But who can wonder at any thing of this kind^ from thofe^ who by alcribing fucti * Ernl)n\ Trads, p, 37, 39i 3^2 The Old Scheme prefer ahle to \y\^^ Serm. fi^ch Characters as the Scripture gives to Xl/ Christ^ to a meer dignjfy'd Creature^ and exalted Man ^ confound the Creator with the Creature^ God and Man^ finite and infi- nite. This moft certainly is a much groffer Abfurdity3 than either to fuppofe fuch a D;- filnBlon in the Infinite but Undivided Nature of G0D3 as the Dodrine of the Trlmtj im- plies 3 or to allow a Concern of both Na- tures in the Difcharge of the Mediators Of- jfice^ and a Liberty upon Occalion^ of a di- rect Application to him_, tho' there be none to interpofe. It has farther been fometimes objeded by the Friends of the New Scheme^ That the Fol- lowers of the Old are Itrangely divided ^ fome taking one Way to explain themfelves^ and others a quite contrary : But if this be any thing of an Argument that Perfons have not the Truth on their Side^ the Friends of the New Scheme had need look about them ^ it not being an eafy Thing to find Two of 'em intirely of a Mind. And for this Reafon I fhould think this Objection might very well be wav'd. But we have a great many Charges againii thofe that are in the New Scheme^ after all their mighty Boafts^ and alTuming Airs^ which they won't fo eafily be able to clear themfelves from. They often confound Things needlefsly. They will have it^ That if the So7% be of the fame Nature y he mufl be the ^tiy [ame Perfon v/ith the Father : And that a Dljiindmi of Perfo^^s^ h the very fame with a Difference of Nature ; and that a Priority of the Father to the Son in the Order of the Tri- nity ^ implies an ejjentlal Dlfparliy and he^uallty between Them, tho' there is no fuitable Proof produc'd* Nay^ they confound the Creator the New, on many Accounts. 3 5 g Creator and the Creature^ and are for Wor- Serm. fliipping a made Beings tho' there is no one ^I. Thing which the Revelation of the Old and ,^xv^ Nev^ Ttfiament more freely declares againft. In Reality^ nothing could have an odder Afped^ than for Christ to come into the World to deliver Men from the Worfhip of Creatures^ and at the fame time fet up him- felf^ if but a Creature^ to be wormipp'd as God. They reprefent the Apoltles as in- couraging Creaturt-lVorJhlp^ tho' it v^as their grand avovv'd Dellgn^ to root out the Wor- fhip of all fuch as by Nature were not Gods. They directly break thQjirfi Commandment y by bring- ing in Two Gods y if not Three : And when they have done that^ I fee not what Reafon there is to expcd they ihould much regard the reft. They do and undo. They pretend to affert Christ's Divinity^ and o- verthrow it when they have done ^. They agree to the Name_, and afterwards give up the Thing. They are at the lame time ma- nifellly unreafonable ; and will not be con- tent vvith the fame Meafure they mete to o- thers. On^ of 'em makes it an Objection againft Christ's Infinite Z)e/r;'_, That St.Pff^rAdis H did noty when he was dealing with his Mur- ii, 13.' dererSj tell 'em plainly. That they /jad fljed 36- the Blood of God himjelfy in order to the heightning their Convidion f : And yet when a Confideration of the very fame Na- ture was by St. PW urg'd upon the 0^'fr/^^rJ X^, xx.iS; of the Flock at Ephcfm^ and they, in order to rhe heightning their Care in Feeding the Flock^. A a were * This Charge was often brought againft the ArUrJ l^ythe Fathers; as is file wn by Pcf^rw. Thiol. Do^m, aV Tmi. Lib. II. cap. ix. Se^ft. VI, 354 The Old Scheme preferaMe to Sbrm. were told_, That God had purchafed it vnth his XI, ozvn^ Bloody they that are in the fame Scheme v^/-»y-s^ cavil and quibble^ and rack their Brains to find out Evallons^ till they make it amount to juft nothing. The Neiv Scheme pretends one Thing_, and means another. It pretends that Christ is God 5 and yet in the IfTue makes a mere Creature of him :^ For it alTertSj That He re- ceiv'd his very Being from the Father. Now if He really receiv'd a Beings he could net have k before : He did but begin to be : Whereas the Scripture ufes quite different Language. For we are there told^ That He ivas ;>; the Be^ .John i. 2, ginning with GoD. Which is a plain Intima- tion that the Son no more had a Beginning of Being than the Father himfelf ; and that He is as truly necejjarlly €xifte7it as the Father; which is what the Old Scheme lays great Strefs upon. In fliort^ The J^ew Scheme is neither con- fiftent with Scripture^ nor with itfelf. And there is one Thing that makes both plain ; and that is_, That it firft turns God into a Creature^ and then gives the Creature the TVor- Jbip that belongs only to God. And whe- ther the doing thus,, is to be preferred to the giving to Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ to whom we were joyntly devoted^ the fame Love and Honour^ Worjlnp and Obedience^ judge you. And now^ 4. Let us compare the Two Schemes to- gether^ as to their Aim in their Management, and, the Method they ufe to reach their End. They that are for the Ne-w Scheme^ are zea- lous not to diminifh^ but rather to their ut- moit to advance^ the Glory of God the Father ^ from whofe Mercy and Grace the Scripture reprcfents the Son as given for our Redemption^ and the New, on many Accounts ^t^ty and the Spirit for our SarjEilfication. And they Serm^ that are for the Old Scheme^ on the other XL handj are zealous^ not to diminifli the Ho- k.^^s^^^ nour of x\\^Son of God^ and the Holy Spirit, And in order to the reaching this End^ the Priends of the New Scheme ^ extol the Father y make him Lord Paramount^ infift much and of- ten upon his Supremacy ^QOniin^neceJJary Exifience and Independence to him^ and advance his Pre- rogative to the utmoft height : And when they are charg'd with overdoing, and lef- fening the Son^ they tell us_, That they ha^c not a7iy Inclination to leJJ'en the Honour of the Lord of Glory, They rather congratulate than envy his high efi Glory y were it ever fo great ^ if real and jtifi 5 but they dare not accept his Fcrfin^ nor talk wickedly even for God, They are jealous for the peerlefs Majefiy of the Lord ^ Hofis^ the God of all Gods *. And they add. That fuppofmg the Matter of Difpute were equally evident on both Sides ; yet they think there is much more Safety on their Side than en the other : Which is an Ar- gument they are very well fatisfy'd in their Proceedings. And they illullrate it thus: Suppofing that J Es US ChRIST were the fame Be-* ing vAth the Father j yet In fforJJjjpping One Goo ths Father, they of the NejiJ Scheme would give Worjloip to the Divine Being : And he who wpr^ flj/ps one Infinite GoD, worfijips (they {ay) all that Is adorable with Dlvlfie PTorJJnp. Whereas fuppofing Christ to be another Beings next^ but inferior to the Father, the Trinitarians ivho wor* jhip no ether Beings but what is the Father, or the Supreme Beings mufi 7ieeds be found to give no JVor^ fljip at all to Jesus Christ f. Whereas the A a 2 Followers =* Emlyns Trads, p/tg, 139, (yi, t lb, pag. 142, 143. 35^ The Old Scheme preferaMe to Followers of the Old Seheme^ without either detrading from what the Scripture afcribes to Father or Son^ or adding to it^ are for be- ing guided by thofe Maxims^ He that honour- eth not the Son_, honour eth not the Father which 1 John ii- J}jft Jjl^ : And^ JVhofie-ver deny eth the Son^ the ^3- J^ame hath^jot the Father. And fince t\iQ Father y Sony and Holy Spirit^ are in the Baptifmal Charge and Commiffion reprefented as ha- ving an equal Right to our Riithy Worflolpy and Ohediencey they accordingly fet Them up- on a Level in their Refped^ without any Fear of offending either. And it is left to unprejudic'd Perions to judge^ which is the molt reafonable. And then^ f. We may alfo do well to confider which of thefe two Schemes is belt calculated to pro- mote and increafe ferious Vlety. I take that to be a thing by which we may be help'd in paffing a Judgment. Chriftianity as it is de- \ Tim. liver'd in the Sacred Scriptures^ is a Myfiery ill. i6. ^yr Qodlinefsy not Pubhfti'd with a defign to puzzle and amufe^ but advance real Fiety and Goodnefs among Mankind^ in order to make them happy. It is its molt diltinguifhing Cha- i Tlm.vi. racier J that it is a Docirlnc -which Is according to 3. Godlinejs, All its Fundamentals tend to make Men truly Godly. 'Tis according to Godllnefsy above any other Dod:rine that ever was Publilh'd. 'Tis fo in all the Parts of it. It is a Dodrine that wholly referrs to the true and right Service of Go d ,• and all its Alyfte- ties have no other Defign or View, but that of forming us into the Love and Fear of him. And this is a Te(t by which Dodrines that are proposed to us fhould be try'd, in order to our paUing a Judgment upon 'em. Now the Queftion is. Whether the Old Scheme or the l^^ai\ upon the Head of the Trinity^ is the molt the New, on many Accounts. 357 molt adapted to fcrve this End ? And for my own Partj I muft declare^ That I think the Old Scheme will carry it upon a fair Compari- fon. For the grand Motive to Tiety^ that is molt frequently touched upon in tjie New Te- fiament^ is the Love o/Gqd. His Love in giving hi$ Son^ and (Jelivering him up to Death for our Sakes_, is often there dilated on^ in order to the ingaging us to the utmolt Re- turns of which we are capable^ in a Way of Love^ Service and Obedience. Such a Gift may well inflame us with Lo-ve^ and ingage \}s to a cheerful Obedience. The Greatneis of the Perfon given, heightens the Love that ap- pears in the Gift_, and inforccs the Argument. Let the Perfon that is given beCoD^^W Di^itb the Father y and the Love fhewn is truly amazing. We muft be Itupid if it does not yvarmly aifed: us. But if we llippofe him to be no more than a Creature^ the Love fhewn is ftrangely diminifh'd_, and the Argument falls flat, and lofes its Force. It had been no mighty Thing in Reality, for the Blefled God to have given the temporal Life of a bare Creature, a mere Man, for the Salvation of Sinners : But when the Perfon whom He gave for a Saviour^ was his own Dear and Eternal Spn^ his Equal in Glory and Majelty, this much aggrandizes the Gifty and ftrength- pns the Motive. Upon this Bottom we may very well cry out with the Apoftle, In this was ^ r^^j^n iv manlfelied the Love of GoD toward Wy hecaufs ^^ that Go D fent his only Begotten Son into the IVorld^ that we might live through him. If Christ was originally but a Creature, the Father's Love to him, who is peculiarly ftyl'd his Son^ would be more to be admir'd, than his Love to us. He would then be abundantly rewarded for all his Sufferings, as bitter as they were, in A a 3 being 3 $8 The Old Scheme preferahJe to Serm. being made the general Ruler of the Worlds yj the Head of Angels^ and the Lord and Judge ^_^^>1^^ of all Mankind^ and having a Name giuen him abo^je every Name^ at which every Knee is tohoiv. God would then - do much more for CHRIST3 than He could be faid to have done for US3 even tho' we were eventually fav'd. And fo the grand Argument by which we fhould be ingagd to love GoD^ or our Bleffed Saviour m Return,, with all our Hearty and Stren^th^ and Mind^ and Mighty would be Iplt^ and of no Force^ to ingage us to that height of Love^ which it is the great Defign of Chriltiaaity to raife Men to. John ili. We are told^ That God j^ /ox^e-^ the World ^ 16. that He gave his onely begotten Son ; and find the Apoftles arc wonderful free in magnify- Egh. ii. 7. ingj the exceeding Riches of his Grace ^ In his Kind- nejs towards us^ through ChriST JesTJS. This is reprefented as the moft inflaming Motive to a Return of Love ; and the ftrongeft In- gagement to a conftant^ chearful^ univerfal Rom. V. Obedience. Herein was Love^ That -when we 10. were Enemies J we jvere reconciled to GoT> by th^ 1 Johniv. Death of his Son : And^ That Hefent his Son to ■50. be a Troptiatlon for our Sins. Ncw this has its full Force and Scope upon our Principles ; but flgnifies little or nothing according to the Arian Scheme. Nor have we any fuch powerful Motive to Tatlence and Rcfignation^ and to Love^ Cha- rity ^ and Benignity^ in which much of real Re- ligion lies J as the Meeknefs and Humility^j the Tendernefs and Compallion of our Jesus affords : Which yet upon the ^rlan Foot i$ confiderably weaken'd. Nor hdi^xht New Sche?ne^ as far as I am able to perceive^ any thing near fo great 4 Tendency^ as the Old one^ to raife our Ad- miration tide New, on many Accounts. Jliiration and Thank fulnefs for the Divine Perfe(5tions difplay^d in our Dear Redeem- er's Undertaking, and the Benefits which He conferrs ^ or to make us fo fenfible of the Odioufnefsof Sin^ as in the molt effedual Way to deter us from it ; or of the Force of the Chriftian Revel ation^ as cffe dually to ex- cite us to comply with it_, and live anfwera- bly to it. Theie are Things of that Weighty that they ought not to be over-look'd^ but deferve to have a confiderable Strel's laid on them. And then^ 6. We may alfo confider^ which of thefe Two Schemes conduces molt to the Comfort of the Sincere and Upright. And this methinks is very obvious. For need I ask you^ Which tends moft to relieve under an afFecling Senfe of Guilt_, and raife Hope under the nu- merous Affaults of our AdverfarieSj for us to have a Redeemer to trufl in^ that is Eternal GoD^ or a dignify 'd Creature ? a San^iifier to depend upon^ that is an infinitely Perfed and Eternalj or only a created Spirit ? The Thing fpeaks for itfeif. While they that hold a Trinity of Gods^ One Supreme^ and Two Suh-- ordinate^ or One Go D ^ and Two Creatures^ arc moft wretchedly diftraded and confounded^ and full of Jealoufies and Fears^, if they are clofely thoughtful : They that according to the Scripture hold Three Per fons and 077e Gq-d^ to whom they were devoted^ and endeavour to give to each the Love and Hmour^ IVorJJnp and Obedience^ that is refpedively due^ have foUd Comfort afforded 'em by that Chriftian Covenant on which theirHopes are bottom'd^ and may therefore rejoyce with a J^y that is i Pet Hnfpeakable^ and full of Glory. 8. The Confideration of Christ's proper ^irnal Godhead ^ may wonderfully encourage A a 4 an4 360 The Old Scheme prefer aUe to Serm. a^^ fuppbrt us, under all the Evils and Dan- XI. S^^^ ^^ which we are exposM, and fill us ^^ypyg^l; with raised Hopes of compleat Deliverance in a State of eternal Refi. This may animate us in all our Addreffes to Heaven tor whatever Grace we need_, hearten us in all our Co7jfliclsy and fill us with firong Co7tfi)lauon^ even under the greatelt Pifcouragements, either in the Courfe of humane Ltfe^ or in a dying Hour. While the looking to an Arian SaTjwur^ n^%ht well enough create a chiUing Damp, difpirit us with Teiar leaft fbme one Ihould fluck usr out of his flandsj fill us with jealoufy leaft we might mifcarry and be difappointed^ and wofully cramp us in confiding in him. Nor can I, I confefs, be able to difcern how the Apoflle could upon the New Scheme^ have cry'd out fo freely at one Time, J know -whom a Tim. 1. J Ij^^i^q believed: And I am per funded that He is ^^' Me to keep that which I haue committed unto ^ ,.. htm againfi that Day : And at another Time, I o *Q 'am perfuadedy that neither Death ^ nor Life ^ nor Angels^ nor FrincipaUtksy nor Towers^ nor Thhgs prejent^ nor Things to come^ nor Height y nor Depth y nor any other Creature ^ Jliall be able to feparate us from the Love of Got>^ which is In Christ Je- SDS our Lqrdy 2LS he might, and could, and ^id, upon the Old Scheme, These are but broken Hints, and yet they are very improvable. I from hence nicvej I- That you would take Occafion deli- berately to purfue the Comparifon between the Two Schemes^ with refpect to the Do- <5trine of the TiiiNiTY, upon luch Heads as thefe prcpos'd, as ever you would ap- prove yourfelves to God, as a<5^ing with 5/w- cerity jn your Search about thjs Matter. Much has been lately faid and written about Sfncerlty^ which is Dioit certainly a very valua- "■ ' ble the New, on many Accounts. 361 Vit Thing;,and highly becoming the Searchers after Truth. They that fearch mo^fincerelj, bid the faireft for hxing at length in the Truths and fo findwg Refifor their Souls. All pretend to this Swcerhy : More I doubt by tar than reach it. But leaving particular Perfons and their Condu(5l to him thsLt fenrches Hearts^ and trieth Reins, I move^ That you fiiould fhevv you are Jincere and impartial in your Search tor Truth upon the Head of the Trlnitj, by tracing the Cowparifon of the two oppofite Schemes through fuch Heads as thefe 1 have propos'd. Thus doings I think you may ea- iily difcern on which Side the Scale turns_, and fo inftead of being Children tojjtd to and fro, and carried about ivith every Wind of Docirine^ you may come tp a fix'd Settlement. If up- on Search you can difcern^ that one Scheme has better and fairer Froof, and llronger addi- tional Fleas to back it^ and is liable to fewer and lefs weighty Objections, and has a righter ^iw, and is more calculated to promote fe- rious Piety, as well as folid Peace and Comfort than the other^ I think you need not hefitate^ notwithftanding there may be feveral Things remaining^ in which you may be far from be- ing clear. For my own Part_, upon the moft deliberate Judgment I can form^ I mult own^ That I think upon all thefe Accounts^ the Old Scheme deferves to be preferr'd before the Neu\ But 'tis your Bufinefs to inquire^ and Icarch, and judge for yourfclves. An4 while you are purjiiing your Search, I make it my kequeft to you^ Not to forget that Saying ot our Saviour, If any Man will do his Will, /j^ Johnvil. jhall knoTi/ of the Doctrine , whither it he ofi']* God : Which is a Palfage on which I think >ve may be allow'd to lay a confiderable ii.crefs, ^\nd then. 3^2 The Old Scheme, d'c. Serm. 2- I farther move. That when you are XL ^bus fairly pointed, not only to the OU y,yyJ^^ Tatbs^ but the Good JVay^ in which you may fnd Refi for your Souls , in a Matter of fuch Moment as this is, you would dread the Thoughts of faying, with thofe whom the Prophet fpeaks of and to in my Text, IVe will not walk therein. For this would argue fuch felf-wiird Obitinacy, as could not fail of ex- pofmg to the Severity of the Divine Dil- pleafure. It did fo in the Cafe of thofe to whom the Prophet particularly here referrs ; and it would do the like in your Cafe alfo. And this is no more to be wonder'd at, than that the more Light and Helps are given^^ the more ready Compliance Ihould be ex- peded. 'Tis very unhappy to miftake ia a Matter of great Moment for want of Light : But to refufc Light when ofFer'd, is doubly criminal. To continue in a pernici- ous Error through Wilfulnefs, is doubly and Hebi vl. trebly faulty. But I hope better Things of you^ 9. tho I thus ffeaL Tude v; Now unto Him that is able to keep you from ^4, 15.' f^^^^^gy and to frefent you Fault lefs before the Fre-r fence of his Glory with exceeding yoy ,• To the one^ ly iVife Go TJ^our Saviour ^ ke Glory and Majefty^ Dommion and Tower ^ both now and for ever. Amen. SERM. 36j SERMON XII. John III. 9. Nicodemus anfwer'd and faid unto him^ How can thefe Things he ? U R Bleffed Lord Jesus holds a Dif- Salrfrsw- courfe in the beginning of this Chap- HallTw?^ §^^ ter_, with one that was a Mafler In If- ^<^y Lee-' rad^ a Dodor of the Law^ that pre- ^"^^^ ^'^^* tended to a great deal more Knowledge in^^-^Tf^- Sacred Matters than the common People. The Subje(5t on which he difcours'd was Re- generations which was not only a thing to be kno-wn by fuch as were taught of God^ but there was an abfolute neceflity it Ihould be exferlenc'dy by all that fliould reach the Salva- tion which the Gofpel propos'dr Kicodemns was fo lamentably to feek as to this Mat- ter 3 that he at firit imagin'd our Lord jTpake of repeating his natural flefhly Birth, which he declares to be impoflibie. But afterward? _, when from the Ccmparifon jnade 364 Curiosity to he avoided. Serm. made ufe of, of being horn of Watery ani XII. ^f ^^^ Spirit_, he found the Thing fpoken \/^>^f>^ of was quite of another Nature_, he was perfectly amaz'd^ and could not take it in y and cries out like one aftonilh'cJ:, ^^^ ^^^ thefe Things be ? He was no more able to difcern now he could ha^e ^ than how he could needy any other Birth than that which he ha<^ already. He w^s wholly to feek about this New Birthy becaufe he was un- able to conceive the Way and Manner of it. In hirq^ and his Carriage upon this Oc- cafion^ may we fee our own great Weak- nefs livelily exemplify 'd. For hardly any Thing is more natural to us^ than to re- )ec5fc and difown thofe Things^ the Manner whereof is unaccountable to us ; although nothing can be more unreafonable. For how abfurd is it to pretend to (:onfine the Wifdom and Power of Go d to our fcanty Model ? Not that we are forbidden to en- quire even into the Way and Manner of the f Works of G o D^ provided we do it with ' ^ Sobriety and Reverence. Nay we are told^ Pf. CXI. 1. That as His Works are great y fo they are ■> > fi^Z^^ ^^^ ^f ^^ them that have fleafure therein. But Nicodemtis feems to have rejeded th^t as having nothing in it_, as to which he could not difcern how or which way it could be. And this Carriage of his^ the E- vangehft reprefents as very weak and foo- li(h. And yet it defer ves our Obfervation^ that the Truth of our Lord^s Declaration was this Way confirmed j and this very Car- riage of his was an Evidence that no Man that was not bom again could fee the King- dom of God, It was the want of the New Blrtb that led him in thjs manner to cry '' ' ' out*3 Curiosity to he avoided. ^6iy OUty How can thcfc Things he ? And v/hen SeRM* fach an one as he^ beiiav'd in this man- xil. ner_, under our Lord's own Inftrudrion^ how can we be furpriz'd to find Gofpei Minifters oppos'd and (lighted^ when they reprefent Divine Truths with the greatelt Faithfulnefs out of the Word of God ? For Mankind are the fame in all Ages. When Christ himfelf was the Teacher^ we may be alTur'd the Fault could not be in him 3 that Nicodenms the Scholar did not take in the Inftrudion given. The Fault lay in him that fhould have been the Learner. There was fomething in his Temper that hindered him from receiving Inltrudion. And the fame Temper prevailing^ will at any Time hinder the hearty Reception of the Gofpei Dodrine. Our Lord tells Nlco^ demus that apply'd to him for Light^ very plainly^ how Things were. He alfures him that a New Birth was abfolutely neceffary to his reaching Happinefs. He Ihews him fomething of the Nature of it_, and illu- Urates that to him by a Comparifon. But he inftead of fubmitting^ and yielding to Convidion^ cries out_, How can thefe Things he ? How (fays he) can fuch Things con- fift and hang together ? How are they pof^ fible ? Who IS able to conceive them ? How can any Man believe them ? Are they not altogether incredible ? And who can get over the Difficulties which they have at- tending them ? And tho' as to him ^ we have Reafbn to believe that he afterwards alter'd much_, laid afide this caviUing Spi- fit, ^ and became a thorough Convert to Chriftianity, yet are there many that per- filt in this Temper all their Days^ and fo remain unconvinc'd even of the Things in whi<;h Curiosity to he avoided. which the Scripture is moll plain and po- fitive^ becaufe they are not able diliindly to account for them. I dont know any one Thing in which this unhappy Temper difcovers itfelf more, than with Reference to the Dodrine of the Trinity^ On which I have taken fo much Pains. Confulting the Sacred Scriptures, we find that Dodrine there reveal'd to us, as far as is neceffary. For we learn from thence, that there are Three that partake of the Dh'ine Nature which is but one ; that thefe Three are diftind: from each other, fo that the one is not the other ; that they are more difilncl from each other, than from the Dl'vine Ejjence that is common to them all ^ that every one of them is the Moft Hio-k God ; that the firft is the Father^ the Second the Son^ and the Third the Holy Ghofi ; and that each of thefe has a dlftinti Concern in the Recovery and Salvation of fallen Man : And when we fet ourfelves to fpread and publifh this Dodrine, inftead of receiving it upon the Authority of the Revealer, which would be but a very be- coming Thing, many fall to cavilling, cry. How can thefe Things be ? And refufe to ac- quiefce and fubmit, becaufe they cannot fee in what Way and Manner theie Three can be om^ or how clearly and diftindly to folve feveral Dijficdtks which fuch a Do- d:rine as this may have objed:ed againlt it. It is upon this Tcwper that I propofe to make Ibme free Reflexions : And= that my Difcourfe may be the more orderly, I pro- pofe, I. To give fome Account of the Cowmen* nejs of this Tcrnpcr. ■ ». To Curiosity to he avoided. ^6j II. To (hew the Unrcafo72dhlenefs of it. ^jj III. T o argue with fuch as are guilty^ in order to their Comn^lon. And^ IV. T o offer fome Confide? atlons in order to the checking fuch a Temper as this, the Prevalence of which could not fail of being attended with molt unhappy Confequences. I. I begin with confidering the great Com" monnefs of. this Cavilling Tewpir. Nicodemus tho' he pafs'd a Compliment upon our Sa- viour^ as ^Teacher come from God^ yet queltion'd the Truth of what he aflerted ; and he there- fore queltion'd it^ becaufe he knew not how to form a Conception of it. So have we many that queltion the Truth of what is declared in Scripture^ or may be fairly gather'd from thence^ becaufe it is to them inconceiva- ble ho-ii^ it Ihould be. And this is a Tern- fer not at all peculiar to one Sort of Men only^ or to any particular Age^ but it is common to all. Something ot this Temper has been alway working,* tho' it has not at all times been alike prevalent^, nor is it in all Cafes ahke Criminal. The Jeii^JjJ) Church Was not without its Cavillers. Jfap'h tells us of fome that fp^.ke ^Cal 78.' agamfi GoD^ and fald^ Can GoB furnijh a'Table 19. in the TVildernefs ? They were unwilling to be- lieve it^ becaufe they could not fee hoii^ it could be. Mofes in his fliltory gives us a parti- Num. xk cular Account of the Matter referred to. The People of Ifrael in their Journeyings murmur'd and wanted Flefli^ and God de- clar'd that they Ihould have it j but they were 368 GtfRiGSiTY to he avoided. Serm. were backward of Belief. They could not XII * ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ think that in fuch a barren ^^^^.^^^ Wildernefs as that where they now werey they could be furnifh'd with Flefli^ though God himfelf had cold them they fhould have their fill of it -^ and that not for One or Two^ or f ive^ or even Ten^ or Twenty Days only, but for an whole Month to- gether. Tho' God aflur'd 'em by his Ser- vant Mofes^ (whofe Word they had never found to fail) that they fhould be furnifh- ed to the full, they yet were difcourag'd, becaufe they could not fee 'twas a poflible Thing in the Cafe and Circumftances they were in. The Unlikelihood was fo great, that Mofes himfelf was ftagger'd. We are Ver. la. told he cried out. Shall the Flocks and the Herds he Jla'tn f&r them to fuffice them ? Or fi)all aU the Fifi) of the Sea be gathered together for them to fuffice them ? He could not think whence there could come Flefti enough to fatisfy above Six Hundred Thoufand Men, in a Place fo barren and wild as that was, tho' God himfelf had declar'd he would take Care about it. We find alfo a like Spirit at work in our Saviour's Time. For when He told his John vl. Hearers, That He came down from Hea'vetjy 38. they cry'd out. Is ?wt this ]esvs the Son of Jo-* Ver. 4.1. feph, ^i^hofe Father an^ Mother Ti'e knoTv ? How h h then that he faith ^ I came down frojn Hea'ven ? And when He again told them. That He was the Bread of Life^ and that the Bread iMch \CY. 4^ He would give wa.^ his Fie jh^ which He would give ^ ^'* for dcLlfeofthcIVorld, they cavifd, and laid. How can this Man gl^jc us his Flcfl) to eat ? They knew not hov^ this could be^ and therefore neither minded the Speaker, nor the Thing fpoken. Wicked Curiosity to he avoided. 369 Wicked Men are at all Times remarkable Serm. for this Tewpcr. 'Tis their common Language^ y^H, Hooif doth Go D kvov'y Can He judge through the \^^^^>^ dark Clouds ? 'Tis hard to convince them Go d Job. xxii* knows every Things when they are not able to 13. perceive how He can do it : or to perfaade ^em He is every-where prefent^ when they can't conceive in v/hat ALw?jer He is ^o, 'Tis common with them to fay^ How ^o^j Go d Pf. Ixxili. know 'i And^ Is th:re K?iowlsdge in the Mofi H' High ? How can He have a diluind Know- ledge of Things at fuch a Biitance ? Or how (fay they) can we fuppofe him to concern himfelf in our Affairs 1 'Tis natural to them to ftart a variety of Doubting^ Heiltating^ incredulous Qiieitions^ when any Thing of- fers that tends to check them in their hnful Courfe^ or excite them to their Duty. Somewhat alfo of a like Temper ever and anon appears in truly Pious Perfons. Tho' Alofes was honour'd with fpecial Familiarity with Gou^ and was at the Head of Affairs among the Ifraelites both in Church and State_, and had a great many excellent Indowments j yet he did not keep free from this Infedion. Neither were our Lord's Difciples_, who were to be the Founders of the Chnitian Church_, wholly free from the Workings of fuch a Spirit. When He was for Feeding a great Multitude^ ^vithout making any antecedcnr Provifion for it_, they cry'd out^ From whence ^ury^ can a Aian fatisfy theje Men with Bread here ins\.X, 4. the Wilderne]s i They could not tell how 'twas poffible for fo many to be fed in fuch a Place as that was^ notwithftanding tliac He that difcover'd his Compallion to the half- ilarv'd People^ had a Power of working Mi^ racles. And we find in St. Tuomas^ this*" Tcm- pr had rilcn to a very great Height. For 13 b wh-a ego Curiosity to he avoided. when Christ was rifen^ and the other Dif- ciples told him He had appear'd to them,, and they had convers'd with him^ he de- clar'd^ He would not believe but upon his Tohii XX ^^^^ Terms. He [aid to them ^ Except I pall fee 15. in his Hands the Vrlnt of the Nails ^ and -put my Finger into the Print of the Nails ^ and thruj} my Hand into his Side, I will not belieue. And we are all of us apt enough^ elpecially when Dif- ficulties are great^ to fay, with him^ Except we fee, we will not bellve j quite forgetting the Bleffing our Saviour has pronounc'd on thofe of the oppofite Temper3 when He Ver. :i9. faid^ BleJ/cd are they that haz'C not leen^ and jcf ha've believed. However^ I think thefe Hints may be fuificient to ihew, That the Temper which Nl- coder/ius here difcovers-, was far from being peculiar to himfelf. 'Tis common to many others with him3 'tis to be met with in all Ages ^ and we have all of us no fmall In- clmation that Way ourfelves^ and mult be great Strangers at Home if we don't dii^ eern it. Let us then^ 2. Spend a few Thoughts upon the Unrea- fenablencfs pf this Temper. The Commofmefs ct it is far from juitifying it^ or making h the lefs Faulty. Nlcodemus was moft certainly much to blame to be fo backward to believe^ when he had One to teach and inltrud him^ that neither could deceivCj nor be deceived. Safe- ly might he have depended on his Account of Things without any Hefitation : But he was for hrft knowing hew they could be. This IS a Sort of Condud that is very Unreafon-* Me upon feveral Accounts. I. Such a Temper carries in it a foolifli Curlo/ityy which GoD never was difpos'd to "-ratify. Curhflty is in it<^ own Nature, the "" ' ' Lull CuRiosiTr to he avoided. ^yi Luft and Concupifcence of the Mind afrer Things conceard. This was an Indination that God thought fit to curb even in Para -^ di/e kklt\ by forbidding the Tree of Kmwkch^e i And tho' in other Reipeds He has made a moft merciful Provillon for Man's Reh'ef fmcc his Fall, yet has He made no Provifion for the gratifying of this corrupt Diipolition. Phtlojop/jy indeed provides for the gratification of Cwlofity m fome Degree : But Religion ra- ther aims at mortifying it^ that it may not expofe and indanger us. When therefore God in any Cafe tells us^ That thus and thus Things are^ if inftead of believing^ we cry out^ Hoji' can tJjefe Things he ^ we are rather Curious than wile ; and inftead of acquief- cing in^ and making the beftofwhatGoD has thought fit to dilcover^ we pry into what He has thought fit to conceal,- which is a Car- riage that Reafon can never juftify. It is our doing that to the Great God^, who. is infinite- ly above us^ which no Superior amongit mortal Men could or would bear from an Inferlm-^ which is moft certainly highly blameable. 2. This Temper ca.n'ies in h gvcsit Per^jcrfe nefs. It manifefts a plain Diicontentednefs with God's Methods^ and a being bent up- on our own. It is a 13eginning at the wrong End, and an inverting God's Order^ whicii is molt natural^ and the following which is moft advantageous. From him are we to have all our Light in Things Divine. But if when he affures us^ That thus or thus Things are^ we won't be fatisfy'd ; If when he in lifts upon our being devoted to him as Father, Son, and Spirit, and yet One Go u ;; and declares to us^ that tho' there are Di'verfitks of Operations, Admlniftratlons, and Gifts, yet there IS the lame God^ andl.ovd, andi^vdts we inftead B b :i ' of 372 Curiosity to he avoided, 'Serm. of Believing^ will cry out^ How can thefe T^jhgs XII. ^^ ^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^ pcrfuaded that they ^j,r-y-^ are^ foj till we can know and perceive boii^ they can be fo 3* I don't fee but we may be ever learnings without comifjg to the Kfjowledge of the Truth. Common Reafon tells us^ that the firll Step is for us to know^ IVhethtr or no Things are thus and thus^ before we offer to think how they can be thus ; But if we will be at this firfl:^ and make our being clear there^ necefiary to our being fatisfy'd and alTur'd thst Things really are as God has reprcfented them^ we this Way fhew fuch Tev-jerfcnefs^ as if it IS once given way tOj will hinder us from ever being latisfy'd. We thus choofing for ourfelves^, Ihall have Reafon to 'count it a wonderful Mercy if VvC are not left to ourfelves^ and fo endleily perplexed and bewilder'd. 3. This Tewpr Carries in it flrange ^rr^- game and Haughtbiefs. 'Tis in Effed a calling i:he Great God to Account^ and inquiring into his Reafons^ and the Grounds He goes iipon^ before we'll credit his Reprefentations. 'Tis a queftioning^ Whether He has not mif- reprefented Things_, either through Weak- nefs or Defign : And an a^f ing as it we were 'able and ht to judge of his Methods, to the Rom xl "^^^^^ forgetting^ tliat as h:s Jndg7ncnts are un- 33» * " y^^^'^'^^^^^j io his IVays are j)afl jind'wgottt. And is,Ji"ot this' very tmrec.jonahle and unbecom- ^ing ? And does it not fhew Urange Forget-, ■fulnefs of God and ourfelves too r * 4. This Temper among fuch as are calFd ' Cbrift:r^?Ts ^ is a downright Contempt ^/Christ. For every Chrillian profeiTes to take Christ for his Prophet and Teacher^ and to be rea- dy to receive Light from him both as to 1 ruth and Duty. Now when He has com- mitted Curiosity to he avoided. 373 mitted our LeiTon to Writings if inflead of Sfrm. I.earnino;, we will Difpute and Cavils and xyj lay^ How can thefe Things- be ? We in cfFecfl ^^^-^-^s^ take upon us toh^irJfer than our Master^ and make him incapable of conveying Inftru- d:ion to us ,• and fo no other can be expeded than that we fliould remain in the Dark. If we mult fee a Reafon for every Things we itrangely difparage our Teacher and Inftru^ d:or^ and reprelent him as one not fit to be confided in^ or depended on. I cannot therefore^ I confefs^ lee any Occafion we have to wonder^ that Nlcodcfnus met with a fevere Reproof^ when he very well deierv'd it upon this Account^ if there were no more to be faid in the Cale. But then^ 5*. Such a Temper cannot be given way to, ^ without afFeding to be wife_, ahQi;e that which ^ ^^^' '^'* is irrittevy which is what St. Taul exprefsiy warns againlt. Nothing becomes \\s more than to think foberlyy or be wife to Sobriety : Rom. xii. And there is not any one Thing about which -^ this Caution is more neceffary^ than with Re- fped to the Doctrine of the Trinity. We are out of our Place^ when we take the Li- berty which the Schoolmen have given them- felves upon this Article, God having gra- cioufly vifited us with the Light of Life, we ought not only contentedly^ but thankfully to take Things as He has fet them before us in his Word : But if out of Diflatisfadioii with what is reveaTd^ and may be fairly gathered from thence_, we will be for break- ing into God's Incloiure^ and prying into his Secrets, we fet ourfeives adritt^ we go out of our Bounds^ and it is not at all fur- prizing if God fo deals with us as to ma4^e us fenlible^ how much He refents our Car- riage. B b :^ ^. Such Curiosity to he avoided. 6. Such a Temper as this is therefore al- io very blaimeable^ becaufe it is encouraged by and bottomed on. >Jotions and Suppolitions that have no Foundation. The Frhciples it Hands upon^ and which alone could vindi? cate ity are thefe Two : That 7i'e mttft he able to comprehend what we bcUe'vej or clfe we are in the IVrong to believe it ; and that it is Jijljoncura- hie to GoD_, and mihecomlng fiich Creaturei as we are^ to own that Divine Revelations have any fuch Difficulties attending them^ as 7re are tncapahle of folvlng. Now thefe are both of 'em Irrational Principles : And therefore the Cavilling lem- fer .which could from thence only be jufti- fiedj cannot be reafonable. I. I lay^ for us to cry out^ Hooi^ can thefe Things hei when God has hgnily'd^ thac thus they are^ is therefore tmreafonahle^ be- caufe it is manifeftly tmreafonahle to pretend^ that we mufr be able to coinprehend what we be- lieve^ or elfe we are in the Wrong to believe it. To lay^ We are oblig'd to believe nothing but what we can Comprehend^ is in efFecfl to fay, v/e are not oblig'd to believe any Thing. For what is it that we c^n comprehend ^ even of the Things that are vaifly beneath the Great and Blellcd God ? And if we are unable to com- prehend much lower Things^ how can we ex- ped it as to thofe that are vaftly higher? AthanafiMs '^ fays of the Arians^ That they hearing; that the Word is Son of the Father, according to Cufiom fay^ How can this be i As if that could not bc^ which they cannot underfiand. And he adds:, It Is but natural for them in like manner to dljTAite about the JJnlverje : liow can therQ *^ Athan. E^iji. ad ^e.itp. Oo. Tom. I. pag. iC6y ^•p, 192, ' ' " J Curiosity to he avoided, 375 ■there he a Creatioji of Tljlngs that were 7iot before ? Or^ How ca,n the Dufl of the Earth be turned into a reafonable Man ? Or^ How can that which is Cor- ruptibky become Incorrupiible ? Or_, Hovj :s the Earth founded upon the Sea ? &C. If this is not foolifli^ 'twould be hard in any Gale to fup- port a Charge of Folly. 2. For us to offer to cry out^ How can thefe Things be ? when God has (ignify'd that thus tliey are_, is grofsly unreafonable^ becaufe it e- vidently is fo^ to reprefent it either as a, Thifjg difldonourable to the Blefjed Go D_, or at all unbecoming fuch Creatures as we are^ to own that: Divine Revelations have fuch Difficulties attendhig thcm^ as are to us infolvable. It indeed either of thefe could be maintained upon good and folid Grounds^ it mult then be own'd that our cavilling for want of having the \\''ay and Manner difcover'd to us in Things Divine, might be excused and juilify'd. But this can- not be. For^ I. No good Proof can be given^ that it is at all dijhonourable to the Blefj'cd GoD^ to give forth fuch Re-velatmtSj ifz fome Cafes ^ concernmg hlwfetfy and Things divine^ as fmdd he attcjjded with Difficulties y that are to i:s ififol'uable. Thus to do_, is not inconfiftent^ either with the Ulfdoifiy or the Goodnefs^ or the HoUnefs of God 3 or any other eifential Perfedlion of the Di- vine Nature^ as far as I can perceive. This is not a Thing that appears at all in- confiftent with the Divine V/iJdor/7. For why- may not God this Way convince Man of his Weaknefs ? Why may He not try him how far he'l be govern'd by Hints^ and brought to lay Strefs on God's own Reprefentations ? As tar as I can judge, this would difcover more Wifdom on Gqd's Part, and tend to U]ake and keep Man more governable, than Bb 4 if ^^6 Curiosity to he avoided. if he could fee farther into the Bottom of Things^ than he can do as Matters are now fettled. Neither is it at all inconfiltent with the Qocdvefs of GoDj, to give forth fuch Reve- lations as fliould be attended with Difficul- ties that are to us infolvable. For fince all Light in Things Divine is from him^ He may give or with-hold it^ and afford it in greater or fmaller Meafure^" as He thinks beilj with- out being liable to have his Goodnefs at all im- peached. How^ in particular^ can the Good- pefs of Go Dp be fuppos'd to lay him under ^ny Obligation to enable us to folve all Dif- ficulties relating to the Dodrine of the Trlmtyl Can we offer to think that He is ever the lefs Goody for leaying us to feek as to many Things that relate to this Dodrine^ which it con- cerns us not to knowj when He has already diicoyer'd to us a$ much as is Necelfary ? And how can his Holinej} be herein concerned ? How can it be the leall Abatement to the Huftre of that Perfedion^, for God to keep us ~yn. the Dark as to the Way and Manner of fun- dry Things^ the Subflance of which He has diicover'd to us^ v/hen He is abundantly rea- d^ to accompany the Knov/ledge given^ \Vith his fandifying Influence ? And if thefe Pivine Perfedions remain unilurr'dj I don't fee what Reafon we have' to imagine that any others are concerned : Or why Man may pot be unable to account for feveral Things^ ho7u they can be^ after God has done all that it became film to do^ in order to inflrud and give him Lights even in as momentous a Mat- ter as the 7"r/»;r;'is ovvn'd to be." And then^ 2. Neither can any good Proof be ^i- yen^ that it is' a Thing at ^^I'unbecomhfg jucb Creatures as we arc^ to own that fome Divine Re- "velaticns ha've fuch Dlfficulihs attending tkm^ as Curiosity to he avoided. 377 m-e to us Infol'vable. 'Tis not the Icaft Difho- nour to us^ fo far to fubmit to the Moft High^ as to acquiefce in his Difcoveries^ notwirh- Itanding we are not able to pry into the Rea- fons of the Things difcover'd. 'Tis not the leail Degrading of us^ for him to require us upon his Reportj to believe Things are^ tho' we are unable to fee how they can be. Nor can it be any real Damage to us^ to have leveral Things reveaPd to us as to the Sub- fiance^ without being acquainted with the Manner of them. For neither is the Truth and Reafonablenefs of Fahh concern'd in our knowing the Manner of Things reveafd ; nor does our Iquaring our Tra^ife accordingly de- pend upon it. And by Confequence^, nei- ther our Hapfhefs nor our Comfort is here at Stake. And as long as it pleafes God to give us all the Light that we can truly fay is mcejfarjy if we cavil and are uneafy^ we are manifeftly unreafojiabk. Again,, 7. The Cavilling Temper which my Text exempli fies^ is therefore plainly unreasonable^ becaufe it is diredly oppolite to certain Maxims of evident Truth_, and great Im- portance, ril mention but Two of thefe : And the One of them is^ That what God has reveal' d^ is 7nofi certa'mly triiey and would be in fain opposed : And the Other this_, That it is 7tot for m to pretend to pry into his Secrets. I. I fay_, What God has revealed y is mofi cer- tainly trite ^ and would he in vain opposed. This is a molt reafonable Maxim ^ by which our Condud: fhould be regulated. If we are once fatisfy'd God has reveaPd any Things we are bound to adhere to it^ whatever the Pifficulties may be it is attTended with • and we fail in our Duty^ in doing otherwifc. We 378 Curiosity to he avoided. We take too much upon us^ if we withhold our AlTent^ till we can get clear of, and are able to fblve them. The dired contrary to which would be truc^ were it m any Gale al- lowable or julHliable/or us to [ay^How can theft things be ^ after that God has fignify'd to us that thus they are. 'Tis faid indeed^ 'tis a 'vahi thing for us to pretejul to helie-ve what we dont tmderjiand : And that this is but an ading like Parrots, who pour forth Words, without any Notion of the Things utter 'd ; but I hope this may be carried too farr, or elfe tho' we find our Bleffed Saviour exprefsly •• . faying, I am In the Father ^ ajid the Father in me^ Join XIV. ^^ ^^^^ ^Qj. pj^^^g^^ |.Q beheve it, till we can conceive how it is : And then it will, I ap- prehend, be long enough before we give our Aifent. 2. Another Maxim ^ that I think there's all the Reafon in the World for us to embrace and ad upon, is this ^ That it Is not forfuch as Ads i. 7. "J^- ^^^ ^^ prete?td to pry into the Secrets of the Mofi High. And I cannot fee how this can be ^ontefted, by any that are fenfible of the in- finite Diftance there is between God and us.' Our Lord plainly told his Difciples, It Is not for you to know the Times or the Seafons which the Father hath pit In his own Tower. And it it was not for them, much lefs is it for us. And if we are not to pry into Times and Seafons ^ 1 think it is yet much lefs for us to pretend to inquire how thofe Things can be, the Way and Manner of which Go d hath faid nothing about , and thought fit to con- ceal from us. And for us to ad contrary to iuch Maxims as thef.', is to do violence to bur own Reafon, as well as to fly in God's Facej And therefore to be fure aiufl; be ve- ry blameable and faulty. An I? Curiosity to he avoided. And thus having offered what I think cannot but appear to Conliderate Perfons fufficicnt Proot of the unreafonablenejs ot fuch a Cavilling Temper as that of J^^lcodemus in thi^ Text^ I proceed^ 5. To argue a little with fuch as are gulhy of this Fact^ in order to their Conviction, I'm fenfible there moil commonly is a great ItifFnefs prevailing among thofe of this Tem- per^ fo as that 'tis one of the hardclt Things in the World to convince Them : And yet if they would but fedately put Four ^cftlons to themfelves^ and clolely purfue them _, I ihould think they would be gravel'd^ and fee caufe to be humbled^, and alham'd of thdr Condud. 4V/. T. Why fhould any wonder that Go n is mcompreJx77fiblc ? 'Twas a wife Quellion of Zophar^ tho' he was captious enough, C^^{//^ Job xi. 7.' thoH by fearch'mg find out God ? Caitjir thou find out the Alnnghty unto perfecUon ? And does not Job alfo concurr_, when he crys out_, Lo thefe are Job xxvi. fart of his IVays ^ hut how little a portion is heard 14, of him ? And he adds elfewhere^ Touching the yilmighty^ zi^e cannot find him out. As eafy ^ ., as it is hy feeling after him^ toijnd God out ^^'^^^^' as to his Beings and as vjfible a3 his Eternal ''^' Tower and Godhead are^, in the things that are Adls xvlL tnade^ yet can we not by all our Studies and 2-7- Endeavours^ find out the manner of his Being. And why fiiould we wonder at it^ confider- ing the Infinltenefs of his Excellency ? Since he is Incomprehen/ibley why may he not have Properties and Perfedions which we cannot fathom^ tho' we may have fome Hints given us concerning 'em ? Since there is much of God that could not have been-known without ilevelacion^ (as in particular that the One 380 Curiosity to he avoided. God is Father y Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ and to be ador'd as fuch) how can it feem flrange to us to be unable to account for the How^ and the Manner of it-, if Revelation is filent ! For us to cavil and fay, How can tbefe things be ? is to quarrel and be difcontented^ becaufe we cannot comprehend what is ijicowprehenji/jle. Our Lo R D had here plainly told Nkodemm^ that the manner of the Spirits workings was like the blowing of the IVmd^ the Sound whereof might be heard^ but there was no knowing whence it came^ nor whither h went : And yet he was bent upon com'^rehending it, when he faid,, How can thefe things be ? And on this Account_, he was defer- vediy upbraided for his Folly. And mull it not then be moft egregious Folly for us to run into the fame Fault ? c%. 2. How can we pretend diftindly to explain and clear up what we cannot compre- hend ? 1 fliould think we might very fafely be excused from that^ whether our inability to comprehend a thing arifes from the PFeak-^ nefs of our Realbn^ or from the Difficulty of the SubjeB : and much more when it arifes from both at once ; and is both caused by the weaknefs of our Minds^ and the incompre- iienlible infinity of the Subje<5t which our Thoughts are exercised upon ; which is our very Cafe with Refped; to the Trinity. Why ilioijld we fay^ How can thefe things- be ? as if It lay upon us to explain them^ when they are fo manifeftly beyond our Fathom. ^/■. 5. Have we not abundant Evidence of the narrow Limits to which the Capacities of our Minds are ccnfm'd ? Have we not Hun- dreds an.d Thoufands of Things in the gene- ral Courfe of. Nature^ and with Relpect to pur- Curiosity, to he avoided. 381 ourfelves in particular^ of which we can give Serx^ no account ? When a Man that is favoured with a wcll-atteiled Divine Revelation^ is at every Turn crying out^ Hoiij can thefe Tb'mgs be^ i think it may ihame him to put to him fuch Queftions as God put to Jc/h in his Pa- roxyfm : V/bereupon are the Fomtdations of the Job f^arrljfafiened^ Ha fi thou entered mto the Depth of K-K.%\m. the Sea ^ Hafi thou prcelvd the Breadth of the ^ xxxix'. Earth ? or hwii'n the Way v^here Light dwelleth ? Hajl thou enter d Into the Xreajures of the Snow ^ Knoweft thou the Ordinances of Heaven ? Canft thou lift lip thy Voice unto the Clouds ? Haf^ thou, given the Horfe Strength ^ and the hke. And it a Man finds himfelt miferably puzzled in llich interior Things as thefe^ may it not well be expeded he iliould be much more confound- ed^ if he pretends to inquire^ Why the fame God fhould be Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ and how being fo^ He lliould yet be but One God? And are there not a great many Things as to ourfelves alfo^ of which we are able to give no tolerable Account ? None ever equaFd Solomon in Wifdom, and yet he lays^ Thou knovjcfi not how the Hones do grow hi the Bccl. xi, TVomb of her that is with Child. And it may be 5. very iafely added to it^ That we know not how our Spirits are united to our Bodies, nor how Senfation js perfornvd. nor how we are nourilh'd and grow, nor how we expire and die. And can we then think it at all ftrange that there iliould be much in the Great and Blefied God, and relating to him, that we cannot account for ? What can we fay to God's Eternity ? What can we make of a Duration that had no Be- ginning ? How can we difliiK^Iy conceive an JLternhy pafi. bounded as it were by the pre- fent 582 CuRiosiTr to he avoided. fent Inftant ? A Duration continu'd^ without increaling, by the Addition of more Ages to thofe already pafs'd ? And if we are puzzled here^ how can it appear itrange that the Do- d:rine of the Trinity lliould be attended with fuch Difficulties as we cannot account for ? I don't fee that any other could reafonably be expected. And therefore to make ftrange of thisj or run into'Complaints^ or reckon we can from hence have an Excufe in the Negled of Duty_, is a manifefl and egregious Weak- nefs. ^/. IV. Can any Thing be more abfurd and foolifli^ than to pretend to meafure what is Infinite by what \s finite ^ Gan the vaft Ocean be pour'd into an Egg-fhell ? The Emblem feems to be very natural^ and apt to convey Inltruclion. Were we able to give an Ac- count how the Father generated the Son^ and how the Holy Spirit proceeded from Father and Son^, and how thefe Three are One m all elTen- tiai Perfections^ and yet dlfilnci in their Rela- tions^ and confequent Operations^ either He mufl; be brought down to us, or we muft be rais'd up to him : Either we muft become In- finite^ or He muft become finite. Without ei- ther the one, or the other, there would be no Proportion between the Faculty contem- plating, and the Objed contemplated. Why fhould we then upon an Account given of the Trinity from Scripture, pretend to fay, Hoiv can thefe Tolngs be '< If we well and clofcjy con- fider it, we fliall find that this is what wx can no more give an Account of to ourfelves, and our own" Mmds, than we can to the Bleiled God. Let us not tlierefore hold on and per- fift, as we would not expofe ourfelves to un- avoidable Sl'same and Confuriou. And Curiosity to he avoided. And now I come in the lafl Place^ accord- ing to Promife, to oifer a few Co?i(UeYations^ which if they are gi\ren way ro^ it might be hoped would help to check fuch a Cavilling Temper y as that which I have hitherto been endeavouring to difcourage. 1. Consider J, That to rejecfl whatever we cannot comprehend^ is to make Revela- tion ufelefs. That tells us^ That in the Be- ginning Go D created rhe Heavens and the Earth : And we no more know the Mmner of the Creation^ or how the Things that are^ were brought out of Nothings than we do the Manner how Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ are 0?ie in Godhead. And if we may be allow'd to re- jec^t what we cannot comprehend^then would our Light fet Bounds to that of God's Reve- lation^ which moft affuredly is as IrrationaI_, as to make our Light the Meafure of his Light. And upon this Foot^ a Revelation ever fo well evidenc'd to be from G o d^ would anfwer no End at all. Let this then be a fix'd Principle with us^ That whatever God reveals^ is to be admitted and receiv'd^ whether we can comprehend it or no : And then we fhall have nothing to inquire after, when any Thing is propos d^ but. Whether God really has reveal'd it? We ihall then, as we have good Realbn, cry out, with the Apoftle, Let Go d be true^ but every Alan a Rom; ili {.yar. 4- 2. Consider, that the reprefenting it as necelfary for us to have clear and difilntl Ideas of whatever we believe, is to open a wide Door to moft wretched Confufion. 'Tis often laid by the Oppoleis of a Scriptural Trinity, til at fuch a Tri?}ity in the Godhead is not poj/ibie. But Q^S^ Curiosity to he avoided. But how do the}^ know It is 7iot foJJiMe ? The Reafon given is^ they cannot conceive or comprehend it. Comprehend it I I know not how they fhould I But tho' they don't^ they yet may believe it^ if God has difcover'd it. 13ut (lay they) if we fioould believe what we dont comdrehend^ we Jhould either heliez'e a meer Nothings or gi've our ajjcnt to a fimple Wordy or JSlame^ or Sound ^ without any Idea affixt to it. But turn this about in your Thoughts^ and you'll find it will not hold. For in believing a 3"r/- vlty in the Godhead^ we believe fomewhat of which we have a Knowledge that is fufficient. We believe that there are three in the God- head ^ the Father y the JVord^ and the HoljGhoft: We believe that the Father created the World by the Son and Sfirit : And that the Son took our Nature upon him^, and redeem'd Man- kind : and that the Spirit fandifies us^ fo as to fit us for all divine Purpofes : We believe that Each of thefe is the Moft High God^ and to be ador'd as fuch^ tho' itill they are di- jlMi from each other^ in a Way that we can- not underftand- or explain. And is all this nothing ? We believe the Truth and the Re- velation of all this. We believe all this up- on God's own Teflimonyj notwithltanding we cannot fay we know_, how thefe Things can be. And to pretend to clear and dlfimcl Ideas as to the Manner of them_, would be to aifed to be wife abo've what is written. But to fuppofe clear and dlftlnci Ideas of the Things believ'd to be neceffary to a true and real Faith^ is quite to (hut out the Credit of the Divine Teitifier^ and bring Things to ifand upon their own Evidence : And lo the Dijllnttion between 'Na- tural and Ke^jeaVd Religion would become need- Icfs and ulelels^ and be turned out of Doors; which is the very Thing fome People feem to Curiosity to he avoided. 385 to be aiming at^ but I hope they will never Serm. have our Confent or Concurrence. XII. 3. Consider^ God has wife Ends to ferve^ by keeping us in Ignorance as to the Waj and Manner of feveral Things^ which He has thought fit in the general to difcover to us. In doing thus^ He has not exer- cised a mere arbitrary Authority ; tho' if He had_, it would have become us to have fubmitted : But He has this Way done what is worthy of himfelf^ and at the fame Time confulted our Benefit. He has this Way ta- ken an efFedual Method to make us fenfible of our Diftance_, and keep us humble ; which is a Thing we very much need. He this Way tries us^ how far our Regard to hint and his Authority will carry us. Our Faith this Way becomes more rewardable than it would be in any other Method ^ in as much as we depend upon the Teitifier^ where we cannot fee intrinfick Evidence : And He this Way alfo keeps up a decent Diftindion be- tween this prefent and a future State. Thefe are Things of Weight ; and the more ma* turely we confider them^ the more Rea- fon we fhall find to be eafy under the Me- thod God has taken with us^ and to ftrive againft^ inftead of cherifhing a Cavilling^ Spirit. And laftly,, let it be confider'd^ That our Salvation depends much more upon our jpr^- £H/ing according to our Principles^, than upon our Speculations about thofe Principles. And fo long as we have but Knowledge enough of Father y Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ to hare vital Intercourfe with^ and Communications from Each^ and do but reach at laft the Hea* venly Felicity, we fhall have no need to C c matter Curiosity to he avoided. matter it^ tho' there are fundry Things re» lating to Each, of which we are at prefent unable to give any diftindl Account. And the Darknefs we are left in by Revelation need not in this Refped be any Hin- drance to us ; for which we ought to be very thankful. Upo n the Whole^ the Premifes being con- fider'd, I think, while we readily admit what the Scripture reveals concerning the Jrlnhjy we may well be difcourag'd from be- ing peremptory in determining any Thing as to the Mannev of it. There have both among Ancients and Moderns^ been feveral Emblems made ufe of as Illuftrations, when the Do- drine of the Trinity has been under Confide- ration, and Arguments have been drawn from them. The Soul of Man, and its Fa- culties *, the Sun and its Rays, the Water and its Vapours, and Extension with its Dimenfions, have all been made ufe of as Emblems in this Cafe. The Schoolmen ge- nerally (after the Mafter of the Sentences, and St. Auftln) made the Soul of Man an Image of the Trinity:^ faying. That as God underftood and lov'd himfelf, fo did the Soul nnderltand and love itfeif. But in the mean time they are unable to tell us either how the Blelied God ads upon himfelf, or how the Soul of Man as underftanding and "loving itfeif, differs from itfeif as underftood ^wck icv'd. And I muft fay. That m my Ap- prehenfion, Comparifons of this JSlature give '^ Mens rneminip fc^ intelligit fe^ cliligit fe : Hoc ft cernimus^ cernimus Trinitntem ; non quidem Dcum, fetL i?7i^^.^ more ihali we credit our Holy Profeffion. So that it may not be improper for u« here diftindly to confider^ I. The Truth we are to fettle m^ fpeak^ and adhere to ,- II. The Love in which we are to /peak this Trut/j ; III. The Motives that fhould make us careful to maintain this Lo've ; And-^ IV. The Confiflency of hearty Lonye^ with that Zeal for Trut/j, which is elfewhere recommended as our Duty. I. I begin with that Truth which we are to fettle in^ fpeak^ and adhere to : As to which^ Thanks be to God_, we have no Reafon tp complain we are left in Uncertainty. We have a fufficient Diredory^ and know where to find it. Filate in a bantering Way^ inquir'd^ JVhat ^ Truth? He ask'd it ot One that was Joh.xviii, very able to anfwer his Queftion^ but he 38. did not ftay for an Anfwer : Which fliew'd^ either that he was very indifferent about it^ or too much in Halte, or elfe thought it a vain Thing to fearch after it. But Trut% in Reality is a moll noble Thing. It is well worth Waiting and taking Pains for^, and Searching after with great Diligence ,• and it will amply reward our Pains it we do but find it. It was the great End of Christ ia coming into the World to hear Witnefs to It^ C c 4 and 392 Truth and Love. Serm. and make it known : And it is the main XIII. 1^^%^ ^^ Revelation to fet it before us^ and v^/-v->w communicate it to us with Advantage. The Ads Apoftles of our Blefled Saviour /pake forth stxvi. 25. the JVords of Truth. What they deliver'd to the World for Truth^ was communicated to theni from Above j and they made a faithful Re- port. Without all Doubt it is reueal'd Truth that is here intended_, which goes much far- ther in Divine Things than the mere Light of Nature could ever have carry'd us. It comprehends the Effentials of Chriftianity^ and particularly concerning the One Spi- RiTj One LoRD^ and One Go d^ that is taken Notice of in the Beginning of this Chapter^ upon which Doctrine I nave given you fo many Difcourfes^ in the Courfe of this Ledure. Common Truth is valuable in its Place^ and defer ves Efteem : But we are here pointed to the Truth as it is /» Jesus. From him it came_, and in him it centers. In the grand Concern of Reli- Sion^ we have not to do with Truth of lan's devifmg^ but of God's difcovering ^ for He is the Go d of Truth, ycr. 21. This Truth^ we are firfl to receive and learn^ and then to fpeak and publifh_, declare and propagate. We are to receive it as it is deliver'd^ and fpeak it as it is communica- ted : And the nearer we keep to the Terms in which it is deliver'd^ we are fo much the fafer . Having it committed to us^ we fhould reckon it a great Truft ; And it highly con- ^•j-^^j;cerhs not only Minifters^ but all the People 2, * 'of God to be found Faithful. We fhould keep it entire without changing or ' altering it ; i^.i. 13- holding fafi she Form of found JVords. We are firmly to adhere to it_, whoever flight it^ to fland up for it whenever it is afTaulted or op- ^ ^^^ pos'd^ Truth and Love. pos'd_, and as far as we are able to clear it when it is obfcur'd. We are not to part with it or let it go at any Rate. We mull keep the Truth of Christ's Dodrine jull as it was delivered to the Church by his Apoftles^ and as it is contain'd inthebacred Records^ from whence (rather than from humane GlofleSj Comments^ and Expofitions, how juft and valuable foever) we are to tak^ and colled it for our own Ufe. We muft ad- here to it_, whatever we may fufFer^ and whatever our fo doing may expofe us to. And if we corrupt or mifireprefent it^ betray or lofe it upon any Terms_, we are accounta- ble to the Judge of all another Day. The more valuable we find this Gofpl- Truth to be^ the more Reafon fhall we difcern we have to be very thankful^ that luch di- ftind Difcoveries are made of it to us^ as well as to thofe who immediately fate under the Preaching of Christ and nis Apoftles : and that it has been handed down to us at- tended with fuch an Evidence of its Divi- nity^ and in fo great Purity^ and with fuch a Freedom from adulterating Mixtures. We Ihould count it a mighty Happinefs^ that in the molt capital Matters we are not left in any diftrac5ting Uncertainty^ but have Light funicient to guide us in our Affections and Motions. This is a Privilege that it becomes us highly to prize^ and carefully to improve. 'Tis this Truth that is the Treafure hid in the Mat- xlii. Field ^ the Pearl of great Price^ which can- 44> 45- not be bought too de^r. We fliould in all proper Ways exprefs our Value for it, and take care to walk anfwerably. We Ihould dread the Thoughts of holding it in Unrighte- Rom. i. oufnefs : And next to that_, I know of no one 18. Thing of which we have more Reafon ;. ^ • to i594 Truth and ILoyeI Serm.^^ be fearful^ than the holding it in XJn.- XIII. charitablenefs : From which that wc may be (•^V^ preferv'd^ let us^ II. In the fecond Place^ Confider the Love in which we are to [peak this Trutb^ or with which our Adherence to it fhould be ac- company'd. It highly becomes us^ and much conC&rns us^ to [peak the Truth in Lo've. We fhould do it in fuch a Way as may teitify and exprefs both our Zox/e to God^ and our Fellow-Creatures. We are to hold Gofpel-Truth in the Love of GoDj, remembring that it is the natural and avow'd Defign of it^ to inflame and maintain the Love oi God in our Hearts^ without which 'tis altogether incapable of doing us Service. And it fhould herein quick- en our Care^ that we are fo exprefsly told_, ^... '*• That If any love GoD^ the fame is known of Him : ^^^^* ^* /. e, fo known of Him^ as to be approv'd by Him. We are alfo to hold Gofpel-Truth in the Love of our Fellow-Creatures^ and that both thofe of them that know and own the fame Truth joyntly with us^ and thofe that either know it notj or know and own it but in part ; that demurr about it^ and cannot be prevail'd with to joyn with us in adhering to^ and defending it ; or that differ from us as to the proper Ways and Methods of fupporting it. All agree^ That we are in Duty bound to hold and adhere to the Jhtth of the Gofpel^ in the Love of fuch Brethren as hold the fame Truth joyntly with us^ and intirely concur therein. Our Bleifed Saviour is fo pofitive Tohn xiii. ^^ ^^^ Declaration^ By this jhall all Men know 25. that ye are my Difcifles^ If ye have Love one to another. Truth and Love. ^pc another y and hath fo directly referred to this Serm. as a Proof and Evidence that Perfons are XILI true ChriitianSj that there is no Room for ^\-^^^ a Demurr about it^ as underftood with fuch a Limitation. And it were well if this was but confider'd as it ought^ that we might fee Brotherly Love abound more among thofe who without any difcernible Diverfity of Senti- ments adhere to the fame Truth^ as it has been delivered to the Saints j- and that ins be- ing exprefs'd in all proper and becoming Waysj might fall under a more general Ob- fervation. But then^ this is far from being all that is requifite_, in order to tht ftilfiJl'mg the i^ of the Gofpei in Love^ v/illfhew themfelves tractable^ affable and courteous, Jnftead of being four and fullen^ wafpiih ehd churlifh to fach as differ from them, and perhaps oppofe and cenfure them^, they'l treat them with Gentlenefs and Candour : And tho' they won't upon any Account part with the leail Article of Truth to gratify them^ yet they will carry it fo as to mani- feft^ that it is pure Confcience^ that there- in is their Hindrance. They'l be ready to do them any real Good in all Ways that are within their Reach ^ and their whole Beha- viour towards them will fhew that they real- ly wifh them well^ notwithftanding they are oblig'd to differ from them. They'l re- member that they are to increafe and abound j ThefT. in Lo've^ not only one to^vards another^ but fo- iii. iz. 7vards all Men. And therefore will be tender and compaflionate^ do Good for Evil^ and endeavour to overcome E'vil with Good ; which Rom.xii. is truly Divine and GoD-like. They will 21. not be peevifh and froward^ but gentle. In- ^ itead of infulting they truly pity luch as wan- der from the Truthy and heartily pray for them. They perhaps in the mean time may be XIII. xm. 4. 400 Truth and Lovi* Serm ^^ ^o fi^'^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^'^^ Notions and Ways^ * as not to think they need any Compafliori) and may be apt to flight the Kindhels that is intended to be this Way exprefs'd : But this will not hinder fuch as (peak the Truth in Love^ from this Way fignifying how kindly they are difpos'd towards tnem. Where they differ from any the moft widely^ theyl not treat them roughly^ or haltily charge them with Fundamental Errors: They will not do it^ unlefs they are forc'd to it^ by the highefl Evidence of the Truth and Neceflity of the Things which have a Strefs laid upon them^ and by plain Scrip- ture. 1 Cor ?• ^HARITY^ lays the Apoftle^ envieth not; J ^«Ao7. He that holds the Truth in Loue, grudges not even thofe that moft differ from him any Advantages with which they are favour'd^ nor is he in the leaft difgufted with their Profperity. He is well-pieas'd with the Benefits and Bleflings that are conferred iipc)n them ; and wilhes the Continuance of them, in Conjundion with Hearts to make a goodUfe of them. He reckons not their Reputation, Applaufe and Advance- ment, to be to his Diminution. And fo far is he from a Defire of building upon their Ruins, that he takes Part in their Hap- pinefs 5 and will rather add to them, than leffen and take from them. 4. St. Paul adds. That Charity 'vaimteth not itfelfy I Ti^Tifiv'ilett : And // not puffed up; «* qivruTOLi. It is not rafli and infolent, haugh- ty and fupercilious. They that hold the Truth in Lo'vey won't be forward to fet up themfelves as Standards for the reft of Mankind, reckoning themfelves flighted or abus'd if their Decifions be not allow'd to pafs ItiL Truth and Love. z}.oi pafs for Oracles : Nor will tliey fvvell in Serm. their own Efteem becaufe they are in the w\\ ' Rights nor defpile ethers on the Account rl-w-xj of their being in the Wrong. They won't ^^ carry it as it they were the only wife Men in the World_, and others were bound to take their Notions and Meafures from them^ and difparag'd them if they did not intire- ly fall in with them : But they'l be lowly- minded , fet a due Value upon the Abilities of others^ and take care not to think of them- t> ^-j fehjes more highly than they ought to think. They'l ^ 'put on Bo-iUils of Mercies J and Humhknefs ^Col. iii. Mind. Theyl neither magnify themfelves^ ii. nor run down others with Contempt and Scorn^ nor any Way give them unneceiTa- ry Diflurbance^ nor defire or feek to hin- der their Ufefulnefs. 5". Charity, fays the Apoftle^, doth not be- q have ttfelf tmfeemly 'j ^k «t^%H/woi/«: It does not ^-^-^ / run into Indecencies, either in Language or Carriage. They that fpeak the Truth in Love^ when they are oppos'd, will not break out into any injurious Reflexions, or unbe- coming Pailions. Theyl carefully avoid Rudenefs, and contumelious Behaviour, a- bufive Language, and difgraceful Treatment of thofe tor whofe Sentiments they have the greateil: Averfion. Theyl debate Mat- , ters coolly, and Reafon calmly, and more confider what is fpoken, than who is the Speaker. Theyl ciofely think of^ and ftudy whatjoe'ver Things are lovely. They won't dil- pi m ^y grace the Perfons of thofe whofe Senti- g^ ments they moil dillike. And tho' they may argue with them upon the Confequen- ces of their avow'd and declared Notions, in order to their Convidion, yet they won't pretend that they are chargeable with them, D d li 4© 2 Truth ^w^ Love. Serm. :'fthey politively difown them, and declare. XIII. ^^^^' Abhorrence of them. This is a Sort ^ ^ of Treatment which they will no more give "^ to others^ than they could be able to bear it from ochersj without reckonmg themfelves hardly uied. They won't at every Turn giv.e Pecpie of ditterent Sentiments from them the Title of Heretkks^ which is provok- ing;, and rather tends to inhame Mens Paf^ fions, than convince their Judgment: But will leek to Ibften and win upon them^ and not exafperate them. n Cor. ^' S^' ^'^"^ adds^ That Charity feeketh not her %m. 5. own ^ \'C>fi^TcL Uvr^Ai : It is not felfifh. It does not feek Self-advancement^ to the Neg- lect or Injury, or Diminution of others. Such Perfons therefore a.s Jpeak the Truth in Loz^e^ Will not be of a ftingy., narrow^ mer- cenary Spirit, but will be ready to. do Good for Evil ; and Hick at nothing, tho' it be to their own Detriment, that might be to the real Benefit of thofe whom they Iiave to do with. They won't leek their own Praife, Profit^ or Pleaiure^ to the Hurt of others^ any more than theyl be willing to have o- thers do Co by them, which is the Meallire by which they if atediy proceed. 7. CHAiHTYj- fays :,the Apoltie^ Is not ea~ Jtly . provoked ; ^ . 'Trct^j^vvircu ; is net apt to be infiam'd^ or drawn into unkind Thoughts^ Words, or Adions. They therefore 'that fpeak the Truth In Love^ will be of a Forgiving "Spirit. They won't eafily be inrag'd. They jnay at fome certain Times and in. fome Cafes be difturb'd ,• but theyl take Care not to be furioufly tranfported beyond all Bounds. They'l moderate their Relentments, keep their Anger under Government^ and not fufFer it to rife to fuch an Height as that they Ihid. Truth and Love. they fliould lofc the Command of thcnifelvesj or be harry 'd into any Thijig that isr out- ragious : They won't be exalperated or im- bitter'd. Even when they are angry ^ ^^"^^ylpohd^ be careful not to fin ,• endeavouring to keep 26. their Tempers even towards their herceft ' and moft vehement Oppofers. . 8. St. ?(wl ^dsj That CLirlty thinhth no ^ , E-vil '^ ^ hoyi^iTcu Ti KcLitdi/ : It thinketh 111 '•;^°^' of none^ without Ground^ and v^ithout Con-^^'^* ^' Itraint. They therefore that fpeaJz the Truth in La-je^ will be ready to pafs the beft Con- Itrudion on what Men fay^ and. favoura- bly interpret what they do. They will lef- fen rather than aggravate any Thing that is ill^ and carefully watch againit Jauoufies and Stifficionsy which are many times as torment- ing to thofe that entertain them^ as they are injurious to thole againit whom they are pointed. No one Thing is more oppolite to true Charity_, than a detracting^ cenfb- rious Humour^ which runs into grcundlefs SurniifeSj and jU-favour'd Conltructions^ the incouraging which^ opens a Door to all man- ner of Contuficm. They that ac5t as Love directs^ -will take Things' by the beft Han- dle^ and not allow tiiemlelves to fufpecft Men to be worfe in any Ileipecft than their Words and Adions plainly declare them. They won't mifconftrue either their Words or their Intentions^ nor. interpret doubtful Things to the worit Senfe^. but the. beft ^ nor lurmize an Evil of others^, that they do not knoWj nor take up an evil. Report of them lightly^ nor contribute to the Sp^^ead- ing of it^ when it is rais'd by others^ viith- out there be juft Grounds. They won't im- pute Evil^ or put it to any Man s Account^ beyond abfolute Neceffity. They will be D d z ready Truth and LovEi ready to make Allowances^ and notharfhf ly interpret what is faid by others^ as if tney were bent upon making the worft of it that is poilible : But in this^ as well as- other ReipeciSj will do as they would be. done by. t Cor. 9- Charity^ fays the Apoltle^ rcjoyceth xlii. 6. not In Iniquity^ but rcjoyceth In tj^ Truth. They that fpeak the Truth In Love^ will be fadden'd initead of being pleas'd^ when even they that are their greateft Oppohtes do what is really amiis and unjuiliiiable^ or run into any Sort of Extravagance^ notwithitanding that this may poffibly give them fome Advantage in their dealing vv^ith them. But any right StepSj any Approaches towards Truth that can be dilcover'dj are moll highly grateful to them 5 and they'l fhew that they are fo, by making the moil of them that :s poffi- bie. Such Perfons inllead of watching for their Neighbours halting^ and making the moll of their Milcarriages^ will be "trou- bled at any Difgrace they fall under : And will be apt to take Pleafure in every Thing they lay or do^ that is vvell^ and as it fliould be^ and be rejoiced if Truth gets any Groundj or Prejudices againft it are at all abated^ even tho' it fliould be to their own- Diminution, i Cor. '^^' ^T. B?/// addSj That Charity bem'cth all xiiL 7. Tijhigs: rz^ivTo. Tiyet : It covers all Th^ngs^ as far as is pcffible. They that fj^eak the Truth in Lo^jCy will rather throw a Veil over Mens Faults to keep them out of light^ than make them worfe than they really arc. They'l readily commend what is truly commendar ble in them^ and grv^e them the moft fa- vourable Charaders they are capable of giv- ing, confillently with Truth and Juftice. The Truth and Love. 403 The Wile Man fays^, that Hatred filrreth up S'-KM. Strifes^ but LG-ue covtreth ,'ll Sins. Whereas XIII. lU-wiil and Hatred raifes up Diitarbance _ --,>0 where all things are quiet^ and makes Men Prov. x, quarrel about Trifles; Love will pacify the 12. minds of fuch as it finds prcvok'd by real Offences , and compofe Differences for which perhaps there was but too much Occafion. Lo-ve will mofi: certainly bear with a Multitude of Infirmities ^ and that the rather^ becaufe they that are the moft cha- ritable^ are very fenfible that in fome Things they themfelves need Allowances^ and fiiouid be expos'd^ were they to be ri^3;o^ouily dealt withaij on the account of fudden Sai- liesj and hafty Speeches^ and Indifcretions^ which after the utmolt Caution^ they may be guilty of e'er they are aware. II. Charity^ fays the Apoitle^ heUevcth ^ Cq^^ all Things y bopetb all Things. They that [peak xili. 7. the Truth in Lo^je^ will believe well cf all ^icin^ till they are forc'd to the contrary by cre- dible evidence ; and theyl hope weU too^ as tar as they can difcover the leaft ground for it. They 1 htUe^e well of others if they have but the leaft probable ground to go upon and hope for more from them than they have any pofitive reafon to believe. They won't intrench upon Gqd's Province_, and pretend to judge Mens Hearts_, or pry into their Secret conceal'd intentions^ but will believe well as long as there is the leaft room for it^ and their Ho^jes will go yet farther than then' Beliefs becaufe they will be as unwilling to give others up for irrecoverable ^ as they would have their Neighbours be to pafs fuch a Judgment up- on them^ if they were in like Circumftan^ cc«. Let others be never fo bad^ they P d 5 won\ 406 Truth and Love' S RN^ v/on'c abfolutly defpair of their Amendment^ XIII. ^^^^' S*^'^ ^^'^^ ulnig proper Means in order ,,_^x-v-C to if- They are eajj to be Intreatul. /^^t may Jam. ili. remember tliat ^t. Paul was very far from 17. being infenilble of the ilrange and peciiliar Hardnels and Stupidity cf the Jews with whom he had to do^ yet he did not give ever Dealing Vvith them^ as if their Cafe 'was abrciuteiy.hcpeiefs ^ but he declared he Wv^uld ftiii do his utmoifj to provoke to Ermi- P.om. xi. latlon thc7n that were his Fkjhy that he m'ght [a^uc [ome of them,. We fliould endeavour to be like him m our Carriage towards thofe whom we find ourfelves in Duty bound to pppciej as we are Handing up for God's Truth ,• efpecially v/here their Spirits having been lowr'd by ill Ufage^ their Corruption may. have been drawn forth to a Degree beyond what \s common and ufual. IX, And Lajtij^ St. Tdid farther adds^ That ^ Charity emhtreth all Things. It v/on't be eafily li Cor. - , 1 -^ T -n 1 *^ ^j • - r? -^ ^;-; tir d cut. It Will be unweary d m us Ln- deavoursj and will furmount all Difhculties and Oppcfition. It will not feek Delays^ or take Pleafure in Excufes^ but will . find Ways to vent itfelf, tho' there may be ma- ny Thiiigs to difcourage and obftrud it. They tliat [pcaK the Tuitb ]n Love^ will en- dure a great many ill Things from thole that fet themlelves againlt tlhem^ in Hope of better Things hereafter ^ and vv' ill put up Wrongs^ without any Inclination to re- Rom ^"c^^^g^ them. Theyl much rather give phice >:liL 10. *''«''^ Wrath, Theyl think often of their Great Master^, who without Flinching or Wearinefs endur'd the Contradiction of Sin- ners againit himielfj till He had quite gone th^'o' the great Work He had undertaken ; Ai^*d in like manner they alfo will hold on Bearing Truth and Love. jBearing and Fo'rbearing_, even to the End of their CJ-clirfe^ whith'oiit any more defi- ling to be excused from this, tnan from any other Part- of their prefcrib'd Work ajid Service. ' . ' HavhsTg .thus fot before you th's truly Noble^ and Scriptural^ and Apoftolical De- fcriprion ci CLarltyy m its ievcral Parts and Branches^^ 1 think I have good Reafon to niove^ and infill upoii it;, That ir riia^ be ferioully confider'd of/ and that it may abide in your Thoughts^ and be ccpy'd cut in your Tempers and Pradice. J. bcfeec.K you Brethren^ don't look upon the Grace dc-: Icrib'd as-.^'XhifTg indifferent^ or barely orna- •mentalj bht'as highly neceffary. Don t plead for^ don't' offer to extenuate or excufe any pefecls her^, ;any more than you would as to any cth^i'^Gfacey which bur bacred Records recommend' with the gr^ateft Earneitnefs. 1 readily '^raiit it is diiiicalt to get^ and ic.eep^ aiid itiaihtainj fuch' a Spirit as that defcrib'd ; but that is rather a Sign of its pe- culiar ExceUehce^ than any thing of a Proof that it vvould net highly become us^ and be necefTary for us^ earneffly to Itrive for \t^ and labour after it^ an^ heartily to lament pur Defedivenefs \a it. lean treely appeal to all cf you that hear me^ Whether the Spirit defcrib'd be not exceeding amiable^ ajid whether it is not juft Matter of Grief and Sorrow that it fhpuld be fo uncommon^ and whether it would not be happy for the World in general^ and the Church of God in particular^ if it did but prevail ; and whe-- ther our Animofities and Contentions would not be very much abated^ and Things would not appear with a quite different Face from what they do at this I>ay> D d 4 cou}^ 4o8 Truth ^Ki Love* Serm. could but Perfons be content^ and were they, XIII. ^^^ difpos'd and inclin'dj, thus to ffcotk tl^ v^.^y-N^ Truth in Love* III. To come therefore to the Motives that fliould induce us to maintain this Love^ as we are purfuing Truth *^ waving many others^ I ifhall only touch upon thefe Two^ which I take to be of great Weight ; i;/"^. That this will be much tor our own Advantage^ and- at the fame Time it will be the very belt Way we can take to do Service to the Truth which we ' ftand up for. I. OcjR thus fpef.klng the Truth In Lg-ve^ will be very much for our own Advantage. The Apoflie tells us^ That Charity u the Bond ofFsr- Col, ill. fe^fjefs^ and therefore preffes us above all: }^' Tmngs to put it en: By which he plainly inti- mates to us^ That as a generous and ex- tenfive Love ^ is a grand LelTon which Chri- Itianity teaches, and a Grace which it parti- cularly inforcesj fo is it one of the molt ex- ~~ ceilent of Chriltian Graces : All others with- out it being unprofitable^ and but vain and falfe Paintings^ that have nothing in them that is firm and fohd^ or that will turn to any Account in the final Iffue. And there- Rom, fore we are told^ That Loz/^ js the ful filling xiii. lo. ^ the Law : And it is fo ^Tioft certainly^ as to the Second Table of it^ which relates to our Neighbours. . St. Teter alfo in his Lift of Chriltian Vcrtms and Graces ^ which he enu- merates particularly^ declaring the Neceflity zPct.i.yiOf adding one ot them to another^, fixes Charity at .the Top_, and mentions it laft of all 3* thereby intimating to us^ That if Cha- rity vjsis but carefully added to ali the other ycr, 8, Graces mention'd^ it would wake: that 7pe jhould he neither barren nor unfmitftd- in the - Knowledge Truth and Love. 409 Knowledge of our Lord Jzsufi Christ; and Serm. help fo to preferve us, as that we fhould xill/ never fall. Without this indeed cur Chri- ^^^^r^ ftianity is a mere Pretence,- and Fah/j irfclfver. lo. is nothing : But if this be carefully minded , 2 Cor. and confcientioufly pradis'd, our Religion xlii. 2. anfvvers its End, and it will appear with a Luftre. We fliall recommend it to o- thers, inftead of prejudicing them againit it. This Way alfo fliall we have a good Evi- dence of our own S'mcerhy. For this will fhew that we are like-minded with Christ^ and a(5led by his Spirit. Let this M'md^ fays pj^.j - the Apoille _, he In youy which was' alfo In ' ' Christ Jesus : And he had therein a particular Reference to Love^ Humility and Lowlinefs of Mind, as any Man wiU ealily difcern that coniults the Context. Our Blelled Lord Jesus ever fpake and pub- lifli'd the Truthy and 'twas his conftant Bu- linefs fo to do: But He always did it in Love, Our doing the fame^ will be a plain Proof and Evidence that the fame Spirit is in uSj as was in him. For Love is a Fruit GdX.y .11^ of the Spirit of Christ ; and of his pro- ducing and cherifhing. 'Tis a good Token and Evidence of being his Difciples in- deed^ and intitled to thofe Bleffings which belong to thofc that are fo. This there- fore cannot but be a great and unfpeakable Comtort upon Refledion. Befides^ this will alfo be a good Means of our own Growth^ and Stability^ and advance towards Matu- rity. 'TwiU keep us from Waverings and being Inconftant^ like Children that are tofs^d to and fro^ and know not what to itick to. Knowledge fujf'eth ifp^ bin Charity edi-^ , Cor. fietb. It not only confults and promotes viii. i. the Edification of others^ but it cdihes thofe 4!0 Truth and Love- Serm. in whom it pi*evails and thrives. The Pre - XIII. valence of true Chriftian Love m our Pleart^ will do us more real good^ than the great" eft Knowledge^ or any other Attainriien> can do without it. And this mcthinks cughc very much to recommend it to us. ^ And then withallj 2. Our ffeak'mg the Truth In Lo^jc^ will al- fo be the ' very heft way we can take to do Service to the TrutJj which we ftaji'd up for J and would williagly fupport and de- fend. AH Men of Senie mult needs agree^ that 3. cool Spirit is in a much fairei' vvay to- make Profeiytes than a fierce one. Tho* it be Jrutb that a Man appears for^ if yet he does it in a wrathful Way^ and runs into angry: Reflexions and fierce Debates^ he vv^ill much fooner prejudice than per- fwade Perfons of difFerenf'Sentiments. . The \.\inA.zoJ'^^ratb of Man ivorketh not the ' R'lghteoujnejs of God. It never didj not J t never will And this I think may very " \Vell be laid down as a Principle^ by all that deal with Gain- fayers .. up6h a KeligiOlts' ' Argument. ^ 'Tis not fierce Oppofition knd ;^ontention3 but ii^it Wo'rds^ ' and mild aiid fober Reafonijig^ that makes Way for Tr^th in the ^ Mind^ and bears in Light^ and lays a Foundati- on for Conviction. When the Word came to the, Prophet EUjaJo^ 'tis ohferv'd., '.That 1 K''>"S ^^^^ Lord^ TV as not in the W.n4y nor hi the Earth- y,-yi\,iiiz 'make ^ nor in the Flr'e ^ . but^"' In the ftUl_VoJce. Thole vv^ere but boiitercus Harbingers of a meek' and ftill Word. God gives the cleared; and; moft advantagious iMotices of himfelf in Sweetnefs ^ and therefore we piould net wonder that that is the beft Way for us t(^ con^Yty ff ruth to our FellowrCreatureSj^ and make' fuitable • Imjpreilions upon 'em. if Truth and Love. 41 r If you deal boifteroufly with thcm^ thcy'l S^RM. be ape to fulpecl that you rather defign to XIII expofe and infult them , or domineer over -^.^^^^-sj them^ than convince them cf real Trut/j. If we confider human Nature^ or confult our own make^ or look to the Experience of Ages paft^ we fhall eallly be convinc"d of this. Were we to ftudy ever fo long, how to fpread and promote T'ria/j_, and make Converts to it, we could pitcl; upon no Method Co eifedual as the fpcakwg it In Love : And therefore. we flialL diiTerve Truth , as well as crofs our own real Intereit, if we do not comply with the Admonition in the Text: Which are Confiderations fo im- portant, as to make any farther Motives neediefs. , But tho' (my Friends) I would gladly have the whole Scheme of Gofpd-TvMth held and maintain'd, and fpoken and defended in Love J and am particularly deiirous it fhould be fo as to the Doctrine of the Trinity which runs through it (on which I have fo largely inlilted;) and tho' I can fafely fay that I would not ftick at any Thing that in me lay, that I could difcern would contribute towards it, yet would I not be underftood, nor was it in the leaft my In- tention or Defign, to charge, or bring in Inditemejjts againit any. of my Bre- thren- We have what is abundantly fuffi- cient, we have enough in ail Confcience to expo(e and weaken us j we need not weaken and befpatter one another. I leave it to every Mans own Thoughts to charge him, as far as he has oiFer'd any Violence to that Love which he ought to have dif- cover'd in all his Searches after Truth^ De- bates about it, or Methods taken to fup^ pore 4i2> Truth and LovEi Serm. P^i't it. I have only endeavoured to take XIIL Pattern from St. B^w/^ who finding the Chri- y^^y^ ftians of Corinth^ for whom he had a moil tender Concern ^ very differently difpos^d from what they fhould have been, through Di'vljions and Jealotifiesy fets freely before them the true and genuine Offices, Pro^ perties, and Fruits of Charity^ and leaves It to them from thence to recoiled then* own Mifcarriages. It has been my Aim to do the very fame by myfelf and you, in order to clofe and lerious Thoughts a- bout the Matter proposed, which is really of no fmall Concern and Confequence. And I muft confefs I am afraid, if we make any Thing of a ftrid Review, and deal impartially ,• and if we lay our Hands upon our Hearts, and are ingenuous, we ihall all of us fee Caufe to own we are guilty of negleding that Love and Charity of which we ought to have been mindful, in all our Difcourfes and Debates , and the whole of our Condud and Manage- ment. After what has been advanced, my Bre- thren muft give me leave to fay, that we ought not to reckon it enough that we have Truth on our Side, unlels we have fpoken it and adher'd to it, and endea- vour'd to fupport and defend it in Loz/e. It will be but a poor Relief, in fuch a Cafe as this, to go to throw the blame off from ourfelves upon others : For they may have been guilty and we too ,• and we may be affur'd their Fault will not excufe or lelTen ours. For my own Part I fhall not ftick to declare, that if in any of thofe Difcourfes in which 1 have, with fome Paints, been fearching for Truth upon the Head Truth and Love. 413 Head of the Trinity^ I have broken in Serm. apon the Love that was owing to any that XIII.' I- have pointed to_, I am far from juftify- ing myfelf 5* I am truly forry for it ; and Ihall endeavour to correct it : And I can- not but hope that others will do fo too, as to what they upon Reflexion may dif- cern to have been amils : A.nd then the' after our utmoft Pains and Care^ we might not perhaps be all of one Mind^ even in fome Things that are of Moment^ we yet might differ amicably^ which I Ihould think would be no fmall Happinefs ^ and prove a confiderable Comfort to all the Hearty Lovers of ierious Religion among Us. , It now only remams^ that we Confi- der_, IV. How that Love which I have been recommending and preffing^ may be re- conciled with that Zeal for Truthy which is often urg'd upon us as our Duty. For the Premifes being confider'd^ I dou-bt not but fome will be ready to iay^ what would you have us do? Muffc we out of a re- gard to Charity embrace thofe in our Bo- loms^ who lubvert the main Foundations of our Holy Religion ? Muft we give them an Opportunity of undermining and over- throwing the Capital Articles of our Faith^ that we may*- fhew our Love ? Are we not earnejHy to contend for the Faith once deliver d]^^^^''-'i* unto the Saints^ and is not that prefs'd as a Duty of mighty Confequence ? Why then fhouid you take Pains to flacken our Zeali I anlwer^ I am far from aiming at dif^ couraging Chriltian Zeal^ tho' I think it highly concerns us to get our Zeal right- ly temper'dj that it may not do more Hurt than 414 Truth and Love. Serivi. than Good. All that I movefor is^ that St. YTTT ^^^^^'^ Admonition in the Text^ of S^cakivg ' the Truth m Love^ may not be forgotten in the Heat of 2.eal. And this Charge of his^ may^ I conceive^ be comply'd with^ without giving luch as heiitate about the Truth^ or oppose it^ the leaft Advantage againft it ; and without breaking in upon that 2jeal with which I readily grant we ought to contend for it. And here I have a few Things to offer_, that dcferve to be well confider'd^ and were worthy to have been enlarg'd on. I. There's a great deal of Difference be- tween being againil: the Tnnhy and demurring upon Ibme Phrafes and Expreffions that have been commonly us'd by the Afferters of that 7I7///6 : And it is but a blind Zeal that will not ' or cannot allow of a Di- ftindion between thele two. For my own ParCj, I have not the leaft fcruple as to any of the Words or Expreffions that have been generally made ufe of in the Chriftian Churchy and particularly among the Re- formed^ upon the Head of the Trinity- I never -yet could fee any juft Reafbn to dillike the Principle^ in which I was trained up fr.om my Chiidhoodj That there are Three T-erfons In the Godhead^ the fame in Suhfance^ ecjual In- Voiver and Glory, And yet fuppofe I meet with fome that are ruDt fb free for the ufe of the Word Terfon^ when apply'd to Father^ Spn^ and Holy Spirit; and that de- clare they are at a lofs for the meaning of the Word ^//^/j?/^^ when it is apply'd to the Deity^ tho' yet they own themlelves devo- ted ,to Father y Son^ and Spirit; and acknow- ledge .that it is by the Spirit enabling, and . through the Son encouraging^ that they ap- ply Truth and Love. 415. Plv tOj and depend upon the lu^tLcr as fi- ScRm. nally and fully effecting all Good '^^ I can- XIII. not fee any Reafon^ why our Zeal fliould ^^-^^^ carry us fo far^ as to rejed them^ or ex- clude them our Lot'e. 'Should any condemn fuch^ and caft them off^ as tar as I can judee^' their Zeal would not be according eo Knowledge. " For is not the main Subftance r> ^^ ^ ^ of a Truths of a great deal more Signiti- cance and Importance, than any particular Words, Phrales or Expreffions that Aleu have devis'd, with ever fo honeit an In- tention to do it Service ? Perhaps it may be faid, and I know it has been faid ofteri^ that it is not only a Piece of needlefs Sc'ru- pulofity, to be I'hy of fuch Words and Ex- preffions as the moit faithful and eminent Servants of God have ordinarily made ufe of in fuch a Cafe, but it feems to look as if they that were againft fuch Words and Ex- preffions, were really againft the 'Truth itfelf in whole Service they have long been us'd; and that Experience often proves as much; And that therefore we mull guard our Out- works, if we'd fecure our Pbrc. But if thefe are Out-works, they are of Man's ered- ing : And fliall we then for their Sake, and upon their Account, rejed thofe who frankly alTure us, they admit whatever God has rear'd up in Scripture, whom in Charity we are bound to believe, till we can prove the contrary, from fomewhat that is plain- ly inconfiftent with fuch a Profeffion ? Would not this, Interpretatively, be a preferring Mans * See Dr, OldfieldV Brief, Praakai, and Pdci- fick. Difcourfe, of God', tind of the Father, Son, and Spirit ' and of our Concern with them ; Lately pub- HfhU /^\6 TrDth and Love. I hahy to God's, I And if it is I Serm. Mans Provifion to fecure the Tt yTTT* as if wc were wiier than he? J^^~i^ liable to be fo interpreted^ would not this ^^^^ be Ibch a Sort of Zeal as would make work for Repentance^ initead of doino; Trut/j any real Service^ and procuring Chriftianity any Credit ? 2. It deferves alfo to be confider'd^ that ^ Tim. 5(.^ p^^j hiniielf has plainly told us^ that there 11. 13. ^rcfoolijJ} ^lefi'wns that gtncler Strifes^ that are to be a-volded. Whatever particular Queftions the Apoftle might in that PalTage have in his EyCj 'tis to me very piain^ that there are feveral fuch Queftions^ particularly up- on the Head of the Trmhj: As about the wanjier of the Generation ot the Son^ and the Trocejjion of the Holy Ghofi^ and the Way of their being in one another mutually^ and the 7fianner of their Dlfiintllon from each other. Queftions of this nature I take to be both foolijl) and unlearned: For they are about things that are beyond our Capacity^ and which we can have no Notion of^ becaufc God has not revealed them ; and the No- tions vented concering them are at belt but unprofitable Qmojities ; they have nothing of Unttion in them : And at the fame time they tend to Strife and Debates^ and pro- duce Parties and Diftances^ which breed Confufion. And yet thefe are things^ a- bout which fome have been^ and yet may be^ wonderful zealous. But iliould any be for turning their Notions about fuch thmgs as thefe^ into j^rtkles of Faith ^ and make them Ttjh of Orthodoxy^ I fhan't ftick to fay it would be a Prepollerous and unfcriptu- ral Zealy and be tar from any way pro- moting Practical Godlinefs: The way the Scripture has marked out for us in things cf Truth and Love* of this Kindj is to leave Perfons free^ and at their Liberty^ without pretending to limit or prefcribe to them. Theie are Things in v/hich x\\t Truth ^ as God has re- veal'd it^ as far as I can perceive^ has no Concern : And therefore for Zeal here to^ juftle out Love^ would be to difregard what God has exprefsly commanded^ out of a Tendernefs for fbmewhat that He has ma- nifeltly dlfcourag'd^ and ordered to be avoid- ed. The fame Apoftle has indeed told us. That It IS good to be always z,ealouJlj ajfe^led in a GaL Ir. good Tlnng ,• i, e. in Things that are good iS. in themlelves^, and that tend to make either ourfelves or others better : But as for fuch Things as thofe mentioned, they are far from having any intrinfick Goodnefs in them; and nothing can be produced in Proof that they have the leaft Tendency to do Good, to thofe that are ever fo warmly con- cerned about them. Nay, they rather tend to divert People from fuch Th;ngs as would improve them, both as to their Tempers and their Lives. I cannot here forbear recollecfting a Paf- fage of a Learned Man, about the Time of the Reformatio?}, which I take to have a great deal of Truth in ic, and to be much to jthe the Purpofe. ^^ We (fays he) are Erafm; ^^ contending without End, what ic is that f^o^erod. ^^ diftinguiflies the Fat/jer from the Sotj, and 1^ ^ '^^^^ *^ both from the Holy Spirit; whether it^* ^' ^^ be a Thing, or a Relation ; and how it '^ can be that they can be faid to be Three, ^^ of which One is not the Other, when ^' They are but One in Effence ? How ^^ much more (fays he) to the Purpofe would it be for us to take all poflible Care pioufly and hoUiy to worfiiip and E e cf a^ojig iC 4i8 TsLvru and Love; SSRM. ^^ adore th's Trin'itYj whofe Majesty XIII. ^^ ^^ ^^^ unable to pry into^ and to ex- s^r>r'^ ^^ prefs the ineifable Concord of that^ by *''■ our Concord among ourfelves^ that 16 ^^ we may in Time come to be in Part- ^ nerfhip with them. " To be hafty in condemning fuch as cannot fpeak of the Myftery of the Sacred Three^ in ail Refpeds^ as we may think we may do very fafely and allowably^ efpecially when we take in Speculations as to the Way and Manner^ where God has reveal'd Things to us only in the general^ tho' it may be caird an Kd: of Zeal^ yet it is no Part of llr.il.14. the being z^e^lous of good Works y the bring- ing i?^ to which is reprefented as a mam Defign of our Redemption. It is rather 1 Cor.iv. a being wife and zealous^ ahoue that ')vhkb ^' h written, Bur-*tis fit we fliould alfo cojni-»" fider^ ' \' ■ ■ ' ; 5. That where any do fall into Error^ there is a Di-iference to be made between the erring Perfons and their Errors. Tho* Errors are far from being all alike^ yet Er- rors in Matters of A^oment may be free- ly declar'd againft , while yet the erring Per- Ions may in many Cafes be tenderly dealt withj without any Diminution of that Zeal for the Faith^ which the Word of God hath made our Duty. Among erring Perfons_^ there may be feveral hearty Lovers of Truthy who yet are not fo happy as to ^nd \ty who would deteft their own Errors^ if they did not take them for Truths. To run down all fuch without Diftindion^ and con- demn them in the Lump^ may be caii'd Zeal^ "but 'trs no Zeal oi God's requiring^ for the fupporting any Tnnh of his revealing. His Way that He hath mark'd out in his Word3 i-5 Truth and Love. is plainly this^ (as has before been hinted) hi Meeknefs to hfiruH fuch as oppofc themfel-ves^ if Go D peradvemure 7iM glyc timn Repentance^ to the AchjoivUdging of the Truth ^ that they may i Tim. it. recover them fives out of the Snare of the De^Al. 25, 26. A Almiiler cf the Gofpel may do his Du- ty towards Supporting the Truth ^ by de- clariiio; in the Courfe and Exercife of his Miniftry^ againll fuch Errors as are fpread and propagated,- but in the mean time he ought to be mild and gentle in his Car- riage towards them that hold them^ and fo manage himfelf as to fhew that he loves their Perfons^ while he hates their Errors,, and that his DeUgn is to amende but not provoke them. W ithout this^ his Endea- vours in Favour of the Truth^ will be but Labour in Vain : His Zeal will anfwer no End, becaufe of its being m.anifell that it rather aims at Revenge than Corredion. But farther^, 4. Tho' we are ^tis true, to contend ear- neltly for the Truth}, yet ought we to be fatisty'd with that Way of doing it that God has prefcrib'd, if we defire or hope to approve ourfelves to him. ^ We are to contend by Reafon and Argument, an4 not? by Force and Violence at any time ,- nor by rejedling and catling off, till the Cafe is evidently remedilefs. One that is in Doubt about the Truth^ is not to be treated bke one harden- ed in Error : Nor are any to be w^holly call off, till they have given good Proof they are irreclaimable. Certainly we may learn fomething from our Lord's being a- gainft gathering up the Tares ^ lefi ive fijould root t ^t.^ tip aljo the IVheat with them. Why fhould we j:^^^^ ^J^ offer to reject any of thofe, wnom for any thing we know God may accept ? He has E e z joyn'd 420 Trut'h and Love^ Serm. joyn'd Truth and Lo^e together in my Tcxt^ XIII. ^^^Fahb and Love together /?; Christ Je* i^y^yT^ sus elfewhere : And nothing required of us z Tim. i. upon the Head of Zeal^ fhould put us upon 15. feparating them^ or difturbing this Haiiiio- ny^ which is fo defirable in itfelf, and fo ornamental to Chriftianity. The fever eft Paflage I can remember^ is what v/e meet with in St. John^ in thefe ^ John Words : If there come any one unto you, and bring JO, II. not this DoBr'me^ that ts^ the Dodrine of Christ^ mention'd in the Verfe before^ receive him not into your Houfe^ neither hid him God [feed. For he that hlddetb him Godfpeed^ is Tartaier cf bis evil Deeds, From whicn ftrid Apoilolical Charge^ we may juftly gather^ that heretofore upon Apoftatizing from Chri- fiianity to Judaifm^ Famiharities v/ere to ceafe. 'And by a^ Parity of Reafon we may ahb con- clude^ That fhould any in our Time arrive at that Fleight of Malignity^ as to pour Contempt on Christ and his Dodrine^ we ought to be cautious of keeping up Fami- liarity with them^ and do nothing that may be fairly interpreted a Juftifying them in^ Con- fentmg tOj or Approving of^ their Evil Prin- xiples or Ac^ions^ left we iliculd be involved ^in their Guilt by Participation. But I can- not perceive that it from hence follows^ but that we may very warrantably exercife Htf- jfnanlty to the very worft cf fuch when they are in Diftrefs, nay^ I cannot fee but it Itill inuft be our Duty to have Compr,JJion upon them^ and pity and pray for them^ tho' they are ever fo bitter Enemies of the Truth, Let them ever fo pcfitively or vehemently deny any of the Effentials of Chriftianity^ tho' we ought to take Care to do nothing to favour or en<;ourage them in their ill Defigns^ yet as Truth and Love/ as far as I am able to judge_, we may fiifficicnt- ly (hew our Zeal by Difcountenancing them, without knocking thepi on the Head^ com- mitting them to the Flames, or denying then> Offices of Humanity : Nay, I muft own, I am firmly of Opinion, That the Love we are to joyn with Trutb^ obliges us to do them any real Good we can. Seducers were not in the Times of the Apoftles to be receiv'd as the Difciples of Christ were to be receiv'd ; nor were they to be wifh'd Succefs in their Undertakings ; but in other Refpeds they were ftill to be well ufedj and to iliare in various Inftances of Love^ confiftently with all that Regard for Trntb that was due, from thofe that were moft hearty in its Interelts. But I cannot conclude without obferv- ing, how common it has been in the Chri- ftian World, for Perfons out of a prepofte- rous Zealy or a Defire of Dominion, or even a vain Fear of giving Way to Innovations in Religion, to inveigh againft others with bitter Hatred, and disown them as Brethren upon flight Occafions. Ever fince the JVe- ftern fell out with the Eafiern Church about the Day of keeping Eafier^ fo that Degree as to Anathematize them, has this unchari- table Temper llrangely prevail d, tho' it has been really unaccountable. When a Gangrene feizes any Part of our Bodies, 'tis agreed, that Neceflity re- quires it fhould be cut oiF without Pity^ left the Malady ftould fpread farther, and prove Mortal. But fuppofe there ihquld be any little Swelling or Protube-r E e 3 rancc Truth and Love. j ranee in the outer Skin^ or a Sore that is not deep^ and hinders not the Spirits from flowing down to the Part afFeded, for any one prefently to be for Difraembring^ would be rather to ad: tlie Part of an Exe- cutioner^ than a skilful Surgeon. The Good Lord guUe us all In the Ways of Trufh and Love. s E R M= 42? SERMON L I J o H N . y . 7* for there are Three that hear Record in Heaven^ the Fa- THER, theWo^Dj and the Holy Ghost ; and thefi Three are One. KNOW not a Paffage in all the Nevf Salrers- Teftarmnt fo contefted as this. Tho' hall,T«f/i it has of a long Time been own'd and ^^y i-ec- ufed both in the Greek and Latin Church_, ^^'^ 5 and is in all our Modern Verfions, (a very ^!!^ji^^^ few only being excepted) yet have we fome ^" *' that rejed it as fpurlousy and won't allow it to be a Part of the Sacred Scripture^ but re- prefent it as brought in out of De(ign_, an4 added by thofe that had a Turn to ferve. This is fo heavy a Charge3 that it had nee4 be well prov'dj confidering hpw fevere a De-^ nunciation St. Jo/m ha? in the very Clofe of the Canon of Scripture made againft fuch E e ^ as 424 I John V. 7. V'indicated. Serm, as arc under any Guilt of this Kind. If J^ any Man^ fays he^ fimU add unto tbefe TtnngSy v^^^,,-.^ God fliall add unto him the Plagues that are Rev.xxii. 7VYitten in this Book, And indeecf the fevereft ^8. Punishment that could be thought of^ would be but the juft Defert of fuch Arrogance and Prefumption. But then on the other hand it deferves Obfervation^ That the Threatning added in the very next Verfcj, againll fucli as diminilli and take from the Sacred Scripture, is as fevere and awful^ as that againit thole that make Additions to it : Ver. 19^ For it is faid^ Jf any Man jliall take away from the Words cf the Book of this Fropbecy^ (and the Reafon will hold as to any other of thefe divinely infpir'd Writings) God fiaH take aivay his Fart out of the Book of Life , and cut of the Holy City ' find from theHhings which 4re 'ii'rltten in this Bock. So that the Danger is very great, whether we offer to add to God's W ord, or take from it : And we "have all the* Reafori in the World to beware, left out cf Fear of the one, we r^n into the ether. For. any to take upon 'em to add fuch a PafTage as this, if it did not real- ly come from bt.Johuy was certainly very Criminal, and no End that could be proposed to belerv'd by it^ could be the leaft Juftifi- cation of it ; And the abetting, favouring^ fupporting, or excufmg fach an Addition, (v^^hen once it is difcover'd) can be no fmail Fault. Nor can the oppoiing or cenfuring this Pailage as an human Addition, be ^ Jet the ieis Criminal, if fuitabie Evidence be but produc'4 that it was reaiiy Apofto- lical, or if its being an Addicit^i,- be not ♦ iblicUy proved. This Matter therefore is important, and of no Imall Confcquence : And that the rather^ becaufe if Que Paiiage ; ■ ' "' " that; ..J I John V. 7. Vindicated. /^^ ^ that has been fo oft cited for Scripture as Serm. this^ be own'd fpurious^ People will be natu- t rally apt to fuipecfl that the Cafe may be v^^.,^1^ the farne as to a great many more ; And it ^^^''^^'' will be hard to fatisfy 'em that it is other- wife. However^ there being fome Things that have a plaufible Appearance alledg'd againft this Text^ it is but fit there fhould be a careful Examination^ and impartial Search : And I fee no good Reafon we that are moft earnelt for keeping itj can have^ for being a- gainit fuch a Search, or why we fhould not to our utmoft encourage it. And tho' we have no Occafion to condemn fuch as have modefl Doubts after all, concerning it ; yet to have the worfe Opinion of it on the Account of the great Affurante with which it has been oppos'd and aiTaulted^ would in my Apprehenfion, be a Piece of fliameful and fcandalous Weaknefs. We that think the adhering to this Text our Duty, Itand openly chargd (by a Wri- ter, that firit appear'd without, and lincc with his Name) with mifiaking an unwarrant^ ed modern Addition ^ for an inffl/d Oracle ^, ^Ti^ but fit we fhould wipe it off, if we can, and fhew ^he Charge to be undefery'd and ^ruundlef^. That I may here give what Affiftancel am able, I propofe^ I. To fremife a few Things that are fit to be taken Notice of, by fuch as are for purfiiing the Inquny, Whether this Tcit be gcmane or Jvurioas i II. To * £w/^'s Trad:s, /^^. 353. 425 I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. I. II. T o make fome free ConceJJlons^ that fo they that are moll vehement againft this Text^ may have no Grounds left for jult Complaints. III. To give the Sum of the Argument agalnfi this Text_, with a Reply to it in its feveral Parts and Branches. And^ IV. T o add the Sum- of the Argument for this Text^ with an Anfwer to the Sug- geftions of Oppofers^ that have been delign'd to weaken it, I. I Ihall begin with TremlJIng a few Things that are fit to be taken Notice of, by fuch as are for purfuing the Inquiry^ Whether this Text be genuine or Jpurms ^ And they are fach as thefe : I. The Truth of the great Pocftrine of the TrinitYj, as it has been commonly held in the ChrljHan Church all along^ and particularly among our Reformed DMnes^ does not^ as far as I can perceive^ either in Whole or in Part^ depend upon this fmgle Text. The foremention'd Writer indeed^ ailbrts with great Pofitivencfs 3 That thefe Words are not to he MatcUd with any In the whole Blhlc ^ : And that It is p-lnclpallj on the Credit of this Texty that fome Importajit Bra?jches of the Creed feem to he founded f. He might e'en as well have exprefsly mcntion'd the Doi^trine of theTRiNiTYj which I believ^ moft Peo- iple t Emlyn% Trac^sV p.- 308, t Ihid. p. 31% I John V. 7. Vindicated 427 pie will be apt to think was what he ainfd at. But I mult own myfelf at a Lcfs for his Warrant for either or thefe Alfer- tions^ when on the direct contrary it is fo evident ^ both that the ieverai Texts that referr to the Doilriae of the Trini- ty do match with this Text moft exact- ly ; and alfo that what the Creed delivers as to that Dodrine might be prov'd to be well founded y tho' the Credit of th;s Tcxt fhould be intirely dropp'd. Tvv'O oi the moft' import^int Branches of that Dodrine^ are^ That the Father^ Son^ and Sfirit^ are Qo Dj and that they are One God. And tho' both thefe are clear in this Text^ (fuppofmg it genuine) yet I can't fee that we jfhould be with- out fuificient Proof of the Truth of both^ ei- ther if no fdch Text had ever been infer ted^ or if it fhould be now difcarded. That the Father is GoD^ the 6"^;^ GoD_, and the Holy Ghofi GoD_, may be prov'd by Texts in great Number : And their Unity alfo may be coU leded from feveral other Texts ; tiio' as to ^11 the Three_, I can't fay that that is any where elfe fo exprcfsly afferted^ as it is here. So that we don't nee'd fuch a Text as this, as a Foundation of our Creed, And then^* as to the matohlng of thefe Words with other Texts in the Blble^ We need be in no Pain : For nothing can match bet- ter than this does with the whole Current of the Ne-w Teftament '^ and that is one Rea- fon why we are the more inclined to ad-^ here to it. We have nothing here, but a Nomination of Three, that hear TVltnefs to our Lord's being the Mtfiah^ and a Decla- ration that theie Three are One : And both thefe are fo intimated elfewhere, that we fliould have had good Reafon to have believ'd '' ■ ^ '" ' 'era. 428 I John V. 7. Vindicated, Serm; 'em^ altho' no Notice had here been taken of L them. This is far from being the only Place v^oyx^ in which thefe Three are referred to as Wit- ^jJJ^sto Chriitianity_, or to our Lord's Mef- iiahihip^ which was one of its capital Arti- cles. Our Blefled Saviour directly points us to the firft of thefe Three Witnefles^ when Johnv: he fays^ Tie Father hlmjelfivhkh hath fent me^ 37' hath l/om IVitnefs of me. He did fo at his J5^p- tlpn^ by a direct voice from Heaven^ faying, Matth.Iii. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well fleaj- 17. ed. He alfo mentioned the firll and fecond of thefe Three WitnefTes together^ when He John vlli ^^^J ^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ Wltnefs of myfelf^ and jg, ' /^e Father that [ent me^ heareth Wltnefs of me. We read alfo of the third TVltnefs^ when our Lord Jesusj fpeaking of the Sfirity whom He jr^.xv.25. promis'd as a Comforter^ fays^ He Jljall tefiifj of me. Neither is the New Tefiament filent as to the Unity of thefe WitneJJh, Our Lord is 1^. X. 30. plain and pofitive as to the Unity of the two firfl of themj faying^ / and my Father are One, And tho' fome of the Fathers were for refer- ring this to an Unlty^ of Jffe&ion and iViJly yet the main Stream of them carry 'd it for an Unity of Ejjence and Nature *. And if there was an Unity of that Sort between the Two firfl PFitnejffeSy VIZ, the Father and Son^ it might_, I fhould think, very naturally be concluded. That if the Spirit was as truly God, as either of them. He muft in the very fame Senfe be One with them too. And to me^ I confefs, it is far from feeming likely, that when the Apoftle was here fpeak- ing f yid. Petavii Dof. Jheclo?, dc Trin. Lib. II. cap. I John V. 7* Vindicated. 429 ing deHgnedly of thofe that boremtnefs to Serm. the Truth of Chriftianity^ he fhould mention j^ Three initviov Witneffes^ and forget the Three ^...-J-,^ fuperior ones; take notice ot Three Wit- 7iej]es on Earthy and filently pafs by the Three JVitneJJes in Hea^jev^ which are of infinitely greater Authority_, ^^Iz. the Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofiy to whofe Teftimony he well knew our Lord had often taken Occafion to re- fer in order to full Satisfadion. 2. Tho' it is comparatively but of hte^ that this Text has been debated and can- vafs'd^ yet can it not with any Shadow or Appearance of Truth^ be faid to have been of late thruit into the Ne-w Tefiamevt^ by thofe that would moft gladly have it expunged. If it was an Addition at firft_, which we have no Reafon to yield^ without good Proof; yet ftill Mr. Emljn was much in the Wrong to call it a Modern Addition *. Were it but ^ few Years fmce^ or in later Ages only^ that this Text had firft appear'd_, there would_, it muft be own'd^ have been more Likelihood of a MiftakCj or more Danger of a Fraud : But after all the Bravado's of fuch as are egainft it^ we have inconteftible Proof, and fuch as none can juftly call in Queftion^ that it not only is generally now own'd in the Chriftian World^ but alfo that it was own'd for Scripture above Twelve hundred Years ago j and we have probable Proof that goes yet much farther^ and rifes higher. This Text is not only now common^* ly read in thefe Parts of the World^ but Fa- ther Simon ■\y as much as he fets hi/nfeJf againft it^ freely owns^ that it is read by the f Pag. 353. t Crir. Hift. of ihe N. T. c. xviii. 430 I ]ohnv.y. Vindicated^ Serm, the Greeks at this Day in their Ccpy intitled I. * Apofiolos. Nor is this of late only^ but it has l^.'-^-y^ long been own'd amongft 'enn. Mr. Sddcn t acknowledges it was read conftantly and folemnly^ as a Part of Scripture^ both in the Greek and Latin Churches before the Reformation. So that as Bifhop Stlllingflcet ob- ferves ^y There was a general Confent of the Eafiern and JVefi^rn Churchds for the rcr ceiving it ; and we Ihall afterwards fee^ that this was of-a long ftanding too. Tho' there might be fome Variety in the remaining Co- pies of the Ncw Tcfiamenty with regard to this Yerfe^ yet there was little Notice taken of it ; there was no Variety in the Tubllck Ser- "uice^ nor* do we meet with any Obje<5i:ions • againlt the Gemdnenefs of this Text^ till Eraf- mm rais'd a Duft^, and began a Scruple^ which others have taken no fmail Pleafure in increa- fing fince. So that tho' our Humble Inqtiirer (who has fince ftyi'd his Performance^ A Full Jnejmrj) thought ht to ftyle thisj a long dcubted Text 4.^ yet he might as well^ (and I think more truly) have call'd it^ a long oivnd Text, in as much as it has been much longer own'd than doubted of in the Church of Christ, where for any Thing that appears^, it was firft opposed by Erafmus and Ser^jetzis, And as to Erafmus^ tho' he left it out of ihis firit Edition of the 'New Tefiament^ yet he brought It into his third Edition^ An,\^z2,y being prevail'd with by a BritiJJ) Copy^ which he foiiow'd, tho' he does not tell us where that Copy was depofited. . It was alio kept in in the CompluHnJlan'Edmon^ after a variety of Copies ^ DeSynedr. Lib. II. cap. iv. * Vind. of ihQ Dodt. of th? Jrmif^, p. 165. i P. 30$, I John V. 7- Vindicated. 4,31 Copies had been fearch'd. And as for us here Sjerm, in England, tho' Bede takes no Notice of it^ yet j it IS obfervable^ that this Text has been in all the feveral Editions of the EvgUJlj Bible that ever came out. It was in Wlcklijf's Bihie, and in King Henry VIlFs^ and in King Edward's Bl^ hlcy and in TjndaWsy and in the Bifhops Bible in Q. Eliz^abtth's Time, as well as in our laft Tranflation of K. Jar/ies I. It was indeed un- der the Influence of Erafmm, put in a different Letter^ m the Bibles Printed in the Time of H, 8. and Ed. 6. and in Tjndal's in i^^o : But it has fince been printed without any diftindion of Charader at all, which fo me it feems are much troubled at. I freely grant this would be no Argu- ment for itili retaining this Text^ li it was once proved Spurious. And yet confidering that it has been fo long own'd and retain- ed and refpeded in the Church of Christ, and has been in our Bible ever fince wc had a Bible in the Brh'fi Language, they that are againfl: it, had need give us very good and lubftantial Evidence that it ought to be quitted, before they can reafonably expedl we fhould be free to part with itl But farther, 3. Tho' it mult be own'd. That a conclu- five Argument cannot be drawn in this Cafe^ from tne different Charaders of the Per- fons that have been on the two oppofite Sides, in the Debate about this Text, yet is there fomething fo remarkable in this Re- fped to be obferv'd, that I think it ough^ not to be wholly overlook'd *. It is a Confideration ** I rho'u I had here exprefsM myfelf modeftly enough : But k appears from Mr. Er^lyns preface ra hi3.^«/Wri» Mr. I John V. 7. Vindicated. Confideration that may I think be well allcw'd to have fome Weight with Men of Senfe and Sobriety^ to taKe Notice_, That among the Moderns that have flood up for this "Text^ there have not only been fome of as good and extenfive Learnings and as much Penetration^ and Sagacity^ as any of thofe on the other Side^ but that they have been more remarkable for their Love to ferious Piety^ and their Veneration for the Holy Scripture^ the main Support of it, than thofe that have been for dilcarding it ^* who have been pretty generally loole in their Principles^ bold and venturefome in their Tempers^ and little concern'd to what they fliould have been^ tho' the Sacred Scri- ptures fhould be exposed to Contempt^ by the Methods they have been intent upon purfuing. I hardly think they that are a- gainlt this Text_, can produce any one of their Mr. M/irtin, that he was not a little dlfpIeasM, that I fhould heghi mth Mens CharfiBers, rather than with their Arguments, And yet he knows very well that this is not only the Way of the great Spanhehn in his Elenchtis Contrcvetfinruniy but of the generality of the Reformed Divines in their Debates with their Oppo- fers. So that my Mcrhod has nothing in it that is in this Refpedl: at all peculiar. As to the Four Per^ fons I mentioned, he Tingles out Three of them, and fays of Le Clerc, Mr. iVhiJion, and P. Simon, that they are vcell k^How?i to be Men of fuperior Abilities, and fingulnr Learning. And the fame mip.ht alfo have been laid of Sccinus, whom he over'ookM : Bur ftiil I think I have otVer'd that as to their other Qaalifi- cations, as miift necefTarily make 'em appear unfit Perfbns to be our Guides. Or, if Mr. Emlyn con- tinues of another Mind, he may boafl of 'em with as much Glory as he pleafes for me ; for I fliall be fjir from envying him his Satisfadion. I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^00 their niind^ of more general Learnings ^^Serm. more cxcenfive Knowledgej or a better Cri- t' tick J than Mr. Sel^kvy wlio has openly de- ^^-vV>^ clar'd for it. BiOiop Vatrkkj (who himfclf was no mean Perfon_,) declares^ he needed no more to fatisfy him that this Text was genuine^ than what had been offered by the Great Sii-Un. '*■ Bifhop StiUwgfieet went the fame Way • together with Dr. HajTimond^ Bifliop Bully and Dr. Qrabe^ Dr. Thcmas Smith and Dr. MVds. On the other fide Hand Sod- ntiSy V. Shnon.'h^CkrCy and Mr. Win f^ on. Is there any Comparifon between the Men ! Father Shno7i in particular^ take him with all his Learning, was moft certainly a Man of very ill Principles^ and one that did more to leiTen Mens Veneration for the Holy Scriptures^ than any Writer of the laft Age. The Scr'i^turey fays he^ whe- ther It has been corrupted or not^ may be cited as an Authentick ABy vjhen it is confind ovith- in the Bounds forementiond ^* that Is^ when h agrees with the Doctrine of the Church : And ^tls in that Senfe that the Fathers faldj that the trtte Scripture was found only in the Churchy and that that only foJ]ej]es it. t And Upon this Bottom^ the Church may reform the Copies of the Scripture at Pleafure^ and their Copies thus reform'd muft be taken for the Doctrine of the Apoftles \.. Is not this an admira- ble Man to be a Guide to Proteftants I It mutt be own'd he had a greater Op- portunity than moft Men^ for confulting F f and * Bifliop Pntriclis WitnefTes to Chrlftianicy. Vol. L Ch. i. p. 7. t Crlt. du N. Teft. Lib. III. c. xxll. p. 494- i See Sentimcns dc iiudq j Tbeol. de HolU^fide."-^ pag. 419. 434 I ]^^^ ^' 7* Vindicated. Serm. ^"^^ fearching into Manufcript Copies of T * the Bible '^ but at the fame time it Ihould \^^^>^^^ not be forgotten^ that the whole Current of his Writings difcovers lo little Venera- tion for thofe Sacred Records^ and they have fo many things in 'em^ tending to v/eaken their Authority^ that we have the kls Reafon to take his Wcrd^ or pay him Regard^ in what he fuggeits about iuch a Text as this. When this Gentleman has done all that in him lay to unfettle others about it^ the Sal^o with which he comes oif at laft^ is perfedly ridiculous. There Is enljy fays he^ the Authority of the Churchy that at this day makes us recehje this Vajfage as An- thentlck. * And if he could believe upon Authority againft Evidence^ I can't fee what Authority his judgment or reprefen- tations can have^ over Iuch as are for pro- ceeding rationally in their determinations and decifions. Again^ 4. If the Text of this Epiille of St. Joh?^ has really varied from what it was at hrft^ I thinkj upon a fair Comparilbn^ it will be found much more likely^ to have been by leaving out^ than by taking in. To me I mult confefs it is much more eafy to fuppofe fuch a Paffage as this_, to be omitted_, tho' in at firft^ than to be intire- iy added^ either at one t/me or another^ if it was never there before^ which could not well happen without Noife and Obfer- vation. It might be at firfl: omitted by Accident and without any Defign^ but it could not be added without an ill Dtiign^ of which we ought not to fufped Alen without Reafon. If Hifi. Crit. du N. X Ch. 18, p. 3,17. John V. 7. Vindicated. If there really has been any defign'd ill Alanagement with refped: to this Text^ it is much more likely (as farr as I can judge) to have come from the Arlans^ or thole who were either for making way for^ or fupporting their Notions^ than from the Trinitarians. According indeed to Mr. Whlfton's Notions it would be very unjuft to offer to fufped the Avians. For he affures us that no fingle inltance of this Nature_, was e- ver prov'd upon them : '^ And that they had the Ancient Authors fo clearly on their fide^ that they were under no Temptati- on to corrupt them, f But after a careful fearch into the Matter^ I cannot help be- ing of a quite different Opinion. I think it admits of very good Evidence that the Arlans had much more occafion^ and much Itronger Temptations to be tardy in this refped^ than they that were call'd CAtho^ licks. And befides_, they were often charg- ed with faults of this Nature^ even in their itioft flourifhing Circumltances,, and when they had the Afcendant. ^ If this Text be genuine_, the whole Arian Scheme is at once overthrown^ and cannot Hand before it : And upon that account we have the lefs reafon to vv^onder that they that are in that Scheme^ are {o zea- lous againft it^ and fo defirous to ^^t rid of it : Whereas tho' this Text fliould be own'd Spurlousy yet the Dodrine contended for by the Trinitarians^ might (as has been before obferv'd) have been fufficiencly prov'd out of other Texts. This to me makes it F f 2 plain^ * Efifay on the Apoftollcal Conftltudgns, p. 675, t Ihld, p. 676. 1 John V. 7. Vindicated. plain^ that the Temptation to ftrain a point was much greater on the Arl^n than on the other fide. And withal^ the Jrlans and their abettors and adherents^ were often charged with maiming the Scriptures when they were in flourifhing Circumftances. Dr. M'dl is willing as to this to excufe 'enij and this is reckoned a Matter of tri- umphant boalting : ^ But he was therein more complaifant to 'em than there was any occafion for. For we are told by 5o- crates the Ecclefialtical Hiftorian f that it was obferv'd by the Ancient Interpreters^ that there were fome who depraved this Epiftle of St. Jolm^ deilgning to feparate between the Man and God in our ElelTed Saviour. And had the works of thofe An- cient Interpreters been ftill remaining_, we might have been able^ to have judged bet- ter about itj than we can now they are Ipft. And mofl of the Latin Fathers^ af- ter the rife of the Herefy of Arms^ com- monly brought it as an Objec^lion againft Tiis Followers and Supporters^ that they cor- rupted the Scriptures^ and us'd to blot Paf- ! fages out of them^ and ftrangely mangle .them. This was particularly objected a- ' gainit them^ by Hilary of VoiBlers^ Hilary ' the Deacon _, St, Amhrofe^ and Sahnanus. This is ground enough for a fulpicion : Whereas we don't find the Trinitarians charg- • ed with any thing of that Nature. Belldes^ " the Jrlans had much more opportunity for ■ fuch Fads than their Oppoiites. They were . extreamly favour'd by Confiantius and Valens the Emperours^ and in their time had all the * £w/^«'s Trads. p. 3T9, \ Lib. 7. cap. 32, I John V. 7. Vindicated. 4^7 the power in their hands^ and when onceSERM. they had gotten the Trinitarian Clergy t expell'd their Churches^ might dp whate- ^^-^l^s^ ver they would in all Parts^ having no re- Itraint or check but from the Providence of God. As to the Gofpel written by St. Jo/j?f, tho' the Jrians (as well as the Alogl and Theodottts before them) could not by any means relifh that^ and were contmually cavilling at it^ yet they could not fo eafi- ly corrupt_, or maim^ or alter it. For Hue- tius * has obferv'd that the Original of that^ was preferv'd in the Church of Ephefus^ to the time of the Emperour Homrlusi And Teter Bifliop of Alexandria^ who liv'd to- ward the middle of the 6th Century_, fays it was preferv'd there till his time_, and much valu'd by the Chriftians. f So thac if any Debates arofe about any Part pjr Paflage of that^ it was eafy to have it d^^cided: and they that were ever fo much difpos'd that way_, could not well corrupt it^ by reafon of the many copies which we may well conclude were taken from^ and collated with that Original^ which was fo long preferv'd. But it was quite otherwife as to this firll Epiltle of the very fame Apoftle. That (as the Fathers generally tell us) was written to the ?arthla?iSy and when it was once lent to them^ we never hear of the Original of it afterwards. It is generally faid to have been written at Efbefus : But we have not the leaft hint that the Autograph of it was there prefer- * Demonftr, Evmgel. Prop. i. §. f5» j in Chfon, dUx, 4 B^^no r^?>. 438 I John V. 7- Vindicated. Serm. ved. On this Account it might the more T * eafily be corrupted by the Anansy and it ^^-JL, has been the Opinion of many that it was ^'^^fo. Among others^ this was the fentiment of the Learned Grotius ; tho' at the fame time it was his Apprehenfion that the J- rmns did not as to this Text^ fo much take away from the Words^ as add to them^ on purpofe that they might be able to ga- ther from them^ that the Father^ Son^ and Holy Sfirh were not One^ any otherwife than by Confintj in the fame Manner as the Spirit y the Water ^ and the Blood ^ agreed in one Teftimony. In this Appreheniion of his he is pretty lingular^ and I fee no Rea- fon to fall in with him. To me it appears much more probable^ that the Avians left thefe Words out^ than that the Orthodox put them in. The Notes on the Rhemijh Teltament go that way ,• and Fromondus a Divine of Lowrjain in his Notes on this Text does fo too. And tho' Simon wonders at him for fo doings "^ yet we may as well wonder at him in return^ and io be even with him. The Learned Heinfms up- on this place^ gives it as his Opinion^ that the fwQrn Enemies of the Truth^ could not bear^ and eras'd this Text^ bccaufe of that Doctrine which was fo plainly and nianifeftly here delivered. Cormlitis a La fide alfo gives it as his Opinion^ that the Ari^ ans took it out pf their Copies. And ma- jiy others of note in the Learned World^ have beeii of the fame Opinion. And I Hift» Crit. du N, T. Ch. 18, p. 2^x4, I John V. 7. Vindicated^ 439 And whereas it is query'dj How fhould Serm- the Aria7is put cut thele Words_, upon Sup- j pofition they were out already^ an Hundred ^ys/^^ and fifty Years before Jrhis was born ? It is eafily anfwer'd • That tho' this Verfe might at nrft be accidentally left out of feme Co- pies of this Epiille^ yet the Anans happen- ing to light upon a Copy that had it_, might leave it out by Defign^ in order to the hindring thofe who were in the oppofitc Scheme of Notions^ from making Ufc of it to their Diiadvantage : Which as far as I can perceive^ carries nothing in it that is at all unlikely. 5". We may obferve farther^ That they who have agreed together in oppo/ing the Genuinenefs of this Text^ have been far from agreeing in the Account they have gi- ven of the Matter ^ nay^ they have been very oppofite to each other : Which to mc is an Argument^ that the Strength of their Evidence is not equal to their Pofitivenefs and Affurance. Faufim Socinus fays of thefe Words_, ^Tts 'very e'vident^ that they are Jhw riousy andfoified into this Tlace by Men that were bent upon defending their Opinion of a GoD that was One and Three in any Way that offer d. He will have it^ That St. Jerom lighting on one or fever al Copies in which this Verfe was addedj in fuch a manner as that the Fraud could not be well difcover'd^ began to defend it as genuine_, in Oppofition to all other Copies both Lailn and Kjreek. But Si" men flatly denies that this Text was addc^ by St. Jerom. Erafmus fays_, That the GrceJz Copies in which this Paflage is founds were alter'd from the Latin : But Father Simon lays, the Paffage crept out of the Margin in- 50 the Text, He tells us^ That the Dodrine ~ f f 4 ' . of 440 I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. ^^ ^he Trinity was formerly written in j^ the Bible by way cf l>lote or Scholium 5 but af- s^y^^fis^ terwards inferted in the Text^ by thofe who tranicrib'd the Copies. But he leems in this RefpecSl to have chang'd his Mind^ when he came to write his DlJJcrtatlon upon Mamffcripts. He takes Notice of a Copy in the French King's Library^ where over againft the 8th Verle^ of the Three Wltneffes on Earthy there is this Remark in Greek^ that h^ the Holy Spirit^ mid the Father^ ayrd He (that is the Son) of hlmfelf. And from hence he gathers^ that the Author of that Remark uaderftood the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghofi^ to be fignify'd by the Sfhlt^ the V/ater^ and the Blood '^ and fays^ That what was formerly written by way cf ]\cte^ pais'd afterwards into the Text. He adds^ That in the fame Copy, over againft: the other Words^ mid thejc Three are Otie^ this Note is added aifo in Greek ^ That Is^ One Deity^, One GoD. And he mentions a like Remark in one of the MSS. belonging to M. Colbert's Library. Now if either Soclnus or Erafmm be in this Cafe in the Rights M. Simon is miftaken ^ and if M. Simon is in the Right^ both Socim4s and F/'-afmrn are miftaken. We may farther ob- ferve^ 6. That if the Context be but fairly confider'd^ it will appear much more pro- bable that this Text is genuine than fuppo- fitious. I'm not ignorant that Sandlns * fays^ That the Words would be better connelied^ if the ^th Verfe were omitted : And SUchtitigius ^ That thefe Words ha^ue no Coherence with what went be^ fore. The former fays_, That 'tis unworthy of the Appnd. Inter^rftat, Paradox, p. 381, I John V. 7. Vindicated. 44.1 the Supreme GoD to be a J^Htnefs ; and asks^ Serm* Wjom It Is He fljoidd be a VVitnefs before ? Which j is an impious Cavil ,• fince the Blelled God^ ,^y^y^^^^ who is belt Judge of what is unworthy of himfelf, or any Way injurious to him_, hath often reprefented himfelfas a Witnefs. The latter argues thus : J/?efe Words ha've the canfal Particle tor^ frefix\l to them^ which JJieii^s that the Reafon is given of what was faid he-* fore. Now fays he^ 'Twos faldy that the Wa- ter^ and Bloody and Sprit ^ as a moft true Witnefs^ gave Tefiimony f^^^ Sfirit here produc'd as a Witnefs on Earthy js very different from the Sfirit fpoken of as bearing Record in Heaven ; and that tho' the IVord did truly bear Witnefs on Earthy in his State of Humiliation^ yet when his Te- flimony is here mention'd^ He was to be confider'd in his exalted State ^ and fo no longer an Inhabitant of the Earthy but as hearing Witnefs from Hea'ven ? And what it the Holy Sfirit y who is One with the Father ^ and the Word^ is no more brought in as gi- ving two Teitimoniesj than either of tne other ? All this may be fafely afferted^ and eafiiy prov"d. And therefore his Difficul- ties have nothing in them. But on the other hand^ it fhould not be forgotten^ That the Apoltle here declares, 'V, 9. That it is the Witnefs of God he pro- duces in. this Cafe. If^ fays he^ 72jc receive the Witnefs of Men^ the Wltnejs of Go D Is great^ er : For this Is the Witnefs of GoD^ which He hath teftified of his Son. This manifeftly ex- plains what he had faid of Six WitnefTes^ Three in Heaven ^ and Three In Earth ; and fup- pofes that the two Veries foregoing^ con- tain the Teftimony^ both of thofe in Hea- "ven^ and thofe In Earth. And^ as Dr. Grahe has well obferv'd *, this Apc^itie s having taken fuch Notice in his Goipel, of the Wlinejs given by the Father ^ the Son^ and the Holy Gbofi^ maKes it the more credible^ that their Teftimony fliouid here alfo be re~ ferr'd to. And with him Calovim t alfo agrees y * Vid. Bulll Def. Fid, JViV. Se^. II. cap. x. t In BitL mjir. 4ij.^ I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. agrees ,• intimating it would be altogether T ' Uiilikely, when the IVuneffis to Jesus are X^^^y^^^ d.^flgnedly treated of, for the Three fVitneJJes in Hea-uen^ which are the chiefeft and moll remarkable^ to be omitted^ fmce St. John in hisGofpel took fuch particular Notice of their Teftimony^ and Jesus himfeif in John {o directly appeal'd to it *. These Things being premis'd^ I conceive will help to make my Way the more plain and eaiy. And now I go on^ II. T o make a few free ConceJJlons^ m or^ der to the taking away from thofe that are againlt this Texr^ any jult Grounds oi Com- plaint. And this I the rather do^ that fo when all is granted 'em that they can juil- iy clainij or produce a plaufible Appearance of their having a Right to^ it may be the more evident they are altogether Unreafon- able^ if they hold on Complaining. I. Then^ let it be granted^ That this Text was not urg'd by any of the Greek Fa- therSj before the Council of Nice:, nor by any genuine Greek Writer againfl the Avians afterwards^ while that Controverfy was in its Height. Be it granted^ that no Notice is taken of this Text in. any remaining ge- nuine Writings of Irenaus^ Clement, or Denis of * He that would fee the Grammatical Conftrudli- on of this Text and Context difcufsM, may confult Principffs contre les Socinicns par Theod. De Blanc. Secft. II. chap. X. pag. 157, ^e. And he that would fee the> Analogy that there is between the two Ranks of TVitneffes, thofe in Heaven, ver. 7. and thofe on Earth, ver.. 8. confider'd, may confult th? fame Writer, Cha^. xiii. Art. III. pag. 232. I John V. 7. Vindicated, zj.^^ O^ Alexandria y or the great Athanafms, Beit own'dj that this Text is wholly overlooked by the Fathers of the Council of Sardlca, by Ep'i^hanhiSy Bajil y Alexander of Alexandria ^ NjJ- fenCy Naz^lanzene^ DidjwuSy Cyril o{ Alexandria ^ the Author of the ExpoJJtion of the Faith m the Works of Jufiin Martyr y C^farlm, Trochts^ and the I>^lcene Fathers themfeives : Nay^ let it be granted^ that it is not to be found cited by any one genuine Greek Father^ for up- wards of Five hundred Years after Christ. ^Tis all granted to our Contenders -^ let them make the moft they can of it. 0\iv Determi- ner ^ who feems to have thought thefe Greek Fathers likely to ha^e feen the Authentlck Originals oftheApofilesy ^^ (tho' as to the Authentick Original of this Epiftle^ I don't find any of them ever pretended to fee it^ or know much of it^ any more than v/e) may perhaps think his Point gain'd : Whereas in Reality^ all that can jultly be inferr'd from their Silence in this Cafe^ is only this_, That this Text was not in thofe Copies of the Nev^ Tcfiame7it which they made Ufe of j- notwithftanding which_, it might ftill be in the Autograph or Original Epiitle of St. John^ and alfo in ma- ny true and genuine Copies of it. 2. Let it alio be granted^ that this Text was not taken notice of by many of the Latin Fathers^ any more than the Greek, Be it own'd^ that it is omitted in the Trea- tife of the Baptifm of Ilereticks that is in the works of St. Cyprian ^ and alfo in what we have remaining of the Writings cf Nc- 'vatian^ Hilary ^ Calaritanus^ Vhahadlus^ Ambrofe^ FaujtinHSy Aufiin^ Leo the great^ Facundus HermiamnJiSy * Emljtis Trads, //r^. 31^, 44<5 I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. Hermlancnfis y ^u?iiU/ts and Bede : and that I. feme cf them do not mention this 7th verfe^ even the' they produce and make ufe of the Verfes before and after. All that this Conceflion proves^ is only thi$_, that fome how or other^ the Copies that were us'd by thefe Latin Fathers were with- out this Verle ; but not by any means^ that it was in no true Copies^ and ought not of right to have been in all. 3. Let it alfo be granted^ that this Text is wanting in fome of the molt Ancient Greek Copies that are extant at this Day : As in our famous Alexandrian Copy in the Library at St. Jaims's^ reckon'd by fome to be 1200 years Old^ ^ and in the Vatlain Copy^ that is much of the fame Age. t This Conceffion aifeds me the lefs^ becaufe I have good Proof that this Text was us'd and own'd as genuine^ before either of thofe Copies were written^ fuppofmg them as Old as is pretended^ which yet fome queftion. The forefaid writer indeed {ays_, that 'th enough to jhake the Credit of the Text with all impartial Men^ that "'tis 7vantlng in thefe twOy the mofi 'valuable and Ancient Copies we know of in the World. * But methinks 'tis hard that none can be Impartial but Father * Dr. Ihcmns Smith fays 'tis farr above a Thou fand years old. Vind. i S. Jo. c. 5. 1;. 7. afuppcfi tionis notk, p. 124. Dr. Mill fays it was writren it the 4th Ceorary : And Dr. Gr^he [in Prafaf, /id OBo teuch.) is of the fame Opinion. t Dr. Louis I(pger fays that the Vntknn MS is a- bove 1300 years old; tho' at the lame time he owns that Father le Long does not conn: it fo Old. Differ tat. Crit. Theol. p. "18, 19. in I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^^7 Father Simon and his Difciples. I am oFSerm. Opinion^ that had we thofe two Copies ^ printed exadly as they arc, we fhould find ^^-^^^^ them in fever al things difagree with each other, and that the Credit of feveral o- ther Texts would be fhaken, if they were allow'd to pafs for the Standard. And mult we either yield to this, or elfe be partial ! For my part, I can fee no Reafon for it. I think, to rejed any Text as fpw r'loiis^ merely begaufe 'tis wanting in thefe two Copies, tho' it is found cited by good Authors before thofe two Copies were tranfcrib'd, as well as is to be met with in leveral other Copies of good Credit, looks much more like Partiality *. Be * When this was deliver'd from the Pulpic, there was this Addition : Ihcit iVriter appears in reality to have fo great an Averfioii to the Docirine which this Veife holds forth, that he'd net only be content to part with feveral Texts befides this, rather than he brought to 0VP71 it ; but I am inclinable to hclieie, that if this verfe had been found in the two Copies rnentiondj as valuable as they are, and even in Twenty more, he would Jiill have had an Inclinatiort to Cavil againji it ; and would have rcckr,nd that if there had been but two or three Copies to have been pro- duced in which it was wanting, that would have been fuffcient to have juftifyd his calling it in Quejiion : And if foy what he fays of thefe two celebrated Copies, is a meer Flourifh. Thefe are the very Words in which I exprels'd myfelf, tranfcrlb'd from my Notes, without any Variation. Mr. Emlyn in his Preface to his Anfwer to Mr. Martins Dilfertacion, reprefents himfelf as not a little aggriev'd an this, and fays it is not very Charitable, &cc. I fiiall nor feek to juftify myielf by laying, (uch expreffions are com- mon in fuch Debates ; and that upon Search 'tis not impoiTible but like Inftances might be found in that Author's own Writings ; and thac feveral hav« lold 448 I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. Be it alfo own'd that this Verfe is want- I, ing in feveral valuable MSS^ which Bifliop \^,^-Y^ B/^r;?e/- examin'd in his Travels^ as he has given the World an Account in his Let- ters from Swltz^erland. And tho' the Au- thority of Father Simon is very far from being fo great with me^ as it appears to be with the ///// Inquirer ^ becaufe_, notwith- Itanding the great Sagacity of that late Learned £ind Laborious Crltkk^ f which that Writer fo much applauds^ and has fuch a Vene- ration for_, there occurr in his Performan- ces fuch manifell Inftances of the groffeft Partiality and Prejudicej as will not en- courage any very firm Reliance upon his Report told me, they were not aware of any unjuftifiable feverity in rhe Expreflions I made ule of in this Cafe ; but I have two Things to offer. The firft is, That I did not then know for a certainty that he was the Author of the hiquiry. I had indeed oft heard it afferted ; but it was many times alfo de- ny'd in my hearing. The hiquiry was at that time an Anonymous Pamphlet: And the Refledion was not Perfonal, till he made it fo, by applying it to hlmfelf, and fettlng his Name. The fecond is this; That having fince, in my Printed Difcourfe on Truth nnd Love^ promised, That if I could difcover I hnd broken in upon the Love that vons owing to any that I had pointed to^ in my Difcourfe s o?i the Tri- nity, I would endeavour to correct it; I have ac- cordingly here omitted it, as thinking It to be need- lefsly grating; and believing I myfelf fliould have reckoned any thing of the like nature to have been fo, in my own Cafe. And I had not now added the Words usVi, at all, but for fear leaft the Com- plaint being publlck, and made with fome warmth, it might have been Imagln'd by fome, that there was fome what in my exprefTions, more provoking, thaa thQre was in reality, •J Ibid. pag. 309, I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^^p Report of matters of Fad,- yet he having Serm. mentioned feveral Ancient Copies^ in the Li- j braries of the Fretjch King, and Monfleur Cvl- vX^/^«^ herty in v/hich this Verfe is not to be founds I am free to allow it to be wanting in them, till Evidence appears to the contra- ry : Which I think is as much as can with Reafon be defir'd. 4. I freely alfo own, that this Verfe is not to be found, in divers Vtrfions uf the 'Ncjv Teftament into the Languages of fe-^ vera! Nations, who valued and us'd that Sacred Volume as the Rule of their Faith. The Learned differ in their Sentiments as to the Antiquity of feveral of thefe VerCio-ns. The Syrlack \^ the moft ancient. And it has been laid by fome. That that Verlion was made in the very next Age to the Apoftles ,• nay^ even by St. Aiark himielf. But Dr. thomas Smith alferts "*', That both the Syrlack and Arahlck Verfions, as we now hare them, arc not fo ancient as fome have boafted^ but were made lang after the Council of Kice z- And the Ethloplck is but a laae Verfion. Dr. Roger t inclines to think the Syrlack Verfion not finifh'd before the fixth Century. And Dr. TVhltby is very pofitive. That neither the Coptick nor Ethloplck Verfion is of any Value : And that neither the Syrlack Ver- fion, nor the Arahlck^ nor the old Itallck, (efpeciaily not the laft) are worthy of that Regard, that many Learned Men have ex- prefs'd for them 4.. father Slr/ion aifures us tt^ G g That * Vindlc. I John v. 7. n Suppof. Nof^. p. 127. t Differ tnt. Crlt. Theol. in i John v. 7. p. 27- i Vid. Exnm. Vnr. Leci. Jo Millii cap. iv. S^Ct. u tt Blfi, Cm, dsi Verf, dfi N. T. ch. xiii, ^{^o I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. That this Verfe was not in any o1t\\t MSS, J of the Syriack Verfion that he had confQlted : ^.^^r-^^ But then he alfo obferves^ that many ge- nuine PaiTages of Scripture are wanting m that Verfion. He fays^ This Text was not in any but Guthirius's Edition of it. And this Gutbirius firft inferring it^ charges the Jirians as not fparing either the Greek Text^ or the Oriental Verfions^ with Refped to this PafTage. And yet at length Dr. Tocock fupply'd this Verfion with this Texc^ out of the Copy he had from the Eafi^ in our Times '*^. And the Syriack Verfion being generally with- out this Textj we have the lefs Reafon to wonder that the Comck^ Ethloplck^ and Jra^ lick VerfionSj whicn are commonly thought to have been made from it^ fhould be with- out it too. But when they that are againft this Text have made the moll; they are able of this Particular^ they can only from thence gather^ that this Verfe was wanting in thofe Copies from which thofe Verfions were made : But notwithftanding that^ it might ftill be Authcntick^ and in St. Johns Original^ and in many true Copies too that were taken from it. 5*. I am free alfo to grants That fome Things have been urg'd in Favour of this Textj which deferve not the Strefs that has been laid upon them. Thus in the Works of Athanafiusy there is a Difpute * a- gainlt Arlusy in which this Text is cited : But I cannot fee to what Purpofe it is to iirge it J when Du Pin and others fo freely tell uSj that the Dialogue between them two was drawn up by one that liv'd a great while I * Frid, S^rnthe^: Bjl. Chrift. Sccui II. J. 7. I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^5 1 while after Athanafms ^- and we from attend- ing Circumftances ^ have a great deal of Reafon to believe as much. Nor am I for infiiting on that call'd Athanafms^ Book to Theo^hliiis^ concerning the United Deity of the Trinity^ as a Proof , bevaufe Dr. Cave reckons it among his fpurious Works "''. Nor fliall I infift on its being referr'd to^ in the Sympjls of the Holy Scripture^ which is amongfl the Works of Athanafms^ notwithltanding that Da Yin reprefents it as genii iiie^ and it is com- monly own'd an ancient TreatireV" '' ^' -■•■'-' There is alfo a VrologMc or Treface to the Qanonical Evlflles^ that has gone under the Name of St Jerome^ and been printed in va- rious Editions of the Latm Bible^ in which former Tranflators of the Nap Tefiament are charg'd with Unfaithfulnefs^ for mention- ing only the Water ^ the Bloody and the Spirit^ and omitting the Teftimony of the Father^ tbeWord^ and the Spirit^ by which it is there intimated^ the Cathollck Faith is much firengthen- edy and the One Suhjtance of the Dhjinity of Fa- ther^ Son^ and Spirit^ Is evidenced, Stunica pleads mightily for this Prefice as St. J-erom'& againft: Erafmns. Father Slry^on himfelf con- felTes^ that Fithaus and Alahillon thought it was St. Jerom's. Bp. Fell pleads for it as St. Jeroins in his Notes on St. Cyprian : Dr. Tho^ mas Smith offers much in Favour of it f ; and Worthy Mr. Martin (than whom none has more zealoully flood up in Defence of this Text as genuine) has ranfack'd all An- tiquity in its Defence |j and yet after all^ G g 2 . I * Uift. Liter. Vol. L Pag. P47. ^ Vindic. ijoh.y.j. a SuppofitionisKotu, p. i37,G?r. 4- DlJfertAt.fur St. Jean, i Ep. c. v. 'v.']. Exnmejt de In F{epo7ife de Mr. EmlyUj chap. iv. 7— La Veripc dn Te^tej chap. yi^i. ^i^2 I John V. 7. Vindicated^ Serm. I ^^ft o^n it appears to me a vain Thing j^ to exped any real Support for this Text from thence j by which frank Acknowledg- ment^ I am lenfible I defert fome of my beft Friendsj and yet am not likely to ob- lige my Oppofites. But I can't help own- ing the Truth wherever I meet with it. Not only is this Preface wanting in feveral Ancient Manufcript Copies of St.JeromsNew Teftament^ but this Verfe is alfo omitted in fe- veral of them that have this very Preface pre- fix'd to the Canonical Efifiles, , Which to me is io fair a Proof that the Preface and the t^erfton had not the fame Author_, that I fhould be forry the Fate of this Text^ fliould depend on the rate of that Preface. I here therefore rea- dily fall in with Dr. MUl^ and own that to feek to Itrengthen the Authority of this Textj by that Prologue^ is to go about to Support the Truth with Fallliooci ,- and that that Prc- fact was neither drawn up by St. Jtrom^ nor by any one that underftood the Affair of the Bihle as it ftood at that Time which it re- fers to. For tho* it cannot be deny'd that there is in that Preface^ fomewhat that looks like the ftile and way of '^t.Jerome^ yet are there fome Things that I cannot conceive could come from him. He could not fay^ that the Greek Fathers ge?ier ally retained this Tcxt^ when he knew the contrary. Nor could he charge the want of this Text in the Latin Verli- on, purely upon the Intcrpreter_, who was oblig'd to keep ciofe to the Greek Copy that lay before him^ and could not faith- fully infert this Text in his Verfion^ if that had left it out. Nor could he pre- tend that he in his Verfion hrft reltor'd this feventh Verfe^ when it is not to be found there, even tho' this Preface is pre- fix'd I John V. 7* Vindicated. 4.55 jSx'd. And if that Vreface was not St. Je- Serm. Yome^ whoever was the Author of it^ I j^ cannot perceive it can do us any Ser- •^/"^^^^sj vice. But tho' I freely quit fuch Things as thefe_, through an unwillingneft to alledge any Thing tor Proof that will not hold, yet can \ not by any means Confent to part with the Citation of this Text by TertulUany and yet much lefs with the No- tice taken of it by St. CyprUn^ for Reafons that will be mentioned atterwards. And finally^ I readily alfo grants that if this Paffage did not really come from St. John^ its Agreeablenefs to the Truth delivered in other Scriptures^ would be far from juitifyingj either the nifertmg it at firft^ or the retaining it afterwards. As true Chriftian Principles will not allow any fuch Bcus Frauds ^ fo neither does our Religion or any Thing that belongs to it need them. Could I fee good Reafon to believe this Text Spurious I would be a5 free to expunge it out of the Bihle^ as they that are the moil fet againil it could defir.e. I readily grant our Incjulrer^ That the H^->^ Kiiid^ we may obferve. Inltead of being fhcck'd at the many ' uarlous Readings that appear^ in a Courfe of fo many Yea rs^ I' think verily we may rather wonder that they are not more_, and more Confidera- bie. Nay_, we may well adaiire the watch- ful Eye of Dhjlm h-ovidence^ which has not fuffer'd the Scripture to be corrupted^ al- tered, or deprav^dj either by Negligence or DcUgn^ to any fuch Degree^ as not to leave lucli Difcoveries of needful Truth as are fufficient^ and a plain Way to Eternal Happinefs. This is moft certainly juft Matr ter of great Thankfulnefs. There are indeed in our New Tefla- ment Revelation^ feveral Things that are ia themf elves hard to be under flood ^ and there are feveral Paffages in it that are dilferent- ly recited: And yet Truth and Puty are plain enough^ unlefs we'll fliut our Eyes^ or willingly give way to a Spirit of Per- yerfeiiefs- As dubious as many have ffcu- dy'd to make this particular Text^ yet the JJodrine it declares 15 plain enough in the very Form of Baplfm that our Saviour ap- pointed to be continued' in his Church in all Ages^ in the Name of the Father^ and of the Sony and of the Holy Gbofl ; which is an Order we may I think well conclude he would not have given^ if either each of the Three had not been GoD_, or all of them had not been One God. Let us blefs Air piighty G 0D3 that by thjs Settlement he has made our Way fo plain : And let us ad- here to this Dodrine whatever may be ofFer'd to divert us from ic. Let us live ^i^6 I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^BKM as Perfons truly devoted to Father^ Son] T * and Holy Gbefi^ and either the whole of ^" Chriftianity muft be a Fable and Fidion^ or we may depend upon be fafe and happy. sy>r^ it that we ihall S E RM 457. SERMON II. I J O H N . V. 7^ For there are Three that hear Record in Heaven^ the Fa- ther, theWoK,\^j and the Holy Ghost ; and thefe Three are One. Proceed^ Salrers- III. T o give the Sum of the Argument dny Lee* agalnfi this Text^ with a Re.^ly to ^^"^ » it in its feveral Parts and Branches. •^^"* ^"^^ This is an Argument in which fome have mightily triumphed ; But no one more than the late Incjulrer, It ftand^ thus : So many Ancient Greek Copies^ and Ferfions of the I^ew Tefiament into Other Tongues^ being without this Text ^ and fo many of the Greek and Latin Fathers ^ not having quoted it;, when they have fpoken of the Trinity^ 4^8 I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. Trinity^ and had fo much Occafion to TT produce it^ there being nothing more per- \^^->J^^ tinent to their Deilgn^ than this would have been ,♦ it cannot be genuine : For if it was^ we fhould moft certainly have heard of it from them^ and met with it amongft them. We are told^ this is a large Stock of E-vldence^ end as much as one can well require for a JSle- gatl've^ to JIjcjv that this Verfe was not orlginaL^ /)' a7Ty Part of the New Teltament : And that one had fteed ha-ve I'ery dlreci and perempory Je- jHmofues to the contrary^ to make him fo much as to hafitatc in the Matter ^. From hence it is con^- cluded, That either the Fathers knew nothing of this Texty or counted h fufficlpns. And Father Simon^ vyho was fo converfant in Munufcrij>tSy declaring^ That after all his Searches^ he could not meet with It inferted as we ha-ve Ity in any oTje Greek Manufcrip fj it is reprefented 2S Matter of ^idmlratlon^ that any Man of common Sen(e fnould fiiH Infifi upon it as genuine. But I have Four Things to oiFer^ that appear to me a fufficienc Anfwer to this Argu- ment. I. The not mentioning fuch a Text as this by a good number ,-cf the Fathers^ in luch W'ritin^,^ oi uitiis ak we nave remain- ing^ and their Silence about it when it might be thought they had great Occaiion for it^ is far from being a Proof there was no luch Text ,• nor is the Cafe much alter- ed fuppolijig the ancient Verfeons taken in. This might indeed well enough have occa- fion d Harfitation^ and given Ground for Doubt and Sufpicion^ had there been no- thing ^' Enihtis Traces, ^ng. 317. t DiJJert.Crmq.'fur Us. M^S, du N, T, p. 5." r John V. 7. Vindicated. 459 thing to have been alledg'd on the other hand Serm- that over-ballanc'd : But to pretend from jj hence certainly to concltidCj that there was ^••>Js^ no fuch Text as this in beings is to run too far^ and too fafl. Several Writings of the Greek Fathers_, and particularly of thofe who liv'd in the molt early Ages^ are ioftj^ and not to be recover'd "*". Had they been preferv'd^ they might have help'd us to a great deal of Light which now is wanting. Eufcbms par- ticularly tells uSj as to demerit of Alexandria^ That among other Things he wrote upon this firft Epillle of Jude^ and the other Gr- thol'ick Epjfiles. Had what he wrote upon this firft Epiitle o^Jchn comedown to our Times^ we might perhaps have found this Text m- ferted ; I am well afTur'd thofe Gentlemen who are molt againlt the Text^ neither are able to prove J nor have any Right to con- clude^ the contrary. Dldymus alio wrote a Comment on the Catholkk Epiltles. And as . to hinij we may fay the very fame. Several others among the fathers ^ that did not cite this Text in thofe Works of theirs that are Itill extant^ might for any thing w^e knov^ have it in fome other Works of theirs which have perilli'd in the Ruins of Time. It has been obferv'd^ That Clement of yiUxandrla^ and fome others of the Fathers^ fpeaking of the Trinity f^ took no Notice at all of the Baptilinal Charge in the Name of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Gholt : But it by no Means fc^ows from thence^ that that was not Scripture^ or that we have any Reafon to * Ecdef. Hift. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. t S^c Mnrtin Differ tat. Criti^. Part 11. chap. iii. I John V. 7. Vindicated. to queftion its being genuine. 'Tis true^ that Charge is mentioned by others : But its being oft omitted^ where the mentioning it would have done good Service^ is an Evi- dence that the Text we are upon is not proy'd fpurlous by its not being cited^ when we may imagine it fhould have been cited_, had llich a Text been knov\^n3 and own'd. And withal^ our m oft ancient C(?^i!7/V/3 and the feveral Oriental VerJIoiis^ are defedive as to fome other Texts^ which yet are general- ly own'd to be genuine^ and undoubtedly are fo. M. Martin has produced feveral In- ilances out of Dr. Mill ^. And Dr. Whitby affirms_, That there are Six hundred Places, in ni'hlch our common Reading of the Text of Scri- pure^ is dijferent from all the Old Verfions f . And after all^ feveral of the ancient Fathers (as we ftialt fee in the Sequel^) have cited and own'd this Text as genume, I muft own therefore it appears to me unreafonable^ and indeed abfurd^ becaufe a number of the Fathers have not cited it^ and the ancient Vtrfions have not infer ted it^ prefently to conclude it tp be no Part of Scripture, Butj 2. After all the Noife that has been made of this Text's being wanting in the Majjufcrlft Copies of the New Teftamenty we have good Evidence of its being found in feveral very Valuable Manufcrlfts, I can rea- dily grant all that is dropp'd by Critlcks and Dealers in Mamtfcrlpts^ is not to be depended on. I agree with the h^ttirer^ that Cr kicks fire not aiv;ays to be trttfted^ in what they fay of their * Ibid. P^rt IL chap. i. t Vld, Exam. Var. Le^. Job. imH car. Iv. f? h I John V. 7. Vindicated. 4(5f their oivn Fidelity '^. They as often fee thro' Sfrm« .falfe SpeclaclcSj and are as liable to Mil- tt takesj and as capable of ferving hnlif er Pur- ^/-w^ pofesj and therefore as much need to be care- fully watch'd^ as any Men whatever. And yet when a Number of Perfons that have no way forfeited their Charader^ pofitively allure us_, after Searching into AlamfcrlptSy That tho' others want this particular Text^ yet fuch and fuch have it in 'em ; to reprefent it as a Thing doubtful^ Whether any MSS. at all really have it^ is to deftroy all Credit y and therefore very hard and unreafonable : And to cry upWitnelTes on one Side of a Debate^ as if they could hardly be fufficient- ly magnify'd^ and upon all Cccafions to dii- credit thofe on the other Side^ is extremely Partial. And yet this is the Way of thole that arc againft this Textj who make httle or nothing of all that is faid of the Manu- fcrlpts in which it is to be found j and at the fame Time run-down Erafmns about his Britifli Copy, from whence he declares he took it 'j and inveigh againft Bez^a and Stc- fhens (tho' Father 6hfW7i himfelf owns^ that He may be compared to' r^|pjoft able Cri- ticks t) and reprefent thenf and others^ as Perfons deferving no Regard^ while hardly any Thing that is great enough can be faid of Father Simon^ who with all his Skill was moft certainly as bigotted and partial^ and as prejudiced and canker'd a W^iter^ as any our Modern Times have afforded. That Author is very free in acknowledging. That the main Dejign of his Writings^ 'was to efiabl:jlj the * EmhrCs Traces, pag. 331. 4<52 I Johi^ V. 7. Vindicated. W/'V^ SerM,' ^'^^ common Belief of the Churchy againfi the No^ jr ' z?elty of the Frotefiants *: And yet fuch a Ve- neration have fonie Vroteftants tor him^ that they are for fwallowing whatever comes from him by wholefale. I cannot help faying. That this has an Afpecl: that is a little Peculiar. I have already own'd, and it is not to be deny'd or conceal'd. That this Text is wanting in fome valuable Copies that are now remaining : But I can't fee any Reafon we have in fuch a Cafe as this_, to conline our- felves to MSS. that are now in being. I think we may very well claim the Benefit of fuch MSS. as were view'd by Perfons that liv'd a great While before us, and are fmce worn out, or loft. Hiltory gives us an Account of a careful Collation of AdSS, in thefe Parts of the World at two different Seafons, the one above Seven hundred Years ago, manag'd by the Dodors of the Sorbon y and the other above ISiine hundred Years ago, under the Management of our Famous Countryman Jlculn^ and other Learned Men his Cotemporaries, at the Command of the Emperor Charles the Great. Upon both thefe Occafions, we may well fuppofe, they had various MSS^ which we have not at this Day : And particularly in the latter Col- lation, that was countenanc'd by fo great a Prince, they could not but have all the Libra- ries in Europe open to them, with their Trea- fures. After they had collated all the MSS. that offer'd, (and fome of them if they had at that Time been tranfcrib'd but Two or Three hun- dred Years, muft have been of as ancient Date * Advertiffmmt ti CHifl, des Vcrfions da N. T. I John V. 7. T^indicated. ^[.5:^ Date as the very elded that are now any Serm, where to be found) they inferred thisText^, tt" or rather continued it. And I cannot fee, ^>-.^^-^- but we have as good a Right to claim the Benefit of their ManufcrlptSy as if we our- felves had i^coin. them, or they had been preferv'd till our Times. But befides the Confirmation we may have this Way, I think wt have good Evi- dence, that this difputed Text is to be fouAd both in Latin Manufcripts and Greek. I begin with Latin Manufcripts, which we have on our Side in Abundance. Lu- cas Brtfgenfis tells us , That in Thirty-five old Latin Copies, he found it wanting but in Five. Dn Vm alfo tells us. That it is in. a great Number of Lathi Manufcripts, and thofe ancient ones too *, tho' in fbme Co- pies the 8th Verfe, or that which is faid of the VVitnejTcs in Earthy goes before the 7th, or that which is faid of the Three JVitneJJes m Hea'ven. And Father Simon himfelf acknow- ledges tj That he read this Verfe in the Bible of the Emperor Lotharlus^ which was written in the Time of Charles the Great ^ or at leafl was copy'd from the Revife of the Bible which was incourag'd by that Empe- ror, towards the Clofe of the Vlllth Cen- tury : Bp. Burnet alfo, tho' he mentions a MSS. at Bafily and another at Zurich^ and Three at -Strasburgh^ in Vv^hich this Text was wanting, yet tells us, that One of the Four MSS. he law at Strashurghy which wanted but a fmall Matter of the Age of Charles the Great^ and by Confequence was Nine lumdrcd * Hift. of the Can. of the 0. r.nd N. T. Vol. II, c.li. J. xl, P'-^g- 77. t Hlft. ^;, V^rfmf, dn N. T. ch. 9, ^64 1 John V. 7. Vindicated. Sej^m. hundred Years old^ had this Verfe ^ and 11. that he faw feveral other ancient MSS. at Gene^-ay Venice^ and Florence^ which had this Paffage in them. Du Pin alfo gives it as his Opinion^ That tho' the Antiquity and Number of the Greek Alanufcrlfs is of lome Weight -^ yet as there are none ancienter than Eight or nine hundred Years_, we fliould not upon their fole Authority rejed a PaiTage which is found in Latin MSS. as ancient *. And agreeably to this Sentiment of that Learned Man (who mull be own'd a Man of more Candor than moft that are of his Commu- nion) I find Erafmus in his Difpute with Ed- Tvard Ley, lays it down as a good Rule in Criticlfmy That the confentient Voices of the Latin Fathers^ are futhcient to eftablifh the Authenticknefs of a Text of Scripture^ tho' it Ihould be wanting in Greek Manufcripts. And if fo^ I muft confefs I cannot fee^ why the meeting with this Text^ in fo many of the moft ancient of our Latin Bibles^ lliould be made fo light of as it is by our hjfdrer : Efpecially when we add to it^ the multi- ply'd Quotations of the Latin Fathers (which we fliall hear of afterwards) which we have to fet againit the bare Silence of fo many of the Greek, A s to Greek MSS. it mult be own'd^ our Evidence is not fo clear^ full and ftrong^ a$ it is with Reference to the Latin : And yet we are not fo deftitute as we are reprefent- ed. One of the firft CoUedors of Greek MSS. Qfthe Nop 7'eflament in thefe Parts of the Worlds * Hift. of the Canon of the Old ^\ Kejp Tiftiw;mfi Yoj. II. chap, il S^d. J I5 p. 77. John V. /• y mauaud. \\'orld_, was Lanrcntlus Falla, a Learned Ro- 7nan Nobleman, If^ wrote a Book that he caird_, Collations of the ]^epifTcJ}a?fjent^ which we have in our Londoyj Oitlch ,• in which Work he took Notice of the Differences he obferv'd between the Vulgar Latln^ and his Gre^k AISS. And tho' Dr. Ailll ^^ (as well as fome others) complains of his being too fevere upon the Old Verfion ; yet neither he^ nor any one el[t\ as far as I can obferve^ has any Thing to offer againfl our depending upon his Account of fuch Greek Co fie s as he had. Now when he comes to this Text^ which was then com- monly read in the Vulgar Lat'm^ as it is with us at this Day^ he takes no Notice of any Difference as to tjiis Paifage^ from his G^reck MSS. faving only that whereas the former concluded the 8ch Verfe as the yrh^ And thefe Three are Onc^ Er Hi tres unum fimt ; He intimates^ that according to the Greek Co- picsj, that Claufe was thus : \i^ 7^ h u(r/ -, Thefe Three agree in One. In how many of his AISS. this ill Epiftle of St. John was foatid^ he does not fay : He might have Seven Copies of the Gofpels^ and but One or Two per haps J of the Catholkk Eflfiles. But it muft be in One of them at leall^ or he for- feits the Character of Judgment and Fideli- ty^ that he has had fo generally given him in the Learned World : in which Si?yjon.hAm.- felfconcurrs f- And tho' Er^^j^wi might •&)% as our Inquirer obferves 4-:> ^^^'^^-^ Valla read h. not evident ; yet all that could be thereby meant^ vvasj that he was not certain how the whole H h 7tu * Prolcgom. in N, T. 7ium. 10S6- t Hift. Cm. des. Princ. Comment, du N. T c 4- Em'^n pag. 47$, and 496. I John V- 7. Vindicated. 7th Verfe was exprcfs'd in his Greek Copies^ for want of his reciting the whole Verfe as he found it there,- without any thing of an Infinuation^ as if he did not find there the Verfe about the Tjjree Wltnejj'es In Earthy as well as that about the Three WitneJJes in Heaven^ without fuppofing which^ there is no making Senfe ot what he declares. I fhall not ingage in the tedious Debate about the Greek MSS, with the Afliftance of which the famous Robert Stephens publifti'd his Noble Edition of the Greek Teftament^ An, i J Jo. Morlnus "*" afferts that of the Sixteen Greek MSS. with which he was furnifti'd^ he points to 7 in which this Verfe was to be found ; Whereas Father Simon will not allow it to have been in any but the Complutenjian Ccpy f. This Matter has of late been debated with fome Warmth i perhaps more than it deferves. For my part I'm very inclinable to think the Mark in Stephens's Glorious Greek Tefia- went might be mifplac'd ,• and that we have a fair Account of tliat Matter given us by Dr. Louis Roger \.^ and Father Le Long ft- And yet I don't know that we have any Occalion quite to lay afide all Hope of Help and Benefit from Stephens Greek Aianu^^ fcripts. For Bez^a^ who I fiiould think deferve^' as much Credit as Father Slmcn^ in his Dedi- catory Eplftle to our Queen Ellzak'th that Is prefix'd to his New Tefia?nent^ which Epiftlc waS' * Lib. I. Excrcltat. Biblic. Exercltat. IL cap. i. t Dlffert. Crlt. fur les MSS, du N. T. pag. 14. i Dlffcrtat, Crit. Thcolog, de i Johji \, 7. §. Ill, t3 XIL tt Voye:{ 'Journal dcs Savnns du mois de Jum, 1720. I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^6j was drawn up Jn. 15-64. pofidvdy alTures us. That in chat Work of his, he had the Help of a Copy out of Rokrt Stcp/jejjs's Libra- ry, that was carefully collated with about 1 wenty-five MSS. which was fent him by his Son Henry Stephens, And in his Notes up- on the Text, he exprefsly, and in fc many Words, declares, that it was in fome of Ste- phens's ancient Copies, as well as in the Com- flutenfian Edition. So that if the Text was in. none of Stephens's Greek MSS. nothing can excufe Beza from teUing a down-right Lye in a Matter of Fad. It cannot be evaded, by faying, he might miitake undefignedly. For he tells us how thefe ancient MSS, of Stephens difFer'd from each other ,• and inti- mates, that the Father^ the TVord^ and the Spirit ^ had Articles in fome of them, and the Epi- thete of i/o/y, was added to the Sprite &c, I think therefore it is altogether unreafona- ble to rcfufe to allow, that (however it was as to Stephens's Sixteen Greek MSS. with which he was affifted in publifhing his Greek Tefia-* ment^ this Text was in fome of the Twenty- five Copies, with the various Readings where- of Be-z^a was furnifti'd by Henry Stephens, And we may this Way be able to give an Ac- count now it came about, that as Dr. Roger obferves "*", Bez.a fhould produce feveral va- rious Readings, which had efcap'd the Fa- mous Robert Stephens. The plain Reafon was, becaufe he was provided with the Collations of more Greek MSS. than that Celebrated Printer was furnifti'd with, at the Time when his Famous Greek Tefiament was pub- lifti^d. H h 2 Nor * Dijfurt. Critic, Thsol. ds 1 John v. 7. pag. 64, 468 1 John V. 7- i^ tnaicated. Sfrm, Nor can I by any Means think Er^jSw///'' n, Brhi^^ Copy fit to be made light of. The h- l^\j qturer makes himfelf pleafant with it ; and wants to know^ whether the Manufcript be. in being ililljj and what is become of it j and reprefents it as much contefted^ whether ever Erajmm faw -it^ or pretended to it "^. But whether he faw it or no^ 'tis plain by the Account he gives of it in his Notes upon tho. Text^ and the Comparifons he purfues between the Spanijlj and the Brhifli C.opy^, that he^ who was a good Judge^ depended upon it. It feems to be againlt the Grain with him that he at all prcdiic'd it ,* and he appears as it were forc'd to it : And there is but little Likelihood he Ihould at iail have inferted the Verfe^ when he had omitted it •in his former Editions^ if he could have found any Way fairly to have avoided it. ■Can any one imagine^ that fo Stomachful a Perfon as Erafmus was^ after he had defy'd 'Stumca the Spaniard^ whom he wrote againfl:^ to "produce any one Greek MS, in which this -Verfe was to be found3 Ihould himfelf pro- duce fuch a Copy, if he could not depend .upon the Truth of it ? And that he did fully depend upon it is plain^ in that he not only inferted it in his third Edition of •his Greek Tejtamcnt^ An. 15:22^ but in his Latin Edition of the Nt-a^ .Tefiament^ that wa^~ printed the Year before at Bafil^ in Confoi mity to the Greek. Nor only therefore Ai. ■Mijrtbjy but Dr. Roger f(y lays . a conuderable Strefs upon this BrftiJ}} Copy of Era/mm ^ and the * Emlyn\ TraAs, fag. 497, t Differt.i Crh. T/W. in hunt Jextum : d p2: 1 John V. 7. Vindicated, 469 the latter particularly anfvvers Fatlicr .S'iV^o^i's Serm,, Objections 'againil ic^ who was as willing to n " get rid of fuch an Svidence_, as any can bt that come after him., And let Men quib- ble and cavil as long as they will^ cither there muft have been Ibme Brlfljh Copy^ that Erajmus could . depend on, that had this .Verie as he repreicnts^ or he that has hi-- therto been admired as a great Reitorcr ot" Learnings mult come under the Imputation of being at once both weak and Falfe; ib that he cannot be depended on. And this is not the only Br/tifi Cdpy nei- ther that * has this Verfe^ for our E?igHjh Pc- Jjglot takes Notice of another^ that it llyles .Codex Moniforthis *j which is alfo mentioned by Father Le Lo-ng^ and Dr. Roger ^ as well ,as by M. -ALirtin. This Copy is to be found in the Library at Dublin. Iz was, formerly I'royt the Francifcans^ aud afterwards belong'-u to Thomas- Clemc?U j then to IVlillam Chrk^ and then to Ttjomas Montfort^ from whom Bifhop V^^tr had it^ with, whole MSS. it came into the Duhl'm Library. This MS. alio has this Verfe at large. And M. Martin has publifh'd the Copy of this Text and Context as it is there to be found^ atteited by the Library Keeper of 7r/>//r/-College *. This cannot be the fame MS. as Erasmus referrs to^ bccaufe it differs from it. tor the Word Holy is ad- ded to the Sfirity in the DMln MS. v/hercas it is omitted in Erafmufs Copy. And withal^ whereas the Article d \s added to adL^rufvm -I'. 8, m the Dublin MS, it is omitted ia 'traf^ vim's CoDy. H h 3 So ^ U-; Verite du Ts^tc fie a : £/>, d^ S. jCVf, f y. yej, 7, Chap, yii, I John V. 7- Vindicated. So that upon the Whole, the MSS. that omit this Text are not fo old or fo many_, but that we have feme both Greek and Latin ones to fupport it. And therefore I may fay, as 1^x:,Ro^eY ^_, That It is mere Trifling for Feo- pie to be continffdly dunnlvg us with the Greek and Latin MSS. in which this Tajjage is not to he met 7mth. For we deny It not : As neither do we deny that there are a Number both of Greek and Latin Copies^ in which we cannot meet with the Hiftory of the Adultrefs in the "^'lllth of St, John. But there being both Greek and Latin Copies that ha^ve this Verfe^ the J^iefilon will bc^ iVhich are mofi likely to agree with the Autografh of the Afofiky effeclally^ when it is certain there are "very ancient Greek Copies that are faulty. When therefore Dr. Clarke takes the Li- berty to fay. That the whole Text (for ought that yet appears^ has been wanting In eijery Ma- %ufcript Copy of the Original that Is^ or enjer was In the World t : tbo' he fliews his Zeal, yet he difcovers little Impartiality 5- and not much Regard to a Number of Valuable, Learned Men, that liv'd before him : And has ad- ed as if no Man could have AfTurance that fuch a Verfe, Chapter or Book v/as really a Part of the Bible ^ unlefs he himfelf had turn'd over Mamfcrints. And what an unhappy Condition moft of us would then be in, may be fafely left to any reafonable Man to judge. But farther^ J. The fhevving how it is poffible, that this Text might be ia St. Johns Original, and yet afterwards omitted in feveral Co- pies * Dijfertnt. Crk. Thcol. in Textum, pag. i^i, t Leccer to Dr, H'^elis, rag. 72. I John V. 7. Vindicated^ 47 r pies and Tranfcripts for a While, and at length reftor'd out of other Copies in which it was preferv'd_, bids fair for taking away the Force of the Argament, drawn from its being omitted in fb many ancient Copies, as much as it is boafted of. Tho^ a Negatl've will not admit of the fame Proof with a Tofiti^e Aflertion, yet when it is pre--' tended to be prov'd, if the Conclufion that is drawn from the Premifes offered to fup- port it is abfolute, the Proof ought to be luch as will lay a Foundation for a Rational Convidion of the Im^ojfibility of the contrary: And to conclude an abfoUtte Negative^ from Premifes that at the mcft prove but a ?ro^ babllity of being in the Right, is fallac'ous^ That this Text is not genume^ is a Negative Affertion. To prove it, an Argument is drawn from the Silence of the Fathers about it, and from its being wanting in the Oriental Verfions^ and in a great number of MSS, And in order to the rendring this Argument Conclufive, it ought to be fhewn^ That being thus omitted, it could not fof- fibly have been in St. Johns Original ; Which neither is nor can be done. Wnen the moll is made of this Argument that it will bear, we have no Evidence given, but that this Text might Ifill have been in this Epiltle at firit, and afterwards omitted by fome neg- ligent or hafty Scribe that took one of ttie firit Copies of it, and might be the Occafion of its being left out in a great many other Copies that were tranfcrib'd after him. And fuch an Omiffion as this, might hap- pen in the very fame VVay with Mutilations m other Writings both Sacred and Profane. It might be cccafion'd by a Repetition of the fame Words^ either thofe at the Beginning^ H h ^ 747?7 47^ I joiinv. 7. Vindicated. j5£RM. 7/3^':^ are Three that l^ear Record ; or thofe at II, the Endj are One. The Tranfcriber cafting V'V^**^ ^"^^'^ Eyes on either of thefe^ without at that Inftant exaclly minding what went before, might happen to omit the whole 7th Verfe : And not carefully collating his Copy after- wards^ it might continue omitted^ and that Omiflion might be tranhnitted to a great many other Tranfcripts. The 7th and 8th Veries happening to begin with the fame Words^ nothing more eal'y^ than for theTran- fcribers to omit one by JNiegligence. For it is very ulualj when the fame Words^ or Words that are almoft alike^ are in two Periods that follow one another-, for the Copier to pafs from the^ Words of the firlt Period^ to that which .follows in the fecond : And Examples of fa ch Omiffions are fo frequent^ and that in PalTages of Impdi"tance too^ that no one that has m.ade any Obfervations on. the Co- pying of ManufcriptSj can be ignorant of them. And yet when Dr. AHIl had given it' as his Opinion^ That it was thus m this CafCj and that the' this Verfe .was omitted ii\ feveral Copies ufed by the Ancient Fa- thers, yet it was recorer'd from the Original by St. Cjprian^ who appears to have had a Copy that was in this Refpecl true and un- altered^ our Inquirer complains oi vM^Stifpo- j'nlonSy and improbable hr/ao-huirionSy of this and the ether hare FoJJihlUty '^. Whereas^ if the Way fuppos'd and mentioned was but pof-- fMcy the Proof given that the Text debated was ffurbiiSy could jiot be certain^ tho' it liad been ever fo often omitted. And he aftcr- ward"^ v^y-yv-? o John V. 7* P" indicated. ^ 472 wards infults^ and lays. That Dr, Mill -not Serm oniy could not give a true Account hoiv It really tt came to pafs that the Greek MSi. andWrlters^mdcL he ignorant of this Verfe ^ but that jetting his Ima- gination to 71'ork^ he could not fo much as invent or contrive a Way how It could j)offihly he done^ "ih^uh any tolerable Shew cf Probability^ or Conpjhncy of Circumflances "**. And yet one that I believe will be generally thought to have had as good a Tafte in Matters of this Nature as th^ Inquirer^ \ mean the Learned Dr. Grabe, has given it as his Judgment^ That that was very likely, which he rcprefents as fcarce pof- jible t- And to fhew it to be probable^ that this was the Way in which this Verfe came to be omitted^ he has produced Two like In- fiances with this, out of the Ufctings of St. Cyprian and I'erttiUum :, and xVvo .Other Verfes aUb of the New Teftament, which are not in our printed Copies, and are wantr ing. in feveral MSS. (and fome that are very ancient too) and are not cited by the Fathers^ which yet he thought he had good Reafon to believe were written by the Apollies them- felves, becaufe other wife no Reafon could be imagined why they fliould be added: And thele Verfes alfo might reafonably be fup- pos'd to have been omitted in the very fame Manner. The Learned Vfaffius alfo herein concurrs |, and Dr. Roger tt- And- whereas fome might think that the fuppofing fuch Defects, would detrad: from the Divine Care in prcferving the Holy Scri- pt uros^ * Ibid. pag. 543. t Annot. in Bull. DefFid. Nic. Sed. II. pae, 139: i Differtnl. Crit. d^ Genuin. JJbr, N.T. Leit. c.9 tt Dflfertnt. Crit, JheoL in i JoL v. 7, $. XXX. 474 ^ Joh^ ^^' 7- l^i^dicated. Serm. pturesj Dr. Grahe anfwers^ that it is enough jj^ thar in fuch Cafes there are fome Books or Copys left_, by means of which we may be able to fupply fuch Deficiencies ; Which it cannot be pretended but that we have as to this Text^ notwithftanding that it has been lett out and overlook'd by lb many. M. Du Pin alfo has given Hke Inftances ot Omiffions in the Seftuapnt^ of whole Periods that are to be found in the Hebrew Text *. But tho' our Inquirer owns that ml/lakes of this kind have happen d to Tranfcrlhers^ yet he lay s_, that it was not fo here is plain ^ becaufe the Tranfcriber had then taken the next words to the fecond i^d^Tv^^mu which are ^ tm yvi, in Earthy whereas It Is confefs^d thefe Words are wanting dfo f. To which it is a fufficient Reply^ that tho' thefe Words cyTM^-?, in Earthy arQ wanting in. fome Copies^ yet they are found in others. And tho' the hquirer obr ferves 1^ That the MSS, Copies of Bede in his Comment on the 8th Verle^ differ from the printed^ in terra^ on Earth being want- ing in the former^ and added in the latter ; yet M. Martin ft affures us^ that thofe Words m Earthy are in an ancient MS. of Bede in the Library of Utrecht ^ and that he faw 'em there with his own Eyes. And then I add farther^ 4. That our not meeting with 2iny Com- plaints againil this Text when it came to be publickly produc'd^ and had a confjderable Srrefs laid upon it^ is a better Argument it was own'd for genuine ^ notwichitandmg its not * Hift of the Canon of the 0. and N. T. Vol. I. c. ii.- \ Emlyns Tri\ Ca^e reckon drawn up in 7 50 J prefcribes 'the Reading this of St. 'Jchn^ among the Seven Ca?tonical Epljvlesy be- tween tht. Octaves oi Eafter zndi Whltfuntule, And It appears from St. Bernard and Duran- dm ix\ his Rationale^ that this Paffage was read Annually in the Office of Trinity Sunday^ and the hrft Sunday after. And this is the higheft Proof that could be given^ that both the Gruk and Latin Church approved of thefo Words as real Scripture. And they fo ap-- prov'd of theiTij that we cannot find there ■was the leaitObjeclion againft them ^ which ought not to be overlook'd. Whereas therefore the Inquh'er asks^ with reference to the Primitive Chriftians^ whether they did not often hear St. John'/ EpljHe read to them^ the reading of the Gofpels^ and the Afofiks ilrltln^s being rcprefented by Jullin Martyr and Tertuilian as the con fi ant pratilce of their Affem- biles t And whether If there had been an omlffion hi the Tra?ifcripty fome or other would not have mifs\l fo memorable a Pafage as this Text contains^ h ip- fo fmgtdar and remarkable.^ that the 07nfjTion azin^ jmin V. 7^ Vindicated, ^jj €ouhl fcarcdj bs tinobfir-v\lj whm thty came u Si:k read it over again * ? . I might in AiiAvcr^ tt referr him to Father Simon^ who tells us f:, ^^> -^. that the Primitive Chriitians f?7aJe link ac- count of any of the New Ttfiammt^ but the Gofpels, and the Epiftles of St. Paul. And that perhaps in the firfi Ages they read only thofe two Works in their Churches, 1 don't affirm that It was re- ally thus^ but if I did J F. Simon (whom our /?j- ^w/rer Teems not much inclin'd to contradid) would be my Voucher. However^ I thhik there's a great deal in what is alTcrted by our Dr. Smithy That the Ca7ionical Epifiks were fcarce at firfi \.j and there was much greater plenty of thz Gojpels^ and the EplfilescfSt, Paul. And on that Account 'tis very likely, they were more read^ both in their Cliurches and private Houies. At leaii we have good Evidence, that thofe Churches that us'd the Syrlack Verfion, could not at firlt publickiy read this Verle, becaufe the Catholick Epiftksy and the Jpocalypfe were at firll wanting in that Verlion, and after- wards added t|. And tho' this Epiftle fhould be read, in common with the other Cathcllch Eptfilcs in the publick AiTemblics of the Pri- mitive Chriitians, yet if this Verfe happen'd to be omitted in fume of the firil Tranfcripts from the Original^ it might not be read there for fome Time, together with the iceft of the Chapter : And yet it might not be mifs'd by thole that were prefent, becaufe of their be- ing us'd to Copies in which this Verle wai; omitted. But then I take the Freedom m my Turn ^ Emlyris TraCls, pay. 34.2. t Uijl. Crit. du Teste du Ni T. piig. 154. I Vi?idic. I S. John v. ver. 7. n SuDpuj^ 7iotli. p. 126. \\ Vld, Frid. Spnnhem. Epit. Ifng. U Hift. EsqL N, T, ; 4^au. p.78, A» ^ I John V. 7. Vindicated. turn to Query^ whether fuppofing this Verfc had been tor a confiderable time omitted to be read^ it would net have been likely to have occafion'd a Complaint^ that there was an Addition made to the Text, when this Verfe came to be read conftantly in Courfe afterwards ? And whether the People would not be apt to reckon themfelves impcs'd up- on, if they had not good Reafon to beUeve that this Text was genuine, notvvithitandine that it had been omitted before ? I muir own for my part, I take this to be a bet- ter Proof that this Text was gemune^ than any that is produced that it WasfpurloHs^ and a meer humane Addition, And thus having done with th^ Argument agalnfl this Texty and ofFer'd what leem'd proper, by way oi Reply to it, I proceed now, IV. T o add the Sum of the Argument for this Texty with an Anfiver to the bugge- llions of Oppofers that have been d^^\^T[id to weaken it. The Argument here Hands thus. Not- withitanding that many of the Ancient Far- thers have taken no Notice of this Text, and feveral MSS. as well as the Ancient Verfions have omitted n^ yet is there fuch Evidence of its having been own'd in the Chrlftian Church from one Age to another, fi'om the Primitive to the Prefent Times, as may be fufficient upon Rational Grounds to ^IVQ us Sa- tisfadion, that it is real Ge77n'ine Scripture,, and no Corruption or humane Addition to the Word of God. Two different ways may be taken to give Proof of this. We may either begin with the Firfi Ages of the Chnftian Churchy and {o come I John V. 7, Vindicated. 479 come down gradually to the prefe?it Times : Or we may begin with Latter Jges^ and ib aP- cend by degrees to the 'Pri?nitive Times, And if in either of thele ways it can be made out^ that from one Age to another this Text has been own d for Scripture^ it will I think afford us an unanfwxrabie Reafon for con- tinuing it in our Bibles_, how much foever any are difturb'd at it for thwarting their darling Notions^ and how willing foever they may be upon one Pretence or another to di- fcard it. I ftiall pitch on the latter of thefe waySj becaufe I think it has lefs Intricacy in itj and may be more briefly difpatch'd than the former. A s to the laft 600 Years I fcarce need a better Voucher^ than I have in Father Simon himfelfj who freely owns^ that there is a great Uniformity in the MSS^ that have been written within that compafs of time. 'Tis ohfewabky fays he^ that -well nigh all the Manu- fcrlfts not above 600 Tears oldj agree in thls^ that they ha^ve the Verfe in difputr f. And this brings us at once_, as high as the Year iioo. And if it was then very commonly in the Copies of the Ne-w Teflament^ 'tis a fign it was at that time generally own'd for a true, and not reckon'd a fiditious Text. But that this mayn't feem too large a ftep to be ta- ken at x.^^ firft fetting out^ I'll divide it in- to Periods. The Reformation in thefe Weftern Parts began foon after the expiring of the XVth. Century ,• and from that time to this^ tho' it muft be own'd that this Text has been much debated^ yet I believe it would upon Com- putation t Uift, Crip, dcf verfionSf Ck 9. p. 113. 4S0 , i John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm.' putation be found^ that thefe have been .fe^ " TT * veral Learned Men for it^ toone-tRat^^nas ^^«/„^ been againft it. And fmce the Invention of ^^^^ ehe Art of Printings there have been feveral Imprefftons of the New Trfia??7cr^t in y^hich' it has been infer ted^ to one in which it "lias , been omitted. In the'XIVth Century^ and about ij^o liv'd Manuel Cake as a "Greek Writer^' "who .Ekblifh'd a Tracl concerning the Vrlmlptes of f/Catbolick Faith ^ in which this Text is in- jed. Tho' -our hqulrer feems not pleas'd wrH\br. Mill for mentioning him^ yet I hop^Vhe'il allow me to take ISiotice of him^ becaufe it di redly anfwers my End^ which is to fheWj that this Text was not counted fpm-lous in the Time he Hv'd in. In the fame Age^ but a little earlier^ %'lz., .about 1520^ we have Nicolas de Lyra^ a Learned ProfeiTor of Divinity at Tarls^ who wrote a Commentary on the Holy Scriptures-' that was much e- ileenVd : And this Paffage is to be met with explain'd there^ without the leall Infmuation of its being fufpeded as a Forgery. In the Xlllth Century ^ and about i26o_, Dura'ndus Bp. of Mmdt brought this Text into ]iis Rationale ; but plac'd it after the 8th Verf-^j mentioning the Jhrec Wit?2eJ]es on Earthy before the Tt'jree WltneJJh. In Ilea- ^en^ which is aifo the Way cf fome Wri-- ters yet more ^ancient^, and of fome Ma- •nufcripts alfo^ as has before been intima- ted. This is no uncommon Thing,', m o- ther Parts of the New TeJUmen't,,, FQr\ the 50th and 3iit Verfesof 4Xi:^/^/; xx,irau3* feje-- ral other Places^ are alike tranfpos'd. X little before hinij about i^^o^ liv'd Thomas Aquinas^ who commented on this firft Epiftle of St, Jobn^ and cxplaia'4 this Vcrfc of- it among the 1 John V. 7. Vindicated. 48 1 the reft. And yet a little earlier in the fame Age, that is, about 1215-, was held the Later an Council, under himcent III, when it is reckon'd there were prefent above Two thou- fand Prelates of all Sorts, and among the reft the Two Patriarchs of Confiantlnople and Je- rufakm in Perfon, and thofe of Jntloch and Alexandria by their Proclors. In the Acfls of this Council this Text is quoted as decifive upon the Head of the Trinity : Which is an Argument it was at that Time generally own'd both in Eajl and ffefi *. I i In * Father Simon (In his Differ fat. Crit. fur les MSS. du N. T. pag. 13) will have it, that this 7th Verfe of the 5 th Chap, of the ift Epiftle of Si. John ^ was taken from the Greel^^ of this Later/tn Council ; apd to con* firm it, he obferveSjThar in both, A&>(^ and 'TrvivuA are without Articles ; and in both of them it is ^ irot ot 7^?.? ; which feems to have been rranllated out of La- tin : But M. Martin, who gives an Extracft both of Erafmuss Britijh Copy, and of the Gr^r^ of the La- teran Council, (Dijfertat.fur S. Je/tn. i Ep. c. v.ver. j, p. 138.) takes Notice of a Difference between them in Four Things ; and obferves, 1. That in the Councifs Greek,, the Word ^^^va, is without an Article -, whereas the Britijh Copy has the Article Tti. 1. That in the. Council's Greek, the Word Tldirnf has the Article 0 • whereas in the Britijh Copy it ha3 no Article. 3. That In the CouncU's Greek,, the Word 'Trvivfj.A has its common Epithet lyiQv^ whereas in the Britijh Copy that Epirhet. is wholly omitted. And, 4. That in the Council's Greek., it is t»to/, whereas in the BritWo Copy it is »7o/. Which Four Differences I fhould think a fufficient Evidence againft Simon, that the Greek, of the Britijh Copy referred to by Brcfmus, was not taken from chi$ Latrran Council. 482 I John V- 7. Vindicated. SeRM- I^ the Xllth Century^ about iip^ Teter TT Lombard Bp. of Nris^ commonly call'd the Ma-^ ^^1, fier of the Sentences ^ mentions this as a Text about which there was no Doubt. At the. Clofe of his firil Book of Sentences and Second DifiinB!o72y he has thefe Words : That the Fa- ther a?2d the Son are One^ not by Confiffion of Fer" fonsy but by U'Jtty of Nature ^ St. John has taught its in his Canonical E fifties ; frying^ There are Three vjh'ich bear Record in Heauen^ the Father^ the Word_j and the Holy Ghoft^ and thefe Three are One. And St. Bernard a little before him_, and about the Year 1120^ quoted it in his Feltival Sermons: And many think that it was about that Time the. -^/)o//J That Errors and Miftakes being apt from Time to Time to flip into the Copies of the Bible^ the Authors of the later Ages endeavour 'd to corred them in their Works^ which they intitul'd^ Corre^ Uhns of the Bible j Two MSS^ of which he fays * Emlyns TraAs,/^/?^. 314^ •t Compleat Hift. of the Canon of the Old and N^w Teftamenty Book I. chap. vii. §. 2. I John V. J. Vindicated. 483 fays are yet extant in the Library of the Sor bonne. One of thefe. Father Simon tells uSy was as old as the Xth Century ^^ when rhe Bible was carefully revised by the Do- » thought fit to take any Notice of it. In the Vlllth Century^ and about the Year 760^ Ambrofius Autfertusy Abbot of St. Vincent y writing a Commentary on the Af(H calyffe^ brings m this 7th Verie of St. John^ to explain Rev. i. f . t- Nor fliould the De- cretal Epiftles of the Popes^ which are gene- rally own'd to be forg'd in this Age^ be here overlook'd. Both Baronlus and Blondel agree^ that 'ti^ probable they were drawn up about the Year 785". And it is obfervable^ that in the very firft Letter there attributed to Pope Hygimsj among a great many Citations from Scripture^ the 7th and 8th verfes of the lit Epiftle of St. John are brought in; tho' the 8th Verfe is plac'd before the 7th : And this appears to be the moil ancient Writing We have remaining^ in which thefe Verfes arc thus tranfpos'd. In the fiime Age^ about the Year 798, were the Latin Bibles revis'd^ by the Order of Charles the Great y under the Con- duct of our Countryman Alculn, Father 5/- nion owns^ that this Prince apply'd himfelf with a great deal of Care to reftore Learn- ing in the TFefiy and made ufe of the ableft Men he could find^ in reftoring the Latin Bibles^ which had been very much altered by the Tranfcribers in thofe barbarous Times that went before. And fpeaking of himfelfj in a Preface before Paul Deacons Bopk of HomlUesy the Emperor fays^ JVe ha've al- ready TPlth great Exathefsy by Divine Ajfiftancc corrected all the Books of the Old and New Te- Itament^ * M. Martin fi DIflertation, p/i^, 25, fMng. Blbl.ratr. Vol. XUL I John V. 7. Vindicated 4.8^ ^^rCitnZy'ivhicb 7ver.e corrupted tbro' the Unskilfulnefs of the Tranfcribers *. Now after this Cor- rcBion, this Text was commonly read^ and Simon owns it f- Nor is it at all likely that fo ' Wife and Learned a Man^ with his At- liftant Divines^, would have inferted a Text of this Importance^ if they had not found it in the Greek as well as Latin MSS. which they confulted , and if the Church had not ge- nerally acknowledged it for a Part of the iufpir'd Writings- Our hcfulrer indeed, who is for greatning the Difficulty from Point to Point_, fays J fV/Jat t/jo' this Ttxt was found to be diretUy in the Bible of Charlemain^ -which father Smjon oppofes not ? will this proye It to have been In the Grjeejc AIan,ufcripts at that Time I? I anfwer^ it makes it probable, efpe- cially if it be conlider'd, that as Simon tells us, we read iw Xhegan, That that wife Trinc^ had before hts Death y cor relied the Latin Edition of the New Teltament, by the Greek Copies ; and that there were at that Time Perfons 'Well skilled in the Greek Tongue ||. And thus we fee that this Text has been in the Bible above 900 Years. And tho' if it was not t)iere at hrft, it could have no Right to come there afterwards ; ycf I think it it was an Addition_, it cannot jultly be fajid %o be a> Modern Addition ff . In the Vllth Century^ we have a fuffi- cient Witnefs, if Maxlmus^ who ftourifti'd about the Year 645-^ was the real Author of the Dilpute at the Council of Kice^ whigh bears the Name of Athanafmsy and is joyn'd with his Works, as the Leari^'d generally li J think ■■- * iiifi. Crit. des Vcrfions dfi N. T. cap. ix. t //'xW.pag. III. I -Ew/yw's Trad3, f. ^ji^, 14- Hlft. Crh.dss Vcrfions du ^, T. pag. I99.» tt §ml^n's Ta(5ts, pfi^. pi^ '^ 8^4 I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serw. think he was. For that Work^ fpeaking of jj^ the Perfons of the Trinity^ cites this Text. And tho' the Inoulrer feems not lo well- pleas'd with Dr. Mill, for citing i'uch a fpuri- ous Work ^ 3* yet a Work that bears a wrong Name^ may 1 fhould think be allow'd to give good Evidence in a Matter of Fact^ at the Time when it was really drawn up. 'Twas this Citation that in F. S'lmofC^ Opi- nion gave Rile to the Opinion^ That Father^ Sony and Sfirlt^ were to be underftood by Spirit y Water y and Blood t- And tho' he fays^ he TTiakes no quejllon of it ; yet I mult confeisj 1 take it for an Imagination that is altoge- ther groundlefs. For all that this Author fays_, is this : That John jajs, Thefe Three are One ; which he really fays of the Father ^ Son^ and Sfirlt : Whereas of th^ Spirit ^ Water ^ and, Bloody he only fays^ They agree In One. In the Vlth Century _, we have a very fignificant Witnefs in Ftilgentlus, the Bifliop of Ruj;pe in Africa , who dy'd about the Year 529^ or as others lay_, ^35^ after having fuf- t'er'd much from the Arians. He without the leail Haslitation cites this Text \n three feve- ral Places of his Works. I (fays he) and the Father are One |. It becomes m to refrr One to the Nature ^ and are to the Ferfons, So alfo^ there are Three then bear Record In Heaven _, the Father^ the Wcrd^ aitd the Holy Ghoft^ and theje Three are One, Let Sabellius hear are ; Let him hear Three^ and beltez'e there are Three Ferfons. Let Arius alfo hear One ; and not fay^ that the Son is of a different Na- ture. He was looked upon as the chief of the Catholick * Ibid. pag. 320. t Hifi,Crh. du Texte d:i N. T. fa^. 2^3. i Lib, ie Tfinitatc^ Cap. IV, I John V. 7, Vindicated. 487 CathoUck Bifhops whom K. Tbrafimund banifh'd into Sardinia^ tho' there were others of 'em that were older than he. He was fummon'd by that Prince to appear at Carthage^ to anfwer the ObjecJions which the Arians had :dra\vn up a- gainft the Eternity of the Son of God_, and his Ec^iiallty with the Father. And in fuch Circumltances as he at that Time was^ 'tis very evident^ the utmolt Caution and Ex^ acftnefs was requilite in choofuig out Texts of Scripture : And nothing could be more neceffary^ than Care that none might be ci- ted that were liable to be objedled againfl as not genuine. Now he in this Cafe alledges this Text oi St. John^ in Proof of the Sons Confubitantiality* with the Father. In An^- jfwer to Fmta an Avian Bifliop_, among the Te- llimonies produc'd^ he brings in this Text. In the Eplfile of John^ There are Three that bear Record^ fays he^ the Father_, the Word, and the Holy Ghofl:_, and thefe Three are One. And finally in his Book of Anfwcrs againft the Arians ^^ he fays^ In the Father^ Son_, and Holy Spirit^ VJe receive the Unity of Sub- fiance y but dare not confound the Perfons. For St, John the Apofile bears fVltnefs^ faying ^ There are Tjree that bear Record In Hea'ven^ the Father, the Word^ and the Holy Ghoftj and thefe Three fire One. Wjich alfo the blejjed M.irtyr Cyprian confeJJ'es^ fajlng m an Efifile of the Unity of the Churchy He that breaks the Peace and Concord of Christ,, a^s agamfi Christ ; he that gathers finy 'where out of the . Churchy fcattcrs the Church of Christ : A?jd that he might fiew that OriQ God had One Churchy he frcfently inferts thefe Tefilmonles out of Scripture : The Lord faith. 114 i f^eff.'ffd ghje^, 10, I John V, 7. Vindicated. I and my Father are One ; and again ^ of VslA ther^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft_, it is wrlttetiy- Thefe Three are One, If it be query 'd^ How it fliould come a- bout that St. Jufiin who liv'd before Fulgen- tiHs^ fhould not take Notice of this Text as well as he ? 'Tis eafily anfwer'd^ That he having but a very fmall Knowledge of the Greek Tongue_, commonly made uie of that which he calls tbe haiick l^erfion of the Neiv Tc- fiament^ in which this Verfe was not found. And 1 fuppofe it won't be contelted either by our hauirer^ or thofe of his Make, that St. Jufiin was no great Grecian^ when X add-, that F. Si?77on exprefsly afferts^ that that Fa- ther did not underfland the Gre^/^ Tongue *. In the Vth Century^ This Text is cited by Vigilius Bifhop of Jiifjm^ who flour ifh'd a- bout the Year of Cbrift 480. He wrote Trads againit feveral Herefies^ without prefixing his Name. He particularly conceal'd him- felf when he wrote againit the Arians^ that he might the better fcreen himfelf from their Kage and Malice. He fometimes perfonated . Idaclm Clarm^ who had been a Bifhop in Vor^ tugaly and is fpoken of by Stdficius Seijerus : At ether Times Athanafms^ under whofe Name he publifh'd Tweh^e Books concerning the Trinity, \t). the Form of Dialogues : And at other Times St. AujUn^ in whofe Name he publifh^d a Treatife againit an Avian call'd Felician. This Author cites this Text, both in his Treatife cencerning the Trinity t^ and in his Difpute againit Varimadm the Arian. He has defcanted on moll Texts in the New Tefianunt * Hift. Crit. du Tex;te du N. X V lefs than the Father in the humane Form which He ajjum'dy but equal to the Father in the Subftance of the Diz'ine nature^ and In Fower. And He faysy I and the Father are One, A^d again ^^ Tfsat they may be One in Us^ as We are One : Thou In Me^ and 1 in them. And again ^ All Things are thine ^ and thine are mine. And again ^ The Things that the Father hath are mine^ &C. And Johll the Evangeitfi fays^ In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Go d, and the Word was God. And the fame^ writing to the Parthians, [ays^ There are Three that bear Record in Heai^en^ the Father, the Word, and the Spirit^ and thefe Three are One. About the fame Time alfo, that is. An. 484. this Text was cited by Eugenlus Bifhop oi Carthage^ m that celebrated Lonfejfion of Faithy which he prefented to Hunnerlcky the Arian King of the Vandals y which inrag'd the whole Body of the Avians y and put 'em to Silence, if it did not convince them. This Confejfion of Faith is there- fore the more remarkable, becaufe Gennadlus tells us, it was drawn up and prefented with the common Confent of all the Bilhqps and ConfefTors of Africa ^ Mauritania ^ Sardinia ^ and Corfica *. In this ConfeJJiony there are luch Ex- preffions as thefe : iVe belletures /peak of him with Refpecl to the excellent Sublimity of his fo7very we reckon It to be afcrlPd to his Di-^ "vlnltyy which we achtowledge : And whatever is ffoken concerning hlmy that is meany and below tjie Honour of bis heavenly Tower y we afcrlbe not to the V\'ovaofQoTiy but to the Man He ajjum'd. It Is therefore according to his Divinity y thaty as bos been above hinted ^ He faysy J and the Far ther are One ^ and he that has feen me y has feen the Father ,• and all Thmgs whatfoever the Father dothy the Son doth the fame y &C. But when He faySy The Father is greater than I; and I came not to do mine own Willy but the Will of Him that fent me ^ andy Father -, if It be pojjlbky let this Clip pafs from me _, ^ andy ' My GoDj my GoDjj hiihy baf 'Thou fcrfaken me ? Thefe lyings are fpo- ken cf Him as Man. And afterwards they undertake to prove^ That Fathery Sony and Holy Ghofi are of one Subftancey by PafTages out of the Old Tsfiamm and the Neii;. And after ' ~ feyeral I John V. 7. Vindicated. 4.9 1; feveral others produc'd^ they add^ But that we SfRm, may make It clear as the L'ghtj that the HoIy Spi- Tj rit is of one Dl^u'wity with the Father, and the s^/>y^ oon, it is pro'^/d by the Ttfiimony of John the*" E'vajjgcUjty who faith ^ there are "Three that bear Record In Heaven ^ the Fat her _, the Son^ and Spi- rit, and thcfe I'hree are One. He does not jay^ Three feparated by their d/ff(ire72t Qualities ^ or dl- 'vided from each other by gradual Dl'verfitles^ in a long Space of Diftance j but he intimates , they are One, And in the Clofe of all, to intmiate that they were far from having any pecuhar Sentiment in thefe Matters, they add. Vols is our Fahhj bottomed upon Ez'angelical and u!^pofto- Heal Traditions y (by which it is plain from the whole Tenor ot their Confjfion^ and the Proofs which it contains, they mean the Gofpcls and Epiftles^ and the yigreement of all the Catholick Churches which are in the IVorld ,• /» which by the Grace of Almighty GoD, we trtift and hope to continue y e^uen to the End of this our earthly TH" grim age. This Confcjfonof Faith ^ which is upon ma- ny Accounts remarkable, is in the Bibliotheca Tatrum^ Printed at Far^s 1644, afcrib'd to Bi- Ihop' Vicior : But whoever drew it up, it wa$ preiented by Eugenius Bifliop of Carthage^ as the common Faith of all the Bifliops of thofe Parts. And therefore I think M. Martin is much in the Right_, in reprefenting this as equivalent to a cloud of IVimeJJcs *. And there is the lefs Reafon to wonder our Inquirer Ihould be fo willing to get rid of it. He fays. He cannot well telly what is the Credit of VlcftorV Hlforyy as we have It f. He knows A he *■ DiPfertation fur ce Texte, pag. 77,] I Emlyn\ TraCtS; png. 324, 3^5. 492 I John V. 7. Vindicated. SeRM* ^^ fsySj i? has found little with many^ in relation TT of grange Miracles^ not unlike thofe of Monklfl) Le- ^^.^1. (rends ^ WZ' of many who could fpeak freely and 'articulately y when their Tongues bad been cut out by the Roots^ &c. *. But by the lame Rea- fon * Grotim was no very credulous Perfon, and yet he thinks that the Report of the Men whofe Tongues were cut our, comes to us well Confirm'd.Says he in his Notes on Lib. I . de Ver. ^el. Chrijl. §.17. Vide ^ de iif qui, ex^ feBa ob religionem lijigun loquuti, tejies certijfimos, Ju- sliniayium L. i. C. de Officio Pr^fccli Pretoria Africjc ^ Procopium, Va'ndalicorum i. Vi^orcm Vticcnfem, Libro de Perfecutionibus ; j£neam Grt:{xum tbeophrnjlo. The Emperour Juftininn fpeaking of the Vandals in Jlfrica, fays, H^e ourfelves have feen the Venerable Me7i, who /pake whe7z their Tongues were cut off from the roots, Gothofrede in his Notes confirms it, and quotes alfo 'Marceirmus Ccmes, and Paulus Diaconus, in his Life of Cdoacer ; Cuja. 19. Obferv. 6 3 Forcatulus in Cupidifte juris per it. cap. ult. in fin. The Werds of procopius Wfl. Vandal. Lib, 1. are thefe. Speaking of Honorichus the Vandal King, he fays, Multis ^ lijiguas cxfcindebat e faucibus, qui mea etiam iCtate, By^antii amhulahant integro utcntes fermone, nihilque de ^etcre pccna pcrfentifccntes : e quels duo poftr quartife projiituti pudorls faminis mlfcuerunty loqui dcy fiere. And this Procopius the Learned Dr. Qrabe tells us deferves to be regarded. Splci/eg. Patr. Sec.i, pag.^. ■ /Eneas Ga:{deuSy who of a Platonick. Philofophcr be- t^mt a Chriftian, and liv'd about the Ye:ir 485, in the Reign of the Emperour ^7io^ wrote a Dialogue of the Immortality of the Soul, and the Re urredion of -the Body, which he call'd Thcophraftus. It was Print- ed by C. Barthius with Notes at Leipfich, An. 1653, In this Dialogue he declares, Thar he favo pertain Con^ fejjors who had their Tongues cut out, n^id yet fpaJ^ wcU And articulately. So that if we rejed and flight ViSlors Hiftory on the Account of what he relates concerning thefe Coyifcjfors^ wcfiiake the Credit pf all Ancient Siiry, as unworrhy ,cf Credit, r John V. 7. Vindicate i. Ibn we muft que (lion the Credit of a great many WricerS;, both of that and the following Ages. And methinks, it is a very hard Cafe, if fo many Bilhops when they were fuiFering for their Rehgion^ ihould deferve no Regard in their citing a Text of Scrip- ture^ bccaule he that inferts their Confeljion in his Hiftory^ gives an Account of fome wonderful Thmgs which that Author knows not how to believe. But I can't imagine how it can be reprefented as a prhjate Lom- fofttre *j when nothing of that Nature could well be more publick. For it was prefented in the Name of a confiderable Number^ to a Prince that was fet againft them^ and dil- pos'd to ufe 'em with great Severity. It was fign d but by a Few^ but prefented in the Name of the whole Body^ and many were a<^ually upon the Spot when it was delivered. It this deferves no more Regard, than for it to be coldly faid_, That at the latter End of the Vth Century^ fome pretended this for Text f^ it would be hard to know what might pafs for good Proof. I fliould think this a ilrong and unanfwerable Evi- dence, that thcfe Words were not inferted without juft Authority ,♦ and that our Inquirer was pretty far out of the Way^ when he alTerts, That the Primitive Writersy Greeks and Latins, knew nothing of this Tcxty dovm to the yillth Century 4- Our Countryman Dr. Thomas Smithy feemj^ to me to argue in this Cafe admirably well. Can n>e imagine ^ fays he tf, that Eugenius of Carthage^ t Ibid, pag.315. t lb. p. 326. 4- lb. p. 11%, tt Def. Dijfert. de 1 job, \^ 7. Co7it.. except Simonil, in Qrit. Hlft. N. T. ^erM, Carthage^ ^??i ?^^ other Orthodox Bijhops of j^ ' the African Churchy who were fo ready to frffer \^for their Faith ^ could ha-ve been fo fenfelefs^ as in ^"^^^y^^ fjjls Confeflloil ' of theirs^ which -they prefent- ed to an Arian Prince y to have produced this Text in exprefs Words ^ under the Name of the K'^jange^ iifi John^ // it either had been wanting in the Sacred Books at that Time^ or had been newly ad^ ded or inferted an Jge' or two before? hoiu eafily might they haiie been upbraided with the Crime of falfifytng by their watchful Adver(arles ? And how ill 7vould it hanje fvu?ided for Perfons in their Cir^ camftances to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures'? Certain-* - ly thofe holy Conftffors had a greater Concern for their oiim Reputation ^ and for the Truth of the Ca- tholick DoBrine which they had undertake?t to defend y than by itfing fuch e^vil Arts^ to bring down Infamy upon themfelves^ and prejudice the Truth of Chrif-ianity I Nor is this the Tef-i?nony of one Man^ hut of the whole African Churchy ayid that after a careful Kxamination ^ repeated again and again : So that he nmft feem dtfiitute of Chrifllan Alodefty ttnd Charity^ that can charge fuch flagitious Crimes its the fey upon Perfojjs fo venerable ^ and fo eminent for their HoUnefs and Learnings who were at the fame time fo horribly opprefs'd with the dreadful Cruelty of the Arians. And to thisj it would be no eafy Thing to return a pertinent Anfwer. And italfo defcrves to be obferv'dj as is noted by Dr. Roger '^^ That a good deal of Time pafs'd betvveen the prefenting of this Qonfeffion of Faith to King Hunerlck^ and the publiHiing the Works of Fulgentius, in which it has before been obferv'd^ that this Paf- fage was cited. And this is a plain Evidence that ? Dijfertar, Crit. ThcoL in t ^ohn v. 7, p, 168. I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^hat the Avians did not change this Citation in the Conffffiov^ with being faife. If they had^ Ftiigentim could not have been a Stranger to itj and therefore either would have forbore to cite itj or have anfvver'd the ObjecSliofi of the Avians. But this Text is quoted a little earlier in the fame Age^ and about 4^4^ by £«- cherms of Lio7is ^. He fays_, As to the Trt- NlTYj -ive read in St. Jolm'j Epifile^ Theve are 7'hree wh'ich hear Record in Heaven ^ the Father the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft j and there ave Three that bear Witnefs in Earthy the Spirit^ the Water ^ and the Blood. This is above One thou^ fand two hundred and eighty Years ago ^ and if we are put to it^ we cannot give any clear Evidence that the oldeft Manujcrlp we have now remaining in the World^ reached that Age. This is a plain and pofitive Te- ftimony^ and no myftical Interpretation of the Three TViincJjes on Earth f^ as the Inquirer pre- tends. And if it fhould happen that Dr. Mill here forgat himfelf f^ (to which the greatelt Men are fometimes liable) it does not follow^ that 'jE«c^fr/W cited the 8th Verfe only^ if upon confulting him it is found^ that both the 7th and 8th Verfes are cited exprefsly. It muft indeed be own'd^, that Eu- cherius Ipeaking of the Spirit^ the Watev^ ani the Bloody in the 8th Verfe^ fays^ Th^tfe-je- ral by a myftical Intevpretarlon^ tmderftood that of r^e Trinity. And fome have thought that he herein referred to St. Aufiin In his Book a- gainft Maxin7inus^3.nd Facundm Hermiancnfis^ow v/hole * Lib. Fornjularum Sprttatf! IntelHgentia, cap. xi, §• 3, 4- t Emlpi's TradS;^. 3:5. 4 Prohgom 938. 4p5 I John V, 7, Vindicated. Serm. whofe Glofs^ our Jnojulrer lays to great a JI^ Strefs : But that muft neeelTarily be a great y^^y-^^ Miftake ; becaufe St. Auft'm and Facundus un- derltood by the word Sfirlt^ the Perfon of the Father y and by Water ^ the Perfon ol the Sflrit j whereas they of whom EucherUfs fpeaks_, (as he himfelf declares) by the word Sfirlty underltood the Holy Ghcfi^ and by the Watery the Perfon of the Father, In the IVth Century^ which has therefore been call'd Arlav^ becaufe then the Arians turn'd all Things upfide-down^ it is un- doubted^ that there was the moft Occafion for this Text_, and 'tis one of the greateil Prejudices againlt it^ that it was not' then produc'd^ or ufed : But I mult own^ that I cannot fee how its not being at that Time citedj is a Proof of its not being genuine, fince it was cited before_, even In the Illd Century^ by St. Cyprian j who more than once refers to this Text in his Writings, about the Year of Christ 240. In. his Epiftle to Jubaianus about Baptizing He- reticksj he proves the Validity of their Bap- tifin by this Argument : If^ lays he^ mty one could he baftlzj^d among them^ he might aljb oh- tarn the Rem}Jfion of his Sins. Jf he obtahis the KemlJJion of his Slnsy and is fanbiiffdy and is become the Temple of Go Dy J query of what God ? If it be faidy of the Creator j I ^(^jly^ Th^t cannot be^ becaufe of his not believing In Him, If it be faidy of ChRIST , / ^^pljy Neither can he be his Temple^ when he denies him to be God. If It befaldy of the Holy Spirit ,• I re- plyy Since thefe Three are One^ fjow can the Holy Spirit be pleased n>lc*h him who is an Enemy ei- ther to the Father or the Son ? Bifiiop Bull gives it as hi? Opinion^ That St. Cyprian here I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^^7 here had a Reference to this Text *; and Serm« fo alfo does Mr. SeUen-f^ Dv, Samuel Gardi- rr ner I, Dr. Mill ft, M. De Blanc fit. and J^h^ other Learned Men. And I mufl: confefsj ^*^^^' I think with good Reafon _, becaufe we have not a Text to produce in which thefe Three are exprefsly faid to be 0?iey but this. But the fame celebrated Writer_, pro- feffedly cites this Text^ in his Book of the Unity of the Church *^ where (peaking before of St. Johjj^ he has thefe Words : And agamy It is written of the Father^ Son^ and Spirit^ thefe Three are One. Where when he exprefs- ly fays_, It is written^ it is plain^ he means^ That this is inferted in fo many Words in the holy Scripture. Now where is this exprefs- ly written but in this Text ? To fuch as are tree from Prejudice^ methinks nothing can be plainer^ than that this is a free Appeal to fome Paffage of Scripture^ in which it is written of Father y Son^ and Sfirit^ that thefe Three are One, And this is the more evident^ be- caufe thefe Words being conneded with a plain Citation of John x. 50. concerning Fa- ther and Sons being One^ carry an Intimation in them^ that this was as much and as truly a Paffage of Scripture^ and written there, as that which was mentioned and cited jult be- fore. But Sandlus t:) and Father Simon 4., K k and * Def.Fid, N/c. Sed. II, cap. x. pag. 131. t De Synedriis. Lib. II. cap. iv. p. 93. 4. Cathol. circd. SS, Trinlt, Fid. Delin. ex Scr, Patr* Antcnic. defumpta. p. 133. ft Prolegom, in N. T. w«wj. 713. tit Principes tontreles Sociniens. Sei- dent from St. Fulgentius_, who ?20t only has brou^Jt in this qth Ver(e^ in his Book of the Catholick Faith^ again ft Pint a an Arian Bijhop^ in the Tefiimonies he produces about the Trinity^ and In his Book of the Trinity to Felix the Notary ^ hut alfo produces this I'cry Place of St. Cyprian In his Book againjl the Objciliom of the ArianS-, &c, Simon fays_, Thd.t Filler Vitcnfis was the fir ft who producd this as St. John's Saying , and that it was St. CyprianV own yjjjertion^ and not made ufe of by him as a Teftimony of Scripture. But^ fays Bl- lllOp Stiliingfleet^ they who can fay fuch Tnings as tbefcy are not much to be trufted 4.. It is pleaded^ That * Bmlyjh Trads, pag. 333. t Vmdkice 1 '^oh. v. 7. a Suppofitioyiis nota, p. 1^1*^ &* 4 Vindlc. of the Dodnne.of the TRiNixr,/. 167 I John V. 7. Vindicated. 2}.pp That Facundits Hermianenfis *_, who vvas of <5;eoiui the t2imQ yifrlcm Chiirchj gives another Ac* ^tt count of this Pailage of St. Cyprian^ and iaySj rJ^Lj That St. John m his KfijHe, fays of the Father^ ^^^^y^**- Son^ andWiA^ Spirit^ that there are Three nh'ich hear Record on Earthy the Sprh^ and the Water ^ and the Bloody and theje Tljvee are One : By th:. S:l* rlt fignlfylng the Father^ and by the Water the Holy Spirit^ and by the Blood the Son ; which Teftimo?iy (fays he) St. Cyprian Bljl^op of Cd.r^ thage^ under flood of the Father^ Son_, and Holy Spirit, when in an Eplftle or Book zrh'ch he ivrote of the Trinity J he exprejjes himftlfthus : The Lord falthy I aizd my Father are One: And again y It Is written of the Father^, Scn^ and Holy Spirit^ Thefe Jljree are One. From whence it appears to. have been Facundus'% Apprehenfion^ that Cjprlan had an Eye to the Vqrfe that fpeaks of the Three Witnefjes on Earthy which he expounded myftically. But this was plainly Facundus"^ Ivliftake^ as ap- pears by Fidgentlus; who not only himlelf cites this Text^ but alfo certifies us^ that St. Cyprian own'd it^ in the Citation men- tion'd above. I ftiould think Fidgerttlus might be allow'd to know St. Cyprians Mind better * than Factmdusy becaufe he liv'd nearer him ; and htfidQSy Factmdus miftook in the Tra^ft of St. Cyprian^ which he referred to^ v/hich was of the Unity of the Churchy as Fulgentlus inti-* matesj and not about the Trinity ^ as Facundus has it t- Facundus alfo updn this Suppofi- tion^, reprefents St. Cyprian as varying from the Order in which St. John mentions the K k 2 ' Three * Def. Tr. Caplt. lib. I. t Voye::^ Vrlnclpes Qmtre Ics Sochi, pnr Thecd; ds BUiic] pag. i37,» 13S, e^^^ ^oo I John V. 7. T^indicated. Shrm* Three Perfons in the Trlnhy. For the Apo- TT ftie names the Water before the Blood. Now^ ^-„^,^ according to Facundus^ St. Cyprian muft un- derftand the i/o/y Ghofi by r^e Water ^ and fy^c iSiJw by /^^e 5/Jm^ thoufand four hundred and fixty Years_, and therefore can be no Modern Addition to it. Simon reckons it incredible^ that Sr. Cyprian ihould have this Text in his Copy of the Ntw Tefiament^ and St. Auftln not have opposed it to the Arlans of his Time "*. But I can't fee why this fhould be at all incredible^ if (as has before been hinted) he more ufed the Irallck Verfion (which in his Time was cur- rent) than the Greek Original I fhall advance yet one Step farther^ and add. That I take this Text to have been referred to by Terttdlian^ about the Year of Chrlfi 200, which was but very little a- bove One hundred Years after the Epiftle it was in^ was firft written. Mr. TVhifton fays^ this hrft Epiftle of St. John was writtea ebout^. C. 73 t- Dr- ^'^^^ (^Y'o, 'twas about the Year 91^, or 92. According to ,either Calculation^ the Citation will come early enough to be a good Evidence that the Text is genuine ; efpecially confidering, that^ a.s is obferv'd by Dr. Mill 4.3 a variety of La- tin Fer/lons were commonly read by the Africans^ from the very Beginning of Chri- Itianity among them, to the Time of St. Au- filn. So that iz might happily fall out, that - a Paffage wanting in the ItrMck Verfion^ thro* the Defed of the Grc^k Copy from whicli it was at firft taken, might be prcferv'd ia other Latin Verfions^ that were made after fuch Qreek Cqfies^ as were more perfe(5t. K k 3 TiJR* * Hlft. Crit. du N. r. cap. xviii. t Eday on Apoft, Coriftitutions, p. 5^' i Proh^om.irf N. T, ^, 6%^, i%A, 5o2 I John V. '7- Vindicated. \y^v^^ Serm. Tertullian plainly alludes to this Text^ Tj ' in his Book againil B-axeas ^^ where he iays^ The Connexion of the Father In the Son^ and of the Son in the Comforter^ makes Three jojii- hig U'.gether^ the. One of which is from the Other : Which Three .ar'e: onii TlAng • ?wt one Individual • after the fame Manner as 'tis faid^ I and the Fa- ther ar€ One^ 7vhh RefpeB to the Unity of Sub- fiance^ and not the Slngtdarlty of Number. That^ this Text is here reterr'a to^ is the Judg- ment.notonly cf Ri^alt'niSy2indi others that have written and publim'd Notes upon his Works^ but alfo of Dr. Hammond ^ Bp. Bully Dr. Grabcy Dr. Louis Roger y Dt. AiUl^ and feveral others of Worth and Eminence. If it be faid^ as it has beenbyfome. That Tertullian took the Sayingj, j.nd thefe Tbree are One^ from Verfe 8 of the Chapter^ where we are toid of the Watery and Sfirlt^ and Bloody that they are O?;^ ^ which feveral of the Ancients took to be a Signiiication of the Trinity; 'tis aniwer'd_, That that my fled Expofition was unknown in TertuUian's Days^ and never heard of be- fore the Year 418^ or thereabouts^ when St. Anftln publirti'd his Becks againlt Maxi- minufi^-f. Tertullian- he r^ plainly gives it as his Senfc^ Opinion^ ^nd belief^ That the Fa^ thety Sony and Sfirlty are Of?ey -as much as Fa-- ther and5of? are Oney and in the very fameSenfe. And when that- Writer^ v/hom St. Cyprian own'd for his Mdftery does v/ith his Difci- ple Cyprlany for a Proof of the peculiar Unity of Father and Sony refer to the fame Say- i-ng in St. Johns Goipel^ / and my Father are One ; what more natural than to fuppofe he fliould at the fame Time refer to the fame Apoitle's firft Epilf le^ for a like Unity of all i^f cap. 2.5. . t Millii Prolcg. in N, X pag, 60* I John V. 7. Vindicated^ 503 the Three? efpecially' when he makes ufe Serm» of the very fame Expreffion as we meet with jj^ there? He fpeaks of the Unity of all the ^^^.^1^ Three^ J as a Thing as well known^ as ge- nerally believ'd^ as little doubted of^ and as much proved from Scripture^ as the C/w/f^ of Father and Scn^ of which^ (as has before been hinted) this Text is the mofi: exprels Proof we have in the whole Neji^ Tejtament. It is indeed the great Dellgn of that Trad to prove againft Vraxeas^ who confounded the Perfbns of Father and Son^ that Father^ Son^ and Sfirlty are of one and the fame Suhfiance, So that if we cannot gain by producing Ter^ tidlian^ that this Text was ni his Copy of the Nev) Tejiamcnt^ we may at leaft gain thi's^ that that Tenet or Opinion^ to prove which this Text has commonly been produc'd_j iH-z^. That the Father ^ Son ^ and Spirit ^ are of one and the [a~me Snhjiance ^ was the common Notion in thofe earh^ Days of the Chf iltian Church. For tho' TertidUan% being a Mont am fl^ affeded him with Refped to Difc» cipline_, yet in his Doctrine^ and particular- ly with Refped to the Trinhy., he kept to the very fame Kule^ and the iame Faith with the CathoUcks ^^ whofe common Sentiment it was^ That Father^ Son^ and Splrh^ were of one Subftancey and really Owe God. And thercr fore^ Ihould it be granted^, that this Cita- tion of Teriullian does not add much to the Proof that this Text isgemme^ (which is yet what^ when all Things are confider'd^ I car^ fee no Reafon to yield) it may however fat- tisfy us_, that the Divines of the ^Veftmlnjhr AJ'^ femhly are no Innovators_, in aifertiag the Three Terfons in the Godhead „ to be the Jame m K k 4 Subfiavce^ ^ See Serm. X. f^g- 311, 3^3' r5cr $o^ I John V. 7. Vindicated. vor^ SfiRM, ^^^^^fi^^^^y tho' fome that are grown weary oi jj^ Old Truths^ take the Liberty to reprefent it as a Novelty. I fliall clofe with this one Remark ; That if thefe Words are real Scripture^ as I am perfuaded they are^ upon fuch Grounds as thofe foremention'd^ it will by a neceflary Confequence follow^ That they that deny the Trinity^ oppofe the plain Words of Sen- pture_, which here declares^ that there are Three that bear Record in Heaven : That they that deny the Unity of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy G^ofi^ diredly contradid the Af- firmation of St. John^-whoidiySj That thefe Three are One : That they that deny the proper Del- ty of the Holy Ghojt^ tho' they may not hold him a mere Creature^ do oppofe this Text^ which plainly diitinguifhes the Holy Ghofi as a Tcfilfier^ from the PVord^ and from the Father • as much and in the fame Manner as it does diitinguifh the Word from the Father on one Side^ or from the Holy Ghofi on the other. And therefore I think we have not the leaft Occafion to wonder^ that they that run in- to Errors upon thele Heads^ fhould be fo zealous as we find they are^ in contending that thefe Words are fpurlous and fuppofiti- tious^ and for that Reafon to be expungd and difcarded. S E RM, 1 John V. 7. Vindicated, $05 SERMON III. I JOH^N V. 7, For there are Three that hear Record in Heaven^ the Fa- THER, the WoRDj and the Holy Ghost ; and thefe Three are One. E arc told by St. Aufim *^ That it Salrers- was the ufual Way of the Admjichees y\^^\\,tu$f- who in his Time made no fmalH^^ Lec^. Noife and Stir_, when any one quoted upon ^^^^.f them a Text of Scripture that appear'd to ^ '^* thwart their Sentiments^ prefently to an-^^^^* fwer^ That that Place was corrupted^ and in- ferted by later Writers f ; or ^^^^j ^hat the Book in which it was founds was drawn up by fbme Impofior^ under the Name of the Jpo^ file:. * Lib, XVI. Cent. Fnvji. cap. ii. t Lik> J^XXllI, Qqrp, ^nujl. cap,, iu. ^05 I John V. 7. Vindicated^ Serm. /^'^^- A.^^ i^ ^^y Perfons are once gone that jjj^ Lengthy and give themfelves fuch a Liberty as that amounts to_, it is exceed hig difficult to know how to deal with them to any Purpofe. We alfo have had a like Spine lately at work among us^ " that has been Itirr'd up by thofe that are of the Avian or y4rLmiz.ing Stamp. When this Text has beerj either cited or preach'd upon^ it has been freely declared, that it was not Scripture^ and therefore fhould be fet afide. And I have it from a Perfon of Worthy That upon a late Converfation with one that was tor difcard- ing the proper Di-vlnhj of ourS.AviouR^ when he ur^'d the Beginning of St. Johns Gofpel^ he was -very pertly told^ That the firft Verfes of that Book were not genuine. Should tills Spirit fpread^ a general Confufion Vv^ould be the Coniequence. And therefore I think the checking it as far as may be^ fliouid be the Aim and Endeavour of all that have the Intereft of Religion truly at Heart. F. Simon himfelf^ that celebrated French Writer^ who has done fo much to propa- gate Uncertainty^ in an Age of itfelf futfi- ciently inclined to •Sccpticifmy has reprefent- cd It as a Cullom v^ith many that has been of a long ftanding. That when they have found a Difference in the. Copies of the Ne-2ij Tefiament y if that Difference was ob- lerv'd to favour the Sentiments of any par- ticular Party^ they have freely accus'd that Party of corrupting the Sacred Books^ altho' that Variation has commonly rilen from the Iranjcrlhers only ^. And yet the very Per- Ibns that are this Way given^ are commonly inclined ^ Bift, Qrir. duTe^te dn N. X pag-. ^51, I John V- 7. Vindicated^ ^07 inclin'd to cry out againft thofe who think themfclves in Duty bound to oppole thcm^ for dealing hardly with them : As if they had a Right to ingrofs the Liberty of fpeak- ing their Thoughts freely^ to themfelv<^: He that has read the Hiftory of yirlanlfm in the IVth Century J won't be much furpriz'd at any Thing of this Kind he may meet with. 'Tis the old Way of thofe innovating Tem- pers : And indeed_, There's nothing mw under the Sim. The Inftance Simon has pitch'd upon to exemplify his Obfcrvation in this Cafe^ is the very Text I am upon. For he cries out^ Ho^if many Divines are there at this Day^ ivho belle've the Tcftlmony of Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit^ fpoken of In i John v. 7. has been taken out of the a-ncient Greek Copies to favour the Herefy of the Arians 1 And he feems to admire at it. But when the Matter is well confider'd^ 1 am apt to think it will be found a Thing more to be admir'd at^ That tho' we have fuch good Evidence that the Truth which this Text holds forth^ has been firmly be- liev'd in the Chriftian Church from the Be- ginnings and carefully propagated from Age to Age ,• as well as is fo agreeable to the whole Current of the Writings of the Neiif lejiament^ it fhould be thought worth v^^hile to take fo much Pains as that Author has donCj to expofe this Text as fpuriousy wdieii at the very fame Time he declares for it as authe72tJcky upon the Authority of the Church. For my Part, 1 can't for my Life conceive how any Church can have Authority to infert a Paffage in a facred Book^ if that Paffagc did not come originally from God ; An(i yet I am by no Means for quitting this Texr^ (which Way foever it came to be left out of fo many John V. 7. Vindicated. many Copies) till it is plainly prov'd fpur Ions : And for that Reafon 1 have been willing to take fome Pains in inquiring into the Evi- dence produc'd ; and have oiFer'd_, what gives me Satisfaction that it is genuine ; and fhall now take into Confideracion^ the Oh- je^lons that are brought in againft the Proof I have produc'd_, and then Ut before you a brief Comparlfon of the Argument and Hvi:- dence on the two oppofite Sides^ that you may be the better able to judge_, which ought to have the Preference. The mofl material ObjeBmu I have met with againft what has been ,advanc'd_, are thefe that follow : I. It is faid^ That fo great a Stir about fiich a Text as this^ is needlefs^ and what there is no Occafion for j becaufe the Do- d:rine of the Trmlty does not depend upon it. And I very readily grant (and have done it already) that it does not fo depend upon it^ as that it would ceaie to be credi- bie_, tho' this Text was intirely wanting : And yetj when many difcover fb little In- clination to this Dojflrine^ that they fet themielves to weaken the feveral Evidences that fupport it one after another^ in feve- ral different Ways^ I cannot perceive^ that it is at all unbecoming thofe that are con- vinc'd of the Truth of this Dodrine^ and fenfible how much it is interwoven with the whole Scheme of Chriltianity^ to be un- willing to part with any of the ufual Sup- ports of their Caufe^ with which they have hitherto fo well ftood their Ground, not- withftanding all the Attacks that have been made upon them, unlefs they are forp'd ■^o it. To me therefore that of F. Simon appears an odd Jnfmuation^ when l]e tells 1 John V. 7. J^tndicated. 509 U$y Thdit whether this Verfe be read in St. John*x Shrm. Epifiky as it is read by all the Greeks ayid La- tt j tins at prefentj or whether it be not ready we ^>-x^.-s^ may fiill prove the Senti?nent contrary to that of the Antitrinicarians, (that is^ we can prove a Trinity) becai/fe the Fathers from the fir ft Agc^ of the Churchy did apply to Fat her _, Son_, and JHoly Spirit^ the Teftimony of the Spirit y the JVa^ ter^ and the Blood ^ and proved ^ that the Terfons if the Trinity are one I'hi^gy by the Unity of thefe Three fVitneJJes '*'. To me,, I confcfs^ this looks more like Bantering than Reafoning. Our falling in with him in this^ would be a quitting a good and ftrong Argument for one that is weak and trifling ; a leav- ing an Argument that is natural^, for one that is extremely forc'd_, and can do no Servic#^ which is what I fhould think no one that is a Friend to Truth could yield to. We have an Infinuation much like this_, from Mr. IVhifton^ who tells us^ That the proving this Text jpurioHs^ will not ajfcti the reft of the New Teilament^ nor in- deed of this Epiftle f. But tho' it won't_, I can't perceive the Text debated_, is ever the lels genume. 2. 'Tis objeded by Zegerus 4-^ That he could not find that as to this Text^ any of the Ancients did in all Things agree with our Reading. Father Simon alfo ob- ferves^ That in the later Copies of St. Jc- Tom's Bible^ where this Text is added in the Margin^ the Order of the Words^ and the Three IFitnejJks is various and diverfe; which he * H//?. Crit. du Texte du N, T. pag- 215. t Eflay on th« Af oltolical Conftitudons, fag. 4ii." I Cajligat. in N, T. a^ E£. I Jok, cap, v. 7. ^lo I John V. 7. Vindicated. Sbrm. 1"^^ reckons a good Proof that they were III ' ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ Copies. And he obferves^ ijr^r-^*^ That leveral Copies ilrangely differ^ both in the nianmr of placing this Text^ and in the maimer of Reading it. They diifer in the inamicr , of flachg it. For in the Vulgar Tranflation^ this Verfe that fpeaks of the Witnefs of Father ^ Son^ and Holy Spirit ^ goes before that which mentions the Teitimony of the 6p/r/>^ and tht Water ^ and the Blood : But in fever al A^SS, the latter goes before the former. They differ alfo in the man- 72er of Reading. For in fbme Copies ''tis Teflmonhm dant^ and in Others Teftlmonium dl- cunt. And at the End of the 8th Verfe^ which contains the Witnefs of the Sfirlt^ the V/ater^ and the Bloody in fome Copies, thofe Words^ ii^ hi tres imum funt^ and thefe wbree are Ojie^ are omitted '^. Our late Inquirer alfo joyns in the fame Complaint^ and objeds^ That this Text IS in 'variom Shapes. In ^omey the Words in Heaven are n^antifig ; In others^ thefe Three are One : Sometimes the Sth Verfe comes before it^ and fometlmes ^tis as In our pre-- fent prhited Books : Somethnes ^tis in the Text^ fo?netimes In the Margin f,- From hence it is intimated^ that whatever may be faid in Fa- vour of itj it cannot be genuine. But if this is a good and fubilantial Reafon for difcarding this Text^ I am afraid we fhall be forc'd to expunge feveral other Texts at the fame Time^ for the fame Reafon -^ and of thisj any Man that with Care runs over the Various Readings of Dr. Mill's Teftament^ and F. Simons Critical Volumes^ will foon and * Bift. Crh. des Verfions du N. X pag. 113. t Bmi^ns Trads, J?4^. 4780 I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^ r i and cafily be convinc'd. This perhaps may Sp.KMi be agreeable enough to thof'e that being ttt weary of our Did Scripture 7ext and Dctir'me^ hope to ferve their Turn by 7icw moulding both : But we that are not tor quitting the Old Scheme^ till we are well aiTur'd we' have found a better^ mufi: be excused if we are not for expunging^ till we are forc'd to it. If the Certainty of this Text be to be this Way overthrcwn_, I doubt it will fare hard with the Beginning of St. John's Gofpel^, where Simon obferves_, That one flvgU Verfe^ that does not conta'm above fix or ftvtn JVords^ may he read in four different jVIanncrs^ iifbicW makes as many different Senfes^ as they are dffe- re7Jtly pointed-^ ivhich dff'ere7Jt Readings are all defended by ancient Authors "*^. iNiay^ if different Readings will jultify expunging^ we fliall have fo much Work upon our Hands^ that it will be hard to know when we have done. I doubt we muft then be content to part with the Twelve laft Verfes of St. A/^r/e's Gofpel ,• as to which Simon obierves tj that they are not to be found in many Greek MSS. Cajeta^i doubted of them : And Simon fays^ He might doubt of\m Pfpon the bare Authority of St. Jerom^ before the Cotmal of Trent had dctermm'd any thing of that Matter-^ becanfe that Father bottom' d his Judgment upon many Copies that he had read |. "That Father fays ttj> That the lafi Chapter of St. Mark "juas wanting In almofi all the Greek Copies. Euthymlus alfo in his Com- ment on Verfe 8^ of this i6th of St, Afark faysj that fome Interpreters fay_, that the Gofpel * Hiff Crit. du Ccmmcnt.du N, T. en p. iii. p,.5 2, t Hiji. Crit, duTexte du N. T. pag. 114. 4- Ibid. pag. 117. . , tt lihroji. fij Hcdib, Quarft. iiL Tom, IIL ^^H'^- 5 1 2 1 John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. Gofpel of St, Mark is here at an End^ and III* ^^^^ ^^^^^ foiiows is a later Addition. And \^y->,^^^ yet here_, ^/wo?^ himfelf could fay^ That lyg ought not to doubt of the Truth of this Chapter y Tvhich is as ancient as the Gofpel of St. Mark ttfelf ■*'. And he gives this as the Reafon of ir^ Becaufe the Greeks generally read them at this T>ay in their Churches ^ as appears from their Le- d:ionaries or Service-Books. And if this is a good Argument for the retaining thole Verfes_, I cannot fee why it fhould not e- qually hold for the Verfe I am upon^ which is read to the full as generally^ as that or €ny other Portion of Scripture whatever. And the Cafe is much the fame as to Twelve Verfes in St. Johns Gofpel^ from Chap. vii. ^5^ to Chap. viii. 11. containing the Hiftory of the Woman taken in Adultery^ which Verfes have much the fame OhjeBion made againit them with this Text. For Si- mon obfervesj that they are not in many Greek Copies in the Gofpel of St. John^ nor in fome Verfions of the Eafiern Church f. They are not in the Alexandrian MSS, any more than this Verfe 4.^ nor in the Syrlack Ver- fion tt- And yet they are own'd^ while this Verfe is difcarded. 'Tis the like alfo_, as to the Clofe of St. John's Gofpel f+tj ^^ which he does not fail to take Notice. But I fuppofe a main Rea- fon of the different Cenfures pafs'd by that Writer^ upon fuch Paffages as thefe men- tion'd^, and the Text I am upon_, was this ; That he did not find that thofe Places flood fo * Hifi, Crit. du Texte du N, T. pag. iii. t Hijl Crk. du Texts du N. T. pug. 141, HB^ i Ibid. rag. 147* tt i^'- P- 150. tit lh» p. »5 ^' John V. 7. Vindicated. fo much in his Way_, as this Text^ and there- fore he was more favourable there than here. However^ it well deferves our Obferva- tion_, That if different Readmgs in feveral Co- piesj be an Argument of Spurwufnefs ^ we mult not only part with Verle 7^ of this ift of St. John^ which I would fo willingly pre- ferve^ but with the 8th alfo^ that comes next to \ty as fond as thefe Critical Gentlemen are of retaining the one^ while they are fo warm for difcarding the other. This is plain from hence 3* becauie our Copies are not much better agreed as to the 8th Verfe 0^ this Chapter^ tnan they areas to the 7th. For in one of M. Colberts MSS. the Three that hear iVitnefs on Earthy are faid tO be Bloody mid Water ^ and FleOj ^ not Spirit y IFater^ and Bloody as we commonly exprefs them *. In fome Copies alfo^ thofe Words^ And thefe Three agree in One^ or are One^ are wanthig, after the Tellimony of the Spirit ^ the IVater'^ and the Blood f. I myfelf have feen a Latin MSS. of this Sort. And we are alfo told^ That in Bede's Copy, the Words are ; Ther^ ure Thr&e that bear Record^ the IVater^ the Bloody and tin Spirit ^ initead of Toree that bear Record on Earth |. This lait Remark as to Bede, has before been obferv'd to be a Miftake, However, 'tis plain enough, that if this 7th Verfe is to be expung'd becaufe of the 'various Readings ^ fo alfo muft the 8th for much the fame Reafon. And if we go on at this Rate^ we Ihall at length make the New L 1 Tefiament * Bljl. Crit. dti Texts dii N, T. pag, 210. t Hift. Crit. desVerfions du N, T. |pag, 113, i Emljni Tra(^s, ffig. 49a. I John V. 7* Vindicated^ Tefiament 3. weu' one indeed. But if the 8th Verfe here might h^ genuine ^ and is own'd for fuch^ notwithftanding thefe feveral parlous Readings^ I cannot fee why this 7th Verfe alfo^ may not both be^ and be own'd to be genuincy notwithitanding all the Varieties men- tioned^ which are only a few more. For why fhould fuch different Readlvgs be a great- er Proof of Sfurloujnefs in the one Cafe than in the other? Again^ 3. It is objeded^ That fuch Evidence as is brought againlt this Verfe^ would be |udg'd efficient againll any Paifage in any Claffick Author whatever. Would not^ fays our Inquirer^ fuch a Taffage prefently be fronouncd fpuriousy and be brought under a Deleatur by the unanimous Folce of the Crltlcks^ when they had no Concern in ity but to judge jvhat is true and ge* nulne^ and what not ? Nay^ would a Court of Ju- dicature allow any Paragraph to be good^ in a Wri" tmg of Confequence^ for which no more^ and a- p-ainfi which fo much can be fairly fat d } And will not the fame Sincerity and Impartiality well become us in thlsy which we cannot oitly well juflify ^ but commend in the Examination of other Writings ? Shall we prefs Men to take that for Evidence here y 7vhlch will pafs no where elfe * ? I anfwer^ Crltlclfm^ when we make the very bell of it that we can^ or that it will bear^ is a very frecarlous Art ; and ifwe may judge of it by the Practice of the greatell and moft plaufible Pretenders to it^ it leaves as much Room for Fancy^ and Prejudice^ and PrepolTeffion^ as any Art whatever. Tho' there are many that pretend to give ftrid Rules^ there are few Crlticks can be found that keep to them. Nay> * Emlpii Trads, ^n^. 34^, /•"Vs*^ I John V- 7. T^indicated. 5 r C Nay^ the belt of 'em ftiil have fuch Efcapes_, Sfrm. as plainly fhevv tiiat m the midft cf all their t.tt Pretences to Exadnefs^ they could either find or make Room for Favour and AfTedi- on. Father Simon himfelf, who is by Ibme made the Standard of ficred Criticlf???^ tells us^ That the Defign of thoje that ufe the Art of Critl- ciz.h'gy IS not to defiroy^ but to ejfablijli * ; And yet I am apt to think that any Man that runs over his Writings_, will readily con- clude^ that he wa^ too forgetful of this Dc- fign^ and that he was one to whom fettling and cftablijlnngy was not any thing near fa agreeable_, as overthrowing^ unfettiing^ and. dejhoylng. And he that takes a conhderate View of the Cenfures of our Crltkh upon Clajfick Authorsy and obferves^ how inconfi- ftent and contradictory they often are^ and how full of fanciful Cavils^ and iil-natur'd Reflections^ will hardly think th?m remark- able for tlie Certainty A zhnr M^afures : Nor is it an eaiy Thing to mention a Cafe of Importance^ in which their Voice is r/;^ :;//-^ mous. And therefore their Methods afford but a poor Foundation for a fblid Argu- ment.. The Proceedings indeed of Courts of Judicature^ are a little more regular : And jret even they in many Cafes are of Necef- lity fway'd and govern "d '^y B-obalUUles^ and fuch Probabilities too^ as leave i plain Pof- fibility of Miftake and Deceit^ when they have done their bell^ and gone the farthelt they are able. Thus with Refped to the lall Wills and Teftaments of deceased Perfons^ which molt certainly are IVrltlngs of Confe- quence^ a Paragraph that gives away Hun- L 1 2 dreds Preface a PHifi, Crit. du Tcxte dii K T. 5i6 I John V. 7. Vindicated. Seem, dreds and Thoufands^ fliall be allow'd to be III. good and authentkk^ if credible Perlbns^ ac- ^^/-y^ quainted with the Hand of the Tefiator ^ make Oath t hat they believe it to be his own Hand Writing. And yet fuch a Paragraph (as it may fall out) may have lefs that can be fairly laid for the Reafonablenefs of it^ than is alledg'd in the Cafe under Confi- deration. I am far therefore from thinking this Argument conclufive. Perfons may Hill be fincere and impartial^ and yet hold this Text to ht genuine. Simon himfelf owns^ that this Verfe is at trefent read m all the Latin Co- pes *. And tnis I Ihould think^ might well be allow'd to pais for inconteltible Evidence^ in the Cafe of thofe that own tht Aathen^ tlcknefs of the Latin Verfion. And tho' it is not altogether fo good an Evidence^ in the Cafe of thofe that are of another Opini- on^ it may yet be fairly allow'd to have its Weight with Refped to them alfo^ till bet- ter Evidence is produc'd than has yet been given^ that it is a Corruption. And when all IS done_, Dr. Roger f^ and fome others^ as good Judges perhaps as our Inquirer^ are of Opinion^ That the Genulnenefs of this Text may he jufilffd^ by the ftrl^ Laws of Oi- ticlfm. Again_, 4. Whereas from Dr. Grahe and others^ it has been cfFer'd sls no improbable Thing, That fome of the firil Tranfcribers of this EpiitlCj might overlook this 7th Verfe^ and that might be the Occafion of its being omit- ted in thofe that were copy'd after 'em ,* and hintedj that the Silence of the Greek Father* as to this Textj and its not being found in Creek Copies, might in a great Meafure he this * Hifl. Crit. des Verfions du N. T. pag. 109. i Vide DJJferi^t. Crit. IhsologicJn i John v, 7, p. 4, I John V. 7. Vindicated. 517 this Way accounted for ; it is objeded^ That Seri^. we may reafonably fuppofej that the firll jjj^ Jranfcrlbers ot St. Johns Epiftle^ knowing how v/^*^^ much was depending^ would be more care- ful in viewing and examining their Tran^ fcriptSy than to have omitted fuch a Paflage as this '*'. This is reprefented as the more Probable^ becaufe of a foleran Adjuration which Irenausy who was one of the oldeft Fa^ thers of the Chriftian Church 3 has added to his own Writings^ in order to the Itriking an Awe upon fuch as fhould tranfcribe them. For in his Works we meet with thefe very folemn Words f • ^ adjure thee who Jlialt tran- fcribe this Book J by the Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious Appearance to judge the ^ilck and the Dead^ that thou compare after thou hafi tranfcrib'^dy and amend it by the Original 'very carir' fully. And we are told^ That thefe aivful Words of this Father y Jljew us what Senfe they had In thofe early Times ^ of the NeceJJity of comparing their Trarif- firipts with the Originals. And it is leTt to be ga- ther'dj that if they took fuch Care of the Tranfcripts of their own Works ^ they could not but be much more careful of thofe of the facred Volumes ^ '• which were fo much more 'valuable and important. But to this 'tis eafily anfwcr'd^ That notwithftand- ing fuch a folemn Adjuration as this^, hard- ly any Thing was more common than 7f^«- fcribing without exacSl Collatings aye^ and thaq mangling^ changing^ and altering too^ the Works that were tranfcrib'd : And hardly any Works have in this Refped fuffer'd more than thofe of Irenaus ^ fo little Force had his Adjuration to reftrain. And if in thi^ Refped: cur facred Volumes have fufFer'd lef$ than other Writings^ (which is what he tha^t J-. I 3 carefully ^ Bmlyn\ Trads, fag. 340c t Inn, 0^, ex ^dit, fjuafdfntli. pag.- 5.?? |>^ I John V. 7- Vindicated. carefully ccmpares^ will lind Reafon to own) it mull be afcrib'd to the fpecial Providence of Almighty Go D3 in Favour of his Church and PeopL^3 who had a great deal more de- pending on thefcj than on any other Wri- tings v/hatever. A Man might certainly be very hcneft^ and yet in too much Haite to be exac^tj at the Tiaie when he tranjcrlb^d St. John's Epifliej and might unhappily omit this Verfe^ while another Tranfcrlba infei ted it : And the Original might be fent away to Tarthla^ before there was an exact Collation of fome of the Tranfcripts with it ; and it might be at too great a Diftance to leave Room for it afterwards^ in fuch hazardous Times as thofe in which the Primitive Chriftians iiv'd. And when its added^ That V// not -very likely J that all the Tranfcrihers^ or many of them^ jlwuld make the fame Mlftake '^ \ 'Tis eafily re- ply'd^ That one Tranfcriher's making this Mi- llakCj might (as Circumftances flood) be fufficient to affecl the ' feveral Co;?/Vj of the Greek Fathers that were taken from it^ which could not have it, if they were taken from a Tranfcript that Omitted it^ any more than the Copies of the African Fathers could be fuppcs'd to omit itj if they were taken uom a^Trarjfcr/pt that inferted it. But the:n farther^ 5". WHf.REASj, borrowing M. il/^r/i;^'s Ex- preffionj I mention d a Cloud. of M^lt7iej]es in, Africa^ in the Confcjfion of Faith that was pre- tinted hy .Eugenlus Bifhop of Carthage ^ to Hm-r nerlck- the. Vandal King^ An. 484^ on which I have laid a conilderable Strefs^ and 1 think no: undefervedly ^ it is objeded by our In- Emlyn\,Tx2^<^%y fag. 341. I John V. 7. Vindicated, 5 1 9 ^tnrer^ That this Cloud of WltneJJes^ for what appears_, may be but an Hand's Breadth^ Jlrree or Four only^ without any Warrant from the ^uhllck Copies *. But methinks_, he that can take the Liberty to lay this^ may fay e'en jufl what he pleafes. As for that Confefflon^ we have as good Evidence as need to be defir'd^ that- it was prefented by a confiderable Num- ber^ and that in very critical Circumllances. They that prelented it were expos'd to the utrnolt Hardfhips^ on the account of their ad- hering to it. At fuch a Time^ if ever^ one would exped that Men fhould be in Earneft, and fo careful in Searching into Matters^ as to be fully fatisfy^d they went upon good Grounds in adhering to it^ before they of-- fer'd to concurr. No Man that met up* on that Occafionj, or had any Concern in Drawing up_, Prelenting^ or Spreading that ConfeJJion^ could tell but it might colt him his Life. And there is very little Likelihood they would be io Fool-hardy^ if they were not very clear as to the Truth of what was declar d with fuch an Appearance of Solem- nity. It v/as not Three or Four only that were ingag'd in this Affair ^ but all the 77-/- nltarlan Bifhops in and about Africa^ appear Xo have counted it a common Concern. And (as has been already obferv'd) Gennadlus of MarfelUeSy who liv'd and flourifli'd about the Year 495-3 and drew up, and publifh'd a Book of Ecclefiafilcal Writers ^ or Catalogue of Famous Men, in which he began where St. Jtrom left off, tells us in fb many Words^ That this ConfeJJion was drawn up with the (^ommon Conient of ail the Bifhops and Con- I. I 4 feflbr§ ? Emlyns Trads, f^g^ 490^ ^20 I John V. 7. Vindicated. ShRM» feffors of Africa^ Mauritania ^ Sardinia and Cor-- III. fi^'^y ^^^ were more likely to be Three or ^^,^Y'>^ Four Score (not to fay Hundreds) than but Three or Four. And I think I may venture to fay^ that thefe all togetherj make a Cloud much too large to be blown away with the Breathy or Affirmation^ of any one that in- clines to reduce and leflen their Number^ out of Diflike of their Trlnclples. And for any Man to infmuate^ that in. fuch a Cafe as theirs^ they would venture to infert this Text in their CoJifcJJiov,, 'without any Warrant from the fubllck Copies ^ is a wilder Suppofition ty far^ than any the Inquirer can juftiy charge on thofe whom he moll warmly oppofes ; for it is a fuppofmg them to take a Method to ferve their Caufe^ which they might ea- fily be able to forefee was likely to bring effectual Ruin both upon that and themfelves too_, if it was once difcover'd. And I don't fee how they could expeift to prevent a Dif- ccvery^ when the collating their Affertion with the fuhllck Copies^ was a Thing fo far from having any Difficulty in it^ that no- thing could be more natural or eafy. St. Jtifiin its true, feems to have been a Stranger to this Textj but that (as has been obferv'd) was owing tp the old Itallck Verfion^ in which it was not to be found^ tho' that was not the only publick Copy that was us'd m Africa, And our not hearing of any thing like an Ohje^hn ftarted againft thefe African Fathers upon this Occailon^ as if they went about to impofe a fpurlous Text^ is to me a better Evidence that they were warranted by the fuhlick Copies^ than any that hag yet been of- fer'd by our Inquirers or Cavillers to the con- trary. And tho' lome may perhaps take the J^iberty to grace this Tcxt^, upon this Ooca- I John V. 7. Vindicated^ 52 1 iiOHj, with the Title of an African MonfieTy Serm. (which is a molt unfeemly and undecent ttt \ Expreflion in a Cafe of this nature) yet I v,^,.^^^ can't fee any likelyhocd of their this way^'^"^*'^^ doing the leait Service to the Caufe they are ingag'd in^ be it what it will. For no Weaknels can be greater^ in the Judgment of Men of fenfe^ than to fuppofe the giv- ing hard Names will fupply the Place of Trutfi? Once more^ we are told in the^ Vlth place^ that there are three Things that are fatal to our caufe ^ three great Jifad-* "vantages y under which 7ie labour and fink ^ • and they are thefe : That we cannot pro- duce one Genuine Greek Writer that ever cited this Text ^ nor any one Manufcript Greek Copy where this Text is at this Day to be found 5' nor one credible Witnefs that ever diredly faid he had at any time feen ai;iy one particular Greek Manufcript in which this Text was ^ or defcrib'd it by any Mark of Diitindion^, by^which it may be known up- on inquiry after it. And with this it feems to be expected that we fliould be for ever filenc'd. But as much as our Inquirer here triumphs^ I cannot perceive that we are deftitute of a fufficient Reply to each of thefe three Articles. For_, I. As to a Greek Writer citing this Text^ I have before inltanc'd in Maximus^ who is generally held to be the Author of the Dis- pute at the Council of iV7c^^ which bears the Name of Athanafius^ which is much at one with a Genuine Greek ^Writer in the 7th Century j and in the Lateran Council in which there were fo many Greeks^ ia he owns had in his Hands^ (which by the Way de- ferves that Gcntlemans notice^who will Icarce allow him to have had any in his Hands st all) more MSS. of the New Teftament than Erafmusy and he acknowledges he was af- fiited with the Pains of the two Ste^hens's^ Robert and Henry ^ and yet he fays^, he did net know the equalities of his Copies ^ and therefore was miftaken. And whereas our Bifliop Bur- mt tells us in his Account of his Travels, that he took fome Pains to examine all the ancient MSS. of the Ne7iJ Teftament that came in his way^ concerning this Text^ our Prag- matical father fets himfelf down in liis Dictators Chair^ and like an Inthro^ied Cricick prefently reads his Doom^ and declares that by his 'i2;orksy that Ft elate whofe Memory is {0 celebrated among us^ daes not appear ei^ tber to ha-ve been a Ciitlck or an able Dlz':?ie *, And the Refult of the whole feenis to be tliis^ that he could better judge what other Men faw, than they themfelves ; and thac tho* others might lee a Variety of MSS. as well as he ^ yet he only was fit to judge concerning them. And is not this intolera- ble I Is fo Worthy an ancient Protcitant Divine * Hijl. Crip, dss Vyrfions du N, T. c. Ix, p. 104, 105 52(^ I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. Divine as M. Martin^ when grown old m the III. Service of God and his Church according \y,^>^>^ to th^ Purity of his Gofpel^ to be infulted^ for being fo bold as to fet himfelf to con- front fuch a Champion of the Fhilifilncs as this^ who has bid open Defiance to the Armies of the Living God ! But I forbear. I mult confefsj I reckon it no very diffi- cult Thing to name feveral credible Wit- neffes _, that have own'd they have feea this Text in feveral Greek MSS. Nay^ I have nam'd feveral already. I cannot but reckon Erafm74s for one_, tho' cur Inquirer denies it^ and falls out even with his belov'd Friend Simon for owning it '^. For when Simon fays_, That Erafmus faw the Codex BrUannlcu; ^ from whence he inferted this Verfe in the third Edition of his Greek Te/ament^ he asks^ fV/jere does Erafmus fay fo ? I anfwer^ Tho' in his Annotations he only fays^ There is found oite Greek MS. amo^ig the Englifli ovh'ich has it; yet that is in effed the lame v/ith declar* ing that he himfelf had feen it : Which I take to be plain enough from Simons, Ac- count of Erafmtis's Anfwer to Titelman^s Obje- d:ions againlt his New Teframent.. For that Friar objetling againil his Way of rendring Rom, V. 12. where he ufed peccaz^imus inltead of fecca^erunty Erafmus anfwer s^ That It '^vas fo In the Greek yliS. which he hud read In England. This in all Probability was the ve- ry fame MS. as that Author referrs to^ up- on this Text of St. John : And I Ihall con- tinue of this Mind^ till I fee good Reafon to the contrary. I take Robert Stephens for another that faw this Text in a Greek MS, if not in feveral. And Emlynh Tradts, png. 327. I John V. 7. Vindicated. 527 And not to lay my Strefs on what our Incjuirer has fo much objeded againitj, I give this good Reafon for my being of thisMind_, That that celebrated Printer (vvhofe Veracity in the Cafe I fee no Reafon to call in queftion) m his Account of his fine Edition of the Greek Tefiament in i$*49j declared that he had gotten fome Copies^ that were almofi to be adored for their Antiquity ^ from which he did ?iot "vary Co much as In a Letter. Now fhould he af- ter iuch a Declaration in his fhort Treface^ add a whole Yerfe that he did not find in any of them^ he muft not only 'vary confi- derably^ but muft be a downright Falfifier, and guilty of (iich grofs Forgery^ as that no- thing that came from him could afterwards deferve the leaft Regard or Notice. Nor can I help reckoning Laurentlus Valla SLndBez,a of the Number ot thofe that faw this Text in Greek A£SS\ whatever our Inquirer has objeded to the contrary. And Dr. Ro- ger '*' has pubhfii'd it to the World^ that the celebrated Father le Long had alTur'd him^That Dr Tcard an Injh Dean had given it him un- der his Hand^ that this Text was in a Dub- lin MS. And at length M. Martin has print- ed an Atteltation under the Hand of Mr. Lewis the Library Keeper^ that it is in the MS. aforefaidj that is in his Cuftody^ and an exad Extracl of it. And if our hiqulrer will ftill complain^ That ?io one credible Wit- nefs can be froduc\l that e^ver dlreEily fald^ he had at any Time jeen any one particular Greek Manufcript^ in which this Text was to be found y it will be hard to know what will give him Satisfadion. He * DiJJemt, Qrit, Theolog. de \ John V. 7. §. XXIIL tag. UQ, 528 I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. He referrs us indeed to Dr Bentkys de- III ^gii'^ Edition of the New Tefiamcnt^ for ^^^^^i^J, clearer Light, in this Matter *^ and Com- pliments him with the Title of the tranfcendevt Critical Genlm of this Age ,• of which Title he may eafily happen to be Itrip'd again^ if it Ihould fo fall out that he fliould crofs our Inquirer in his Scheme : And by what as yet appears^ he is likely more to dilFcr from him^ than agree with him. For my part^ I fliall be very thankful for the additional Light that comes this Way^ and very ready to make the belt Ufe of it that may be. In the mean Time from what of the Dodor's is already publiih'd about this Matter^^ it appears that he reckons the Fate of this Verfe to be a mere ^efilon of Faci^ Whether or no it was known in the IVth Century ? Perhaps it may be fo : And yet I can't tell whether the Way which the Dc6tor propcfes_, will give the Inquifitive all the Satisfaction that is defir'd. He has given us to underftand that he in- tends to make St. Jerome true Latin Exem- plar_, which he has adjufted to the belt Greek Copies^ the Standard by which to judge whe- ther this Text be genuine or [furious. And if we make St. Jerom the Standard^ 'twill be a Refledion on our Inquirers Friend Simon^ who affures US_, That that Fathei' either a^proi;es or difapproves a Way of Readings in different Places^ according as he needs it in the Matter he is treat-^ hjg of f. If St. Jerom's true Latin Exemplar can be come at, it muft be own'd it will de- ferve to be well confider'd : But I don't know that we are under any Obligation to allow, that * EmlyrCs Trads, fag, 483, 484. t Bifi, CriP, dffjprfmsdH iV. T. pag. 59, 6gl I John V. 7. Vindicated. 529 v-^V^ the Text fliould fiand or fall by that alone. Serm. For fome Latin MSS, as Simon himfelf ob- ttt ferves *_, have been correded from Greek Copies very diiferent from that which was ufed by St. Jerom. Thus we find MSS. in which as well as cur common Copies^ this Claufe is added at the End of the Lord's Fraj- cr ^ For Thine is the Kingdom^ and the Tower ^ and the Glory y for e'uer and e'ver * and yet it is cer- tain that thefe Words are not in St. Jerom\ Edition^ nor were they in the moft ancient and corred Gr^e^ Copies^ and particularly not in that of Orlgen^ which he commonly fol- lows. And perhaps upon ftrid Search^ it might not be very Difficult to pick up fe- veral Inftances of the fame Kind. But itill how it fliould come about that this Inquirer Ihould be fo fond of the Learned Dodor^ is hard to fay^ feeing he frankly adds at the End of his Letter^ That let the FaH prove ho7i/ it wllly the DoBrine Is unjlmken. For my Part I muft own it beyond my Skill to difcern how there can be any great Harmony between Two Perfons^ where One Itands firm to the common Dodrine of the Trinity^ whatever be- comes of the FijB^ with Refped to this par- ticular Text ; while the other therefore fets himfelf to difprove the F/2<^' as to this Text, on Purpofe that he may be able with the more Advantage to fliake the commonly re- ceiv'd Doctrine, That Father ^ Son^ and Holj Spirit y are but 0;?e God. But I cannot per- ceive but for any Thing that has been hi- therto offered, both Fad and Do^rlne may be allowed to remain unihaken. M m And :^ DiferUP. Crif, fur Us ^^S. du N. T. p. 74. ^30 I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm* And now^ that I may bring the Matter withia a, narrow Compafs^ I fhail a httlq compare, the Argument and Evidence on the- two oppolke Sides together^ which may be worth ourwhile^ becaufe it may the better Help us to pafs a Judgment. And here we may make fuch Remarks as thefe : If they that are againll this Text have fame Advantages that favour thenij fa have^ we. If they plead the general Unacquaint- ednefs of the earlieit Ages with theie Words j we may plead the Connexion is for us_, ani tliat there is a plain Chafm leftj fuppofi ng this Verie to be wanting. If it be a Difad- vantage on our Side3 that this Text has been fo little own'd by Greek Writers , I think it cannot fairly be difown d to be no fmall Dif- advantage on their Side^ that whatever it was formerly ^ this Text has been generally own'd both among Greeks and Latins^ now for fever al Hundred Years^ with very little Oppofition. If their ylccoimt of the coming In of this Text he itatural and eafy ^3 I think our Ac- count of the fo great Silence about this Text 15 very poffible and pl^in. If we are not without our Difficulties ; neither muft they pretend to it. If it be difficult on our Side^, to anfwer Objections from its not being ufed where it was much needed, and might have been very uleful^ and where the very next Verfe is cited ^ it is not a Jot lefs difficult on their Side^ to give any tolerable Account how fuch a Text as this Ihould (lip in with- out Obfervation and Oppofition. If the Confequences of either retaining or quit-- ting this Text be put in the Balance toge- ther^ * Bnljni,uTi:z,di^,fdg, 3,1 1, I John V. 7. Vindicated. ther^ I cannot fee but we muft keep our Bibles in this Refped unalter'd. For if we retain this Text^ the worft that can follow is this j That we own for Scripture^ what leveral that liv'd in the Ages before us leem to have known nothing of; Whereas if we quit it^ we fhall be in no fniall Danger of being at length drawn to fall in with Simons darling Principle^ of ecjuallhg TradHlon imth Scriftnrey and making the Certainty of the latter^ depend upon the former. The Evi- dence which they that are againft this Text infiit molt upon is more Negati^ve ; while ours that is for this Text^ is more Tojitlve, 'Tis not; (fay they) alledg'd by the Greek Fa- thers, 'tis not in the Old f'^erfamy 'tis not in the Greek MSSy and therefore Ws not gemihie. This Confequence, fiy we^ is far from be- ing certain. It might ftill he genuine ^ and at ftrit inlerted^ tho- afterwards undeiignedly omitted by one of the firft Tranfcrlbers, \n the mean time (as we have feen) 'twas quo- ted by fome of the firft Latin Fathers^ and when it was openly alledg'd^ pafs'd current^ and was readily receiv'd. 'Tis pleaded how- ever^ That their Evidence is as good as we can well require for a Negative 3- and that there muft be great Weight to caufe an ^yEquUlhrlum y and much more to turn' the Scales *. And that greater Weight we think we have ; becaufe they that firmly ad- hered to the Docftrine of the Trinity^ could not well add this Text if they would; and we have no Reafon to think they would if they could; becaufe they did not need it, aad could gain nothing by it^ which they M m 2 might \ Eml)n\ Tradb, fag, 3x7. 532 I John V. 7. Vindicated. Serm. might not reach without it j which I think TTT * may be allow'd more than juft to turn the ^^r-Ji^ Scale. If they charge us with making nn- reafonahle Suffofitlcns in the Profecution of this Argument ; we have as much Reafon or more^ to charge them with unaccountable E-va- fans. Thus when we plead^ That this Text was quoted by a Number of grave Suffer ere for the Truth of the Gofpel^ upon as Ib- lemn an Occalion as could well be fuppos'd^ in Oppofition to the raging Arlans^ all the Return -made is this ; That a Is no Wonder If this Text creeping into private Books in Ages of Darknefs and Corfufion^ we jljould find no lAottce remaining of any Ofpoftion of theirs y to what did not offend 'em '*. Than which nothing could be more jejune and precarious ,* efpecially when it is known that nothing could offend them more. And finally^ The Enemies of this Text fet up one Man in Oppofition to the » reft of the Learned Worlds and he as unfit a Perfon as could be pitch'd upon to be a Guide to Trotefiants^ and that is^ Father Simon ; who had fo great an Averfion to VroteftantSy as fuch^ that he not only takes all Occafions to expofe and cenfure tiiem^ and run them down_, but could difficultly prevail with him- felf in any of his Writings to give a tole- rable Character of any Learned Man they had amongft them^ wnen they came in his Way. As Archbifhop Tlllotfon gives it as a juft Charader of our Countryman Mr. Hobbcsy That he did ?nore by his Writings to debauch the Age with Athelftlcal Principle Sy than any Man that liv'd * £ml)ifs Trads- £/ig, 47.5, I John y. 7. Vindicated. 5^^ Uvd hi it befides : So may I upon as good Grounds_, give it as a true Character orthat French Father^ That he has done more towards the 'iveakn'ing and undermining the Authority of the Holy Scriptures^ than any ti'riter of the Age. He fiaciy denies^ that Mofes wrote the ?e»- tatetich. He makes the Authority of our Pivinely infpired Writings^ to depend up- on the Church ,• and boldly equals Tradi- tion with them : And this Principle runs through all his Writings. It appears to have been the grand Deiign of all his Critical Works_, to weaken the Certainty of Scrip- ture_, on the Account of its having been fo much -altered. And if our Rule once comes 10 fail uSj our Religion which is to be regu- lated by that Rule, vv'ill Toon become the ni^c-ft wild and looie^ and precarious and uncer- tain Thing in the World. And yet this Man is admir'd^ applauded^ and adher'd to by the Enemies of this Text^ in Oppoiition to the Body of Men of Letters^ ever fmce the Revival of Learning in thefe Parts of the World ; the Wifdom cf which I cannot un- derlland. After all^ our Injuirer hopes 770 candid Man 7plll fay, he is Lnmodft, in pronouncing this Text doubtful ^ : Nor fliould I have done it, if that would have contented him,, and he had gone no farther : But for him to infinuate^ That there is 7iot one toUrahle Rrettnce of any ancient Authority for it f y ^^d that fuch as ftill adhere to this Textj facrifice Truth and Yiety to the Ig^ norance and Ver^erjtpefs of Min ; and appear fo take more Care of themjil^'cs, than of the Inter efi c/' Christ and his Religion 4.^ and are guilty M m 5 ^ of — ■ ' '•■ -■-■ ■ - " • ■ ' ■ -t - " - "■ " ' ' t» * Emly7is Trads, fag. 516. s^V^O 53^ I John V. 7. Vindicated. SeRM» o{ flitting falfe Colours upon Tvhat they know they TTi"^ cannot jt^fi'^fys ^^d fe eking to deceive Men In fa- cred Matters *: This is a fort of Carriage that can hardly be reconcil'd with Decency and Modefty^ or even common Juftice. 'Tis perfedly outragious. I hope what 1 have ofFer'd^ may convince feme others^ as it does me^ That it is much more frchahle that this Paffage came from St. John:, than that it did not ,• which is fut- iicient in a Cafe of this Nature^ where there js no Room for Demonfiratlon^ and all that can be expected is a preponderating TrohchUlty. Who- ever is convinced of this^ ought in my Ap- prehenfion^ to receive and detend {his Text as genume^ againft all Gainfayers j whom I ihould think however^, it became to be mo- deft in their Oppofition^ confidering what a Stream of Witneifes they have running a- gainft them. An d now I take the Liberty to repeat a for- mer Motion t) "t^^*^- That fmce it is ib evident we mufl be forc'd to take Pains for this Text^ if well keep and defend it^ we fliould hearti- ly blefs God that it is not fo with a great many other Texts. We might have had a great many as much contefted as this^ and lb been under a Neceffity of clearing them from being fpurloiu^ before we could argue from them^ Tor the Proving of Truth or the Refuting of Error ; and we ought to be thankful that it is otherwife. This^ conii- dering our Diftance from the Time when the lacred Writings of the New Tcfiament were drawn up^ and the many Defigns that have been againlt 'em^ and the many Acci- dents Emlyns Traces, fng. 349. \ See Serm. I. p.4H« I John V- 7. Vindicated, 53^ dents they have been expos'd to^ in the Ages they have fince pafs'd through^ is ve- ry wonderful_, and therefore well deferves our Notice. It was not poflible but that in io large a Book as the New Ttflamenty there fiiould ill fo many Years as have pafs'd fince it was finifli'd^ be a great many Various Read- ingSy through the Negligence^ Carelefsnefs and Hafte^ and fometimes alfo the Defign of th^Travfcrlbers. But all has been lo over- rul'd by our Good God^ that we need not upon tliis account be Ihaken in any Thing of Moment. The more we turn this in our Thoughts^ the more Reafbn we fhall hnd to admire it. The Faplfis very commonly tell us. That unlefs we believe the infallible Aui- thority of their Churchy vye can't be alTur'^ that any Parcel of Scripture vyas written by Dh'lne Injplrat/on; and this principle of theirs runs through all Simons Critical Wri- tings. But this Principle is impious^ and would leave no Ground for the Belief of the Divinity of Scripture. For there neither is nor can be any Ground for believing their Church infalllhle, unlefs wq firft believe the Scripture Dix;/?;^. Let us blefs Go d^ that we have been otherwife initruded ,• and that tho' UfaUlhilhy IS defervedly difcarded^ we yet up- on confidering all Circumftances_, can find fb much Reafon to adhere to the Scriptures^ as they have been delivered down to us by thofe that have gone before us^ and that in this particular Text as well as others : And let us take Care to improve it^ as it \s profitable for ^ j^^^^^- Dothine, for Reproof, for Corr^cflon^ for Inftru- ^j^ ^^ ^lo7} In R'lghteoufnefs, * M i^ 4 Hi^u 537 S E R M O N IV I John V. 7. For there are Three that hear Record in Heaven^ the Fa- THERj theWoKDj and the Holy Ghost ; and thefe Three are One. ^SAVING ofFer'd what I take to be Salters" ^|H fufficient to prove this Text to be hall, T^^/ genuine and autbentlck^ in Oppofition to ^^y Lec- thofe who would willingly have it expung'd ^^^^\ ! out of the Bible ^ I now proceed to the true ^^^' ^^^ and proper Senfe, Intention^, and Inter- ^^^^' pretation of the Words^ that we may be the better able to under ftand and improve them. And here I propofe, I. T o confider what the Wltnejjtng or bear^ ing Record^ that is here mention'd_, in«» timates and carries in it. I|T9 538 I John V- 7. SerM. .v,Mr|' IV. 11- To inquire^ Who the Wh^efes ;^^cth2Lt x.x->^^»-^ are declar'd to I^ear Record-? •->'■. rj^,,^ .. in. To. ihevvwh^t we are Pointed to by being told ^ That thefe Witnelles are Three. IV. To confider what it is tliit thefe Jf^it^ 7tc.j]es* d.6 attefi joy ntly or fever ally y. To inquire^ What we are to undcr- ftand by their being faid to be WitjKJjes,^ or to hear Record m Heaz^^en. .. VI- To fhew how^ and in- what Sen^ .fhefe Jhhe are One. And by that Time we have gone through thefe Heads^ I hope we ill all find no. Dif- ficuity as to the true Senfe of thefe Words remaining. I. I begin with confidering what the7f7^r- neJJiTig or bearing Record^ that is here raen- tion'd^ intimates and carries in it. t^^^ hatv 0/ ^JLAfTvo^vn^ ; There are T^hrce Witfie\Jes' vr T'efih fiers. When there is a Caufe depending in any Court_, and Proof is to be given in or- der to the clearing it^ Witneffis are produced ; and if they are credible^ and liable to no juft Objedion^ the Caufe is determin'd ac:- cording to the Evidence they give_, unleft they to whom it belongs to determine the Matter_, are partial and byafs'd. Now St. John aiming at eftabhfliing and fettling thofe to whom he wrote this his firlt Epiflle^ re- prefents the Caufe depending before them as very weighty ; a Caufe of fuch Confequence, that it highly concerned them to weieh ali Efcplain'd and Opend. Matters well^ before they came to a Deter- mination. It was really no lefs a Matter than whether Chriftianity was a Truth or a Forgery : And he intimates to them, that they had very good Evidence to affiil them in determining. There were Two Setts of U^it77ej]esy the One above, and the Other be- low ,• and both of them unexceptionable. The One was of Perfons, and the Other of Things, which by a Figure are reprefcnt- ed as WitneJJes. And he calls upon them to confider well and weigh their E'vldenccy as they would not be juftly chargeable with a grols Miilake in the Determination of the Caufe, which might be fatal to them. The Wltncjjing then, or bearing Record^ here men- tion'd, is the giving Evidence in this great Caufe, in order to the full Satisfac^iion of all concern'd in it : And the Evidence is repre- fented to be as full, and clear, and inconte- liable, as could reafonably be defir'd, even in as weighty a Caufe as could fall under Con- fideration. Let us then, 2. Consider who thek PFitneJJes are that are declar'd to heat- Record^ or give their Te- ftimony. Thefe are no lefs Perfons than tbe Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghdit : Perfons with whom none that had the leaft Knowledge of Chr'ifilanhj ^coxAdi be unacquain- ted. The mentioning them as IVitneJjes^ is apt to Itrike us at the firft Hearing : For thefe are the very Perfons in whofe Na7'ne we were h0ptiz,\l^ and to whom we have been moil folemnly demoted. There is this only Difference to be obferv'd. That the lecona If^/tnefs mentioned, has another N^?ne here gi- ven him, from that which He has in the pre- fcribed Fojm of Baptijm. There He is calfd the Son^ but here the W^rd : a Name or Title which ^4-3 I John r. 7. gERM, which St. Jofm feems to have taken a parti- JY^ Gular Pleafure in givmg to Christ Jesus. v^^,^^^^ He begins with it in the very firft Verfc of his Gofpel^, where he declares. That m the Beginning was the VVord_, and the Word 3Z'^j with GoD^ and the Word.a^/?/ GoD. And he re- b peats it again, Verfe 14, of the fame Chap- ter, faying^ Tbe Word was made Flejh^ and dwelt -among tis. He alfo enters upon this E^ piftle with It, faying. We declare unto you that ovhich was from the Beginnings which we have l^card^ which we have Jcen with our Eyesy which we have looked upon^ and our Hands have handled cf the Word of Life, And he mentions it again in his Apocalypfe^ where he fays^ He oi'as Rev. XIX. cloathed with a Vefiure difd In Bloody and his ]S!^ame 3f3. is called the Wo]:do^ GoD: That ijS, of God the Father, So that we cannot be at a Lofs, who it is the Apovtle here means by the fe- cond WltJiefs^ whom he calls the Word^ any niore than by the firfl, whom he calls the Fa- ther» And tlien as for the third IVitnefsy the Holy Ghofiy He would not be mention'd fepa- rately from the other Two, if He was not diftinct from Both : And He is fo reprefent- ed, both in the Account we have given us in the Gofpel Hiflory of cur Saviour's ^^/?- tlfm^ and in that Order alfo that is given us about our Baptlfm. Let us then go on and confider, g. What we are pointed to by their be- ing declared to be Three in Number. We may obferve, the Apoftle does not only nam<^ but count the Witnelles. There are Three ^ fays he, that h^>' Record in Heaveiij^ the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, We are thereby pointed to their certain DlfilnHlon from eacU other^ how ftrai.t and clofe foever the Unity or Agreeincnt raay be that thei^is between ' Theml Explain d andOpen^d^ Them : And to the Fulnels of the Evidence given^ which is llich as is fiitficient to carry the Cj^ufc depending. 'Tis not Three AW/?d'j that bear Record/biit Three (UjHnH Perfons^ adi ng different Ways^ and in different Ca- pacities. 'Tis h-^iTeby alfo intimated^, That the Evidence given in order to the carrynig the great Cauie depending^ is very full. For it was a ftanding Maxim among Go d's ancient People the Jeips^ That in the Mmith of Two or MiUtiv Turee IVitnelJes ei'crj IVord was to he cfiabrijhed^yiMiii. \6, and every Gaufe determin'd^ as our Lord himfelt alio obierv'd. Now^ fays the Apo- ttle^ in this Cafe^ there are Three IflrncJ/cs bearing Teftlmonj^ and no One of Them is hable to any jult Objedion ; And therefore the Caufe mult be carry 'd^ and Chr'ifliamtj ^ the'Truth of which is fo well attefted^ mult neceffarily have a hrm Foundation. But that we may be yet the more clear in this_, let us go on^ and 4. Consider what it is*thefe ^nr;?fj/7e/ are reprefented as atteftivg^ both joyntly and fe- parately. It is no other than this^ That the Lord JesVs Is the Son of God ^ the YQTJ Adejfafj- that was promis d^ and that had been fo long^ expeded ,• and that He is not only a God hy Ojjice^ but by Nature ,* as truly GoD as his Father ^ as He is often reprefented by this Apoftle as well as the relt : and that therefore no- thing in the World could be more reafonable, than Faith and Hope in Him. This is plain from the Context^ That whofoe^ver belieuethVer. \. that }estjs Is the Christ_, // ^orn of GoB : And th^ity H'^hofoe'L'er Is born ofGoD^ overcometh ?/^c Ver. 4, 5, JVorld. And then 'tis dedar'd^ that this Faith is a believing that Jesus is the Son of GoD : That He is'^o in Deed and in Truth, and in the highelt md the nobleft Senle. This be- ing John 1' ing a Truth of the lafl Importance^ and ne- ceffarily to be clear'd^ in order to the jufti- fying our Dependence upon Him^ and our Expectations from Him^ the Apoftle fets himfelf to give full Proof of it^ and declares^ that Jesus did not only pofitively affirm^ that He was the Son of God^ and Om with his Fa- thtr^wt that He came with with fufficient Wit- Stx, 6 neffes of it^ ^Iz.. The Water ^ the Bloody and the Spirit, which fully clear 'd this Truth to all that would confider and weigh their Tefiimoity. Where by Mater ^ (which is what we com^ monly make ufe of in Cleanfmg from bodily Defilements^) we may underftand the Furity of Christ's DoBrine and Llfe^ which was v^ery confpicuous_, and was a great Argu- ment of his Divinity • and the Baptifm which was brought in by Jo/jn^ and continu'd by our Saviour as a Profeffion of^ and Obli- gation to_, a peculiar Furity^ becoming the Followers of fuch a Leader^ and the Ex- pedants of an Happinefs that was to lie in the Perfection of Holinefs. And by the Blood we may underftand the Sufferings and Death of our Lord J e s u s ^ whole Blood was fhed upon the Crofs in an igno- minious Manner_, when He offered up him- felf a Sacrifice ^ to make Atonement for the Sins of Mankind ,- which was a great Evidence that he was in Truth the Son of "• things ; that is^ Go D blelTed for ev^er. The Apoltle upon this Occafion defcribeshim par- ticularly, and intimac^^s to U5^ tlfet the fight was Explained and Opend. 54^ was fo glorious, that he was not able to bear Serm. it, but when he faiv him^ he fell at his Feet as jy^ J^ad. And he afterwards relates a variety of u^vvj Virions which he had of his peculiar Glory, ver. 17. All thefc are irrefragable Proofs that the Word gave, of the Dl^ulnitj of our Jesus. And the Holy Ghost agrees perfectly in the fame thing, declaring Jesus to be the Son of God. This he attefted 1. By his defcending upon Him immediate- ly after his Baptlfm , and in an illuftrious Manner remaining on him, as St. John gives J^^" ^* us an Account. 32,, 33. 2. By his coming down on the Apollles_, Ten Days after our Saviour lett this Earth, publickly declaring to all that were prefent, and to all to whom a well attefted Report of his Defcent fhould come, that he really was the Son of GoD, exalted to fit on the Right Hand of the Majesty on High. Andfhe Apoftles being fiU'd with the Light, and warm'd with the Heat, of the Divine Fire in which He came down upon them, boldly publifti'd from that Day forward in Judea, and all the World over. That Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, God Bleffed for ever. And therefore is it that St. Fatd ^o freely declares, that God manlfeft in r-^e i TuBJil i^lefljy was jttfiif/d in the Spirit. And ' 16. 5. By his defcending on other Per Ions af- terwards, tho' not in that vifible Form as on the Day of Ventecofi. In fo much, that ivhenfoe-uer the ^pofiies laid their Hands upon any Perfons that believ'd in Jesus, and were bap- tized, the Holy Ghoft fell upon them, and they Adls \m, ffake with Tongues, and Tropheficd, Which was ^5> ^7' a plain and irrefragable Proof of the Great- nefs, and Power, and Benignity of the Blei- fed JesuSj, and indeed of his Divinity, with^ N n out 54-yl.s^ venly Witneffes are one In Ejjence^ and have all the fame ElTential Perfections belonging to them : Whereas the Three JVitnejJes on Earthy tho' of a different Nature^ concurr in their Tellimony ,- and that is the utmoit that can be faid of them. And if the Tm-ee WitneJ]cx in Hea'ven are one in their Fjmce^ then are there Three diftin& Perfons whofe E/jlnce is 6ne and the fame ; For elfe there would not be T^ee Witnej]is In Heaven^ but only One, which v/ould crofs the deiign of the Apo- Ifle^ whofe aim it was to fhew that our Faith doth not rely upon a fingle Teitimo- ny. When St. John here fpeaks^ of the Spi- rit^ the Water and the Bloody which are the Three Wltnejjes on Earthy the expreffion he ufes_, and thefe Three agree in OnCy cannot pof- fibly be fo conftrued as to intimate an U- Ttity of Nature ; they only fignify an Unity of Teftimonyy which is very confiiient with a difference in their Nature. And therefore we may very well conclude that the Apo- ftle would not have made fuch a difference in his way of fpeaking of the Earthly and Heavenly IVitnejJesy had he not defign'd there* by to intimate^ that the U^jity of the lat- ter docs not lie barely in their Teftimonyy but alfo in their Nature and Effence. Against this it has been oft objeded. That in one Copy inftead of thefe Three are One, the Words are thefe^ V^efe Three agree in One ; thofe Words which with us belong. to the 8th VerfCj and the Three Wltnefes on Earthy being transferred to the 7th Verfe^ and the Three Wltnejfes in Hea'ven. But this admits of an eafy Anfwer : Tho' it is thus in the Om^kte^lim Copy^ yet it muft be own'd Explained and Open'd. Ofwn'd a Faulty becanfe that therein varies from moil other Copies ^. And this is therefore the Icls to be regarded^ becaufe thofe VV0rds_, and thefe Three agree m One^ wRich in ether Copies belong to the 8th Verfe^ are there wholly wanting^ there be- ing no more there in that Verfe than this^ and there are Three that hear IVitnefs on Earthy the Spirit y the Water ^ and the Blood, Father Simon teils us f^ That he cant Ima- gine what Ad'uantage It can be to the Antitri-^ nitarianSj that this Text be left out^ fince the mofi kno7i,'lng Interpreters of the New Tejlament do not explain It of the Trinity. Which is a fuggeftion^ with a fuppofition to inforce it^ that deferves (as far as I can judge) but little regard. That that Suppofition has but a poor Foundation^ we fliall lee prefently. And as for the Suggeftion in order to the fup- porting which it k propos'd^ ^nx,. That it would be little to the Advantage of the Anti- trlnltarlans for this Text to be left out_, it comes from one that appears upon all Oc- calions to have been fo much inclined to be their Friend^ that fcarce any that know the Man_, can allow him to have been a proper' Judge. However^ that our thoughts may take the wider Compafs^ and we may fee the whole Matter the more clearly and diftindly^ in explaining this laft Clauie of my Text^ And thefe three are one^ I ihall take in both an- Unity ofTeflmony^ and an Unity of Nature too ; And uponfedately weighing the whole mat- ter_, I mull confels^ I can fee no reafon_, why N n 3* we * See VmnQ. Turrctird Dec, Difput, Mifc. Difp. ^: tyihus Tejl. Ccclefi. r. 107. ■ \ Hip. Crit, du Texts du N. T. v. 214, ^^o I John V. 7. v-O/*^ Serm, we fiiould fo confine ourfelvcs to the one^ as jy to exclude the other. I. Then^ the Father y the JVord^ and the Holy Ghofi are one in their Ttfilmony. They all unanimoufly agree and joyn in attefting th!s^ that Jesxjs is the SonefGoBj, and to be Re- lped:ed_, Lov'd^ Honour'd^ and Ador'd as luch. There is not the leaft difference be- tv/een them_, or doubtfulnels in their Tefilmo- ny m this refped. This is what the Father bore wltnefs to^ as well as the JVord and Holy Ghofi: And to this did the Word alfo bear Oi^ltnefs as well as the Father and the Holy Ghofi : Nor was the Holy Ghofi lefs ready or forward to bear witnefs to this^ than either the Father y or the Word. In this_, all that have written upon this Text agree^ Soclnm himfelf not ex- cepted. But then the Queltion iZp whether this be ail that is here intended ? This is what fome have yielded. Nay we have had fome that have gone fo farr that way^ that they have imagined that theie Words^, ayid thefe three are ^w^^were added by the Ariansf^ to ftiew that the Unity of the Perfons of the Tr'mltyy was. not an Unity of Efience^ but ofCcnfent. Thi$ was the mind of the Learned Grotiusy tho' he therein Hands pretty much alone^ and has but few Followers. I know none but Father Simon that abetts that Fancy of his : AncJ He fpeaking * of a Noble MSS, of the Latin Bible in the Hands of the Dominicans of Varls^ takes notice that thefe words^ and thefe three tire one^ are there mark'd_, as not truly belong- ing to the Text of St John ; for which he gives this Reafbn^ That it was th^ Opinion ' ' of ? Noiivel. Ohfcnr.t, fur le Te,xtc i3 hi vcrfions du N^ T. p. 140. • ■ Explain d and Opened. of fome Divines of that Time^ that thofe Words were not to be read^ becaufe they fa- vour'd the Avian Herefy. However^ nothing can be plainer^ than that In the Cafe of the Three JVitncJJes in Heaven^ there is an Unity of Confcnt. They agree mod harmonioufly; and there is nothing like clafhing m their 7f/?/- 777onjy either in this Cafe or any other. But then^ 2. The Father j the Word^ and the Holy Ghoftj are One in their Nature alfo^ as- well as in their Teftlmony ; and herein they differ from the other Three WitneJJes^ the Spirit ^ the Water ^a7id the Blood. They in fome Senfe are One ; for they look the fame Way^ point to one and the fame Things and atreil one and the fame Truth : But when we have faid all we can of them^ they are not fo One^ as the Father^ the Wordy and the Holy Ghcfi are. Tliefe are fo One^ that all the Three have but oj^e and the fame Subfiance. Tho' they teilify diftin(ftly^ yet they are One^ not only mCcnJent and Will_, but in EjJ'ence tco^ in the very fame Senfe as / our Lord faid^ I and my Father are One, 'Tis John x, true^ Believers alfo are faid to be One, Our 90. Lord Jesus fays^ I tray for them, that ihey all lb. x\n. may he One^ asTbou^ Father^ art in wc^ and JZO, ir, in Thee^ that they alfo may be One in U>\ But all Unity is not of the lame Sort and Kind : Nor does the Greek Particle y-ct9fi;V whfch we tranflate as^ always fignify an Ef^uaUty ; it fometimes denotes any Sort of Analogy or Likenefs ^ and it is fo to be underftood in the Places cited in the Margin f- Believers are not reprefented as properly one with God, It is faidj they are One Spirit : Not refer- i Cor. vl, N n 4 ing 17- t I Pec. i. i^. Macth. v. 48. I John V. 7. ring to any ejjcntid^ but only to a myfikd^ fpiritual Union, To h^ one Spirit , in their CafCj is the fame with being one In Spirit : It being one and the fame Spirit that worketh in the Head and in the Members. So that when it is here declar'd^ of the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghofi^ that thefe Three are One J we have an exprefs 7'efilmony given us of the Triune Deity. The Three Teftifiers fyom Heaven not only agree in Atteiting the fame Truth^ but in One Dl'vme Nature, But it is pleaded by fome^ That this Claufe^ are One, which belongs to the Three YiQi2i" venlylVitneJJesy ought to be interpreted by the^ other Phraie Verfe 8th^ Jgree in One^ which is fpoken of the Wltnejjes in Earth, But to that^ Dr. Hammond has in my Apprehen- fion given a fufficient Anlwer. For (fays he) the Parallel here held hetiveen thofe in Hea'rjeny and thofe on Earthy being only in RefpeB of the Te- fiimonlesy and of the Number of the Tefilfiers^ there is no Necejfity that the Apoftle or we Jlwuld extend it to all other Circumjlances : Or If there were^ it would be as reafojtahle to interpret the latter Ex- frejfion by the former y they agree in One_, by they are One_, (which were abfurd^ and is not- imagind) as the former by the latter. There i^ not indeed any Reafon for either of them. But on the other Side^ having to the men-, tion of the Three WitneJJls in Hea^ven^ an-- nex'd out of the Chriitian Doclrine^ that thefe Three are One^ it was reafonable when he came to the other Three^ of whom that could not be affirm'd^ to fay as much of them to the fame Purpofe^ as the Matter would bear^ that is, that they agree in One^ and are Teftifiers of the fame Thing, tho' they are Hot oi one and the fame Nature. And fince thefe Thee are Oney their Ttjilwony mult neceffarily agreed Explained and Opened. ^55 agree ,• tho' the according of the Tefiimonks^ Serm. will not prove the Unity^ of the Teftifiers. jy There are Two Things which I defire may be here obferv'd. 1. That when F^ither^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ arc mention'd as Witnejjes^ the Unity of their El]e72ce much fortifies the Unity of their Tefti^ mony. And this I think may be fufficient in anlwer to fuch as inquire^ To what Purpofe it could be^ for the Apoftle to lay any Thing of an Unity of Ejjence^ when he was aiming at ftrengthning a Truth, by proving the Tefil- mony by which it was evidenced, to be infalli- ble. It from hence appears there was very good Reafon for his taking this Method, luppofmg that to have been his Aim. For he could not give a better Confirmation of their intire agreeing in their Tefiimony^ than by af- firming they were One In Ejjhice. Having but one Ejjence^ their Tefilmony could not be cppo- fite : Nay, it could not be different. I think alfo I may venture to go yet farther, and fay That the Unity of their Tefilmony in this Cafe, luppofes the Unity of their Nature and Efience, And therefore our Divines that explain this of a Confenty are not to be underftood as excluding, but rather as fuppofing their Unl- ty of Nature, For whoever is not truly Go d ^ he being mutable, and fallible, and capable a failing, his Teftimony cannox be faid to be Divine, or o«e with God's. And then, 2. It is farther alfo obfervable. That as many of the Ancients as have cited this Text,- have been for underftanding this Claufe of an Uilty of Effence and Nature. The Greek Au- thor who in the Vth or Vlth Century com- posed the Dialogue under the feign'd Names of Athanafim and Arlus^ (who is by the Learn- ed generally fuppos'd to be Maxmm^J cites thefe 5S4 I John V. 7. Serm. thefe Words^ Thefe Three are One^ to fliew jy^ that the Father^ Son^ and Hdy Ghofi^ are but y,^-^y^ One only^ and the fame God. And among the Latins^ FulgentluSy who was an African Bilhop, an That they are not fo Three ^ but that they ftill are One : Nor fo One^ as to hin- der them from being Three, Will any Arian own this ? If he will^ I'll thank him : And Jliall not think him to diifer fb much in his Notions^ from the Scriptural Account of the Dodrkie of the Trinity^ as I have done hitherto. But the fame Author adds^ That the uh" dtrfiandlng an Unity of EJJence as meant when its faldy that thefe Three are One^ tvouU tyiake the Three Witneffes to dwindle again into One^ and fo lofe much of the Argument from Three, But the Argument is fufhciently fe- cur'd by the Tlurallty of Ferfbns exprefs'd , while the Uiiity that is added^ guards a- gainft zFltirallty of Gods, A Plurality ofTefii- monies given by one and the fame Perfbn_^ does not its true make a Tlurallty of Witnejles: But 'tis here declar'd^ and is therefore' to be believ'dj that the Vritnejfes are Three^ and the diftind Way and Manner of their tefilfying argues them to be Three^ tho' the Thing attelted by all of them is the fame,, and all the Three are but One Govi^ And upon the Whole, I think I may ve- ry fafely fay, 1. That v^e may m this noted Text plainly fee, there is a Trinity m the*DEiTY, which may be fafely acknowledg'd by us, whoever Jet themfeivcs to cppole it. Wc have a great many Texts tliat difcover this Trinity to us , of which no Senfe can.be made, unlefs that Dodrine be own'd SiS » Part of the Chrlfilan Scheme : And sye have Explained and Opened ^ 5 '5 7 good Reafon to reckon this of that Nam- Serm* ber. We had as good^ once for all^ fhuc jy^ this Text out of our Bibles ^ as pretend to it keep there^ and refufe to own that Do- <5tnne : And I am afraid 'tis an Inclina- tion to the one^ that makes fome Perfons fo ■ eager for the other. Here are Three diftlnct IVitneJJes mentioned and referr'd to i And why fhould we be either afraid or aftiam'd to own them? Should one and the fame Man come into Court^ and give Evi- dence in three different Capacities^ it would ftill all be but one Witnels : But here there are Three Wimefjes. It was a common Say- ing among Chri ilia ns in old Times^ Go to Jordan^ and you II fee a Trinity : Refer- ring to the Voice of the ¥ather from Hea- ven^ and the vifible Defcent of the Holy Splrh upon our Bleffid Saviour^ who was with Solemnity own'd for the Son of God^ at the Time when He was haplz^'d. This was reckoned a Proof of that Nature^ that there could be no refilting or ft&nding out againft it. So may I lay to all that defire Satisfaction in this Matter^ Look to this Textj and you may fee a Trinity. You may fee here_, not a bare Trinity of J^^ames or Relations^ but of Terfons Tefilfy^ tng\ And they are diftinguiflfd by their Names ,* in Oppofition to the Soclnlans^ who not being content^ with the Arlms of Old; to deny the Son and Holy Spirit's being Con- fuhftayitlal with the Father^ are for quite ftiuttin^; out the Diftindion of Perfons , and joyning together the Error both of 6"^- belilus and j4rlus\ to the overthrowing the whole Myftery. 2. I $$8 I John V. 7. ly * 1. I TAKE it to be from hence veryevi- • dent^ that the F^?^^r^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ ^"'"^^"^ are fo Three ^ as yet to be One: One in all Effential Perfections^ and all their ex- ternal Operations. Their Unity is as pecu- liar as their Excellence. Let us therefore form Notions of 'em fo Dlfi'mB as not to con- found them ; and yet let us hold 'em to be fo United^ as not to be capable of acting fepa* rately out of themfelves. 5. Since the Father ^ the /^r^ and the Hb- }y Ghofi joyntly concur in attefting the Deity of Our Bleffed' Saviour^, which is the Mat- ter that is reprefented as here depending^ let us be incourag'd the more firmly to adhere to that Dodrine. Let us conclude it neceffa- ry for us to believe it^ or clfe we may be alTur'd thefe Three would not have born Wltnefs to it as they have done. Let no- thing therefore draw us off from ad^ miring and raifed Thoughts of our Bleffed Saviour's Divinity^ on which we depend both for Our Safety ^nd Our Comfort. And 4. Since the Father ^ the Wbrd^ and the Holy Ghojl are Whnefjes in order to our Confir- mation^ let us readily beheve the Truth of whatever :they Tefiify^ provided we have but good Reafon to believe that they have le- ftlfyd^ iCj tho' it feem ever fo much ' to thwart our natural Sentiments or our Inclina- tions. This is a thing that highly becomes fuch . clofely dependent,, and fuch dark and dim- fighted Creatures as we are ; and it is what we cannot have any occafion to be afliam'd of. Where Father, ^^ iVord^ and Holy Sprit have gone Explained and Opened. gone before^ let us readily follow. What Light they are pleas'd to give us^ let u$ thankfully receive^ and carefully improve 5- and from them jointly let us take our Meafures : And then if Father^ Son, and Holy Spirit can help us to Happinefs^ we need not be apprehenfive that we fhall mifs of it^ either in the Life that now xSy or in that which is to come. FINIS. ^n Index o/'Texts ojT Scrip- ture, that art either ex^lain^d^ or re- ferr^d to in thefe Di3COURSES. Genesis. foSHUA. Chap. Vcrfe. Pag. Chap. Verfe. Fag. }: ^' 189. v. H,i5 14^. xxviii. i6, 146. XXXV. I, 146. I. Samuel. acHx. 17, 7- ii. ^f a34* Exodus. II. Samuel , ili. 5, ,46. XIV. 31, 169. xxiii. a,3, 186. xvii. 7, 184. XKxiv. 34, 185. I. Kings. LEViTictrs vili. 39, ^ ^;47; xxi. ll,li. 4,x<:>» xxvi. 3, 16. xxvi. 11, 17. II. Kings. jcxvi. 11, 17. xlx. «5,^ 54- Numbers. N| iHEMIA?* xl. 21, 367, (368. ijc. ^, «5' Deuteronomy. Job. iv. 39, 234. xi. 7. J79.^ VI. 4, i34> xij. *, 341; (i53. Xxii. t3, 369, vi. 13, 16. xxiio i5> »9X. X, 11, 16. xxvi. u, 379- XXIX. 19, 387. xxxlii. 4» 189^ P^? 3f?. ,^34- xxxvij. i3. 579- Pi C*"*?' Thei TS D E X. Chap; yerfe. Pag: Chap: Verfe. Pag: xxxviii. ^' , 271: Isaiah* XXXV iii. 6,C^c. 381. xxxviii. 7, 18. ii. 17, t2. xxxix. 19, 381. VI. ?, I9i, vi. . 9,. 184. vii. ^4, 37. Psalms* ix. ^, 36,49- xxvii. 16, *35' 11, 165. xl. 16, . 54. xviii- 3i» i35' xlii. 8, 53. ^x^ciii. <5, aoi. . xliii. 10, 235- xlv. 7, 83. xliv. 6, 235' xlvui, ^4» ^54- xliv. 8, 10: I 5» 158. xliv. 15,16, II. Ixili, I, 3^53- xlv. 5, 10. Ixvii. 6, 254. xlv. 5,6,7. ' 54, IxviiiL ^9, 253. fi35. Ixxiii. 11,. 369. xlvi. 9, , 10, Ixxiij. ^h 2t53. xlix. 9,10, 15: Ixxviii. t9. 367. Ii. 13, 15 Ixxxvi. *c>f i35- xc. ^f 14. J EREMIAH. xcyi. 4.5; 43. ,ciii. i3» 29. vi. 14,15; '288; ciii. 19. 15- vi. 16, 287,{^c. cii. », 364. (335,C?c. 'czxnx. 7, 188. X. io,€^c. 54- .' xvii. ^0, 14. : . xxiii 23,24: 14. Proverbs. xxxi] I. 17, 14. mil. zyyi6. '^9. Daniel: ix. i,*,3- 1019, ivr 34, ?5^ -x. i^, 405. iv. ^ 35, M« 3cix: II, ^9«. ,ii^ ^:. 11, 15. Hosjea: ■ T »t i^. 16, i. : ^7, 4a; ECGLESIASTES. MiCAH. li 5; 3$i, : 'W h ■'1^' . ,*.'""C H/«- The Ind e X. •.Cbap: Verfe. Pag. Habakkuk. ii- 2o> z'^\. Zechariah. I Chap: Verfe; Pag? ^xii. lo. 1. ii. iii. Malachi. lo, Matthew. 42. 29. 18. 1; iii. iv. V. yii. ix. X. xi. xi. xi. xii. xiii. xviii. xix. XX. xxii. xxiv. xxvi. s:xviu. I, 110. II, 208. 16,17, 2r62. C265,42o, 543. 54,252. 551. 29. 46. 143, (155. 276. lS,85. 144. 186. 393 51 (107 262 155 J08 t35, ■ (J37 65,66 10, 48, 37, 19, *?, 3^9, 31,3^ 44>45, 20, 17, 28, •■37, 36, XXV 111. 19, 54.144,' (l67,C?r. 20, 51 XXVUl. xviii. 16,1,4,5, 541 xviii. 6, 542 Mark. i. 35, via. 4, xiii. 52, xvi. 9, GJic. xvi. 16, xvii. 5, xvii. 29, xvii. 34, Luke. t6, 5i,35, 35, i. 76, ii. II, iii. 38, vi. 12, vi. 35, ix. 54, X. 30, (sc, X. 33, xi. ^3, xiii. 29, xiii. 32, xiv. 26, xvii. 3, xxiv. 27, xxir. 49, 135 369 io8,C^c** 17 1 545 23<^ 236 3^ 240 189; (20^ 4Q 4^ 18 135 240 398 39^ 78 218 419 7 14? iS 292 O o 2 JOHK? The I N 0 E x:- €hap: Vcrfc, Pag. John. 5. 1, %^.^^^ i. i,x, ii,i6x • 1. i, 354 i. 3, 43 i 11,13,' \n i. 14, 67,261, . (34^ i. t8, 161 3M3, 545 II. 11, 105 ij. 14,15, \6 iii. 4, ^77 iii. 9, z6^,(3c iii. ^3, 51 iii. 16, 358 V. 10, 70 V. 17, 4<^»7o V. 18, 71 V, i9,C^c. 71,79 V. 11, 46 w 11, 18,158 y» 23, 69,^r. (135,356 T, 27, 86 V. 30, 104,105 V. 37, 4^"^ V. 31, 170 V. 43, 85 *vi. 38,e]^c. (368 vi. 54» 46 vi. 63, 191 vii. 17, J 33,36 1 vii. 39, ao7 yii. 53,G?c. 511 viii. 18, 410 viii. 19, 60 .viii. 54, S5 X. 18, 139 X, 26, 77 Chap. Vtrfc. Pag^ X. X. X. xi. xii. xii. xri. xiii. xiv. xiv. xiv. xiv. xiv. xiv. xiv. xiv.- xiv, xiv. xiv, xiv. xiv. xiv. XV. xvi. xvi^ xvi. xvi. XVI. xvi. xvi- xvii. 'xvii. icVii. xvii. xvii. 18, 30, 30, 15, 18, 45, 49, ^5, I, 6, 7, 9, 61 18,43, (78,410 55t 6t 543 60,79 139 394 74,H3, (155 6x,i4t 77 60 18 43,378 77,80 105 74 110, (170 186 210 78 ^39 16, 210,165, (170,410 9,10, II, 10,11, 15, 16, 17, 16, 18, 31, 7, 8, 13, 15, 13, 3<', 33, 3, 5, II, 20,21, 108 210 • 188 51,77, (79,1^5 153 47,154 141 60 136, (35© 121 6t,i53 55 1 Chap. The Index. Chap. Verfe. Pag. Chap. Verfe. •Pag; xvlii. 33 391 Romans . xix. 37, 42 XX. 13, 370 i. 4, 57 XX. 17, 19 i. 7, 144 XX. 2S, 32,33, i. 18,19, 234 (152 i. i&. 395 XX. 29, 370 i. 20, 45 xxi. 17, (47,118 iii. 4^ 126,383 xxi. 22, 387 V. 10, 35S vlil. 16, 199 Acts. vlii. 27, 18S viii. 32, 262 • I. If 378 viii. 37,38, 174 i. i6, 189 viii. 38,39, 360 il. 22,23, 353 ix. I, 54,192 ii. 30, 120 ix. 5, 38,152 iv. 7,xo, 24 X. 2, 415 iv. 24,25, 189, X. 12,13, 52,53 ( 192,221 X. 13,14, 143 V. 3,4, 185 X. J 4, 207 vii. 48, 240 xi. 33, 372. vii. 59,<^o, 144 xii. 3, 373,401 vii. 55,5<5, 544 xii. 9, 390 viil. »5,i7. (545 xii. 3^1, 399 viii. 16, - 24 xiii. 1^ 403 ix. " '^'^ H3 xiii. 19, 406 ix. 3,4,^?''^ • 544 XV. 13, 186 X. 36, 41 XV. 16, 191 X. 48, 24 XV. 19, 189 xii*. 23, 8 XV. 30, 220 xlli. 2, 190 XV. 28, 190 I Cor. XV i. 31, 24 i. 2, 143 xvii. 25, ^53 i. 3, 144 XV ii. 27, 379 i. 10, 397 xix. 2, 207 i. 13, 169 xix. 3, 175 i. 23. 276 XX. 28, 33,157, ii. ^, 24 (190, 344,353 ii' 4, X91 xxvi. 25, ?92 ii. 7, 129 :jxvii}. • 25.26 184 ii. 8, 41 Chap. Thi In d£^ Ghap. Vcrfe, Pag. . 31. h ' iiL ^ > iv, ..vj. vi. vi. • viii. viii. viii- Vlll. viii. ^,. X. .^ xi. xii. xli. xii. xii. xii. 3cii. xlii. xlii. xiii. " xiii. XV. XV. 10, 188 10,11, 122 ?6,i7, 185, (i88,az6 6, 418 11, 191 '7, 55' 19.10, 581 1, 409 . a, 186 3, 394 4» , 5/, (i27,C2?c. 5, 9 6, r 2, 1 68 3, 82,83 4, 190,210 4»5A 257,^c 10.11, 189, (190 xi; 188 12, 202 18, 258 4,c^c. 209,398 (399,400 $, 4oi,M 6, 4.04 7, 404,5 »6 24,C^c. 83,84 90 Ghap. Verfe. Pag. 28, II Cor. I. 2, 144 ii. ii, 201, C5C ••• 111. «, 187 iii. I3,I4,C?<:. 187 iii. 17, 185,185 iv. 4, 11,57 Y. ;5i 144 V. 11, 344 vi. 16, J 86 xii: 7,8,9, i44»*5o xii. 8, 351 xiii. 2, 409 xiii. 14, 192,220, (263,387 Galat. I. 3> H4 iii. >o. i3T iv. 8, 9,57 iv. 18, 417 iv. 16, 398 V- 22, 409 vi. Ephes, 276 i. ^y H4 i. 1 7,1 8, 19 188, (191 i. 13, 51 ii* 7, 358 ii. 18, 141,188, (191 ,220,263 iii. 4, 129 iii. 16, 191 iv. 3, 252 iv. 4>5A ^37, [l<^3,3«9 Iv: 6, 54 iv. »3, 3935^ ii. <5,7, 34,78 iii. I^, 545 ij. 8, 139 vL 3, 35^ ii. ^o, 74 vi. *5, 40 iii. "> 95 iii. '». 401 II Tim. iii. • «4f 408 i. 2, ;g iii. 2^ 49 i. J 2, . iii. H» 144 i. 13, 392,420; i^* . -8, 401 i. 16, '5C> 'f.?..' ■^ ii. 2, 392 Tw. COLOSS. ii. 8, 120 ^rt ^, 144 ii. 13, 416 i; 16, 43,i«^5 ii. a4»25. 399 i. 17, 45,50 ii. 25,18, 419 ii. 3^, I0I,<^C. iii. 8, 39^5 ij. a>3. 30 iv. 4, 39^ ii. 5,<^, 132 .. ii; 9> 38,118 TiTtrs, iv. 3» 119 1. 4, 144^ ii. '3, 37 I Thess, ii. 14, '4lS^ i. ^ 144 iii. 5, i9^i i. 9» 237 iii. i», 399 Philem • iv. 9> 2X6 Veife 3. 144 [I Thess. ' ■ Hebrews '• . . 5. 144 1. 3, 46,49,75^ *ii. 8, 9, 201 18 i. i. 6, 10^,12, 5J^ 44,49 'iii. *', J 30 i. 12, 50 I Tim. il 14, 18, 187 3S^ '1, !. 2, "144 : iii. / 4, 44 5, ^37 iii. 7,9, 184 ■i.- <5* 417 iv; «3, 47 ii. v.-/ 5* 5^ y. .7, 58,13^ *"* V •- -^ - Chap. The Index. I^hap ; Verfe. Pag. Cliap. Verfe. Pag. vi. 9» 362 V. <^, 54i vii. ^ \z ' v. 7, 423,e^c. Tii. 3> 49 (457,^<^- vii. '7, •138 V. 8, 5»3 vii. 25, i4X,26z V. 11,12, 61 x« 7, 89 V. 2fo, 31,5^,^8 xlr- 9* 18,28 II John , James, 3, 221 1. 17, 14,18 7, 58 i. 19, 399 10,11 420 J. 20, 410 • il. 8, 395 JUDE. iii. I7> 406 3, 4> 413 40 I Peter. H,^5, 3(52 i. K 359 i- 17, '28 Revelation. i. ai, 141.^5 i. i» 48 i. J9» - , 551 i. 4> 192, ill. i3, 344 (210,219 ivv 14» 186 1. 4,5, - -2-63 V. i^. M4 i. 8, 41,48, (5o,iP5 .- II Pbtek . i. 10,11 544 i. I, 41 i. 17, 545 i. 7, 408 ii. ^3, 47 ;-i- af> '9^ ill %1> 85 ii. I, 41 iii. 1> 57,60 ill. 17,18 388 iii. t9, :j8 iii. i8, 144,152 iv. 9, 53 I John V- '», 75 i. J, (^i y. 13, 144 ii. 2P, 188 3d. 17, 50 ji. i^v 63,1^3, xvii. U, 4° (356 xix. 13, 43 iii. 1^, 344 xxi. 1*, 43 iiii l3, 390 xxi. ^^y 43 iv. 9» 357 xxiio I, 43 iv. |o, 358 xxii. <5.i6. 4« v. I, I 11, 541 xxii. ^8,19 4^4 Vo 4»5r 541 xxii? 3^? i^.54l ■7 1 I ] "''■''' Jm K& ■el if *l K Lic-.L