^■■■^/j-^^ym*'^- ^'^ 1^: i^^^ 'n^:m<^- •>* ■-il '♦'Vp , f" U. ^■^ 4-M m\5 4> ■.?% *^' :n- '> •.^ -r-,; ;*#■■* - IP^" e^/--^ )? |THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY | I Princeton, N. J. |i |Fr„™,heRev.W.B.SPRAGUE,D.D. ^^fgs * ^e.^^ Case^ Dfvision ._^| ^ ^^^A-, ^ " I ^se<^^@^ ^;;^ C,^ W I ^\* M •:^-'i, 'M if. H A N Impartial VIEW Or th? Principal DIFFICULTIES THAT AfFed the Trinitarian^ or clog the Arian^ SCHEME. Wherein, among other things, that important Qiiare, whether Our Lord is to be worlhip'd as Mediator, is fairly difcufledo AND The Tendency of each DoEirine y to heighten Morality, and promote the Life, Purity, and Beauty of Religion, fully confider'd, Ci^c, CONTAINII^G An ANSWER to Mr. Forfiers Appendix, &c. and to a Pamphlet, entituled, 7he Unity of Go d not inconftfteyit ivitb the Divinity of C UK is t. AS ALSO So??te Remarks on the Reply to Dr. Waterland, WITH An INTRODUCTION concerning the true State of the Conrroverfy. In a Letter to a Friend- By JOSEPH^PYKE. -/^^ Prove all things : Holdfaft that ivhich is good. I Thcff v. 2 1 . LONDON: Printed for A aro n W Ar d, at tlie Kings-Arms ir Little-Britain, MDGCXXL y\. L--*'*.^^)^ THE INTRODUCTION: IN A LETTER T O A FRIEND. Concerning the TmeState of the Controversy. Dear Sir, HE Genius and Temper of our Reli gmn calm and meek, like iu kind Author, It injlrueh us in all the :) 0] Its InJUmlwns, with a becoming ^ ^ EarncH. [ iv ] Earneflnep in contending for the Faith ; and tluf to argue zvith a kindly Heaty by the dint of Reafon] or^ ifpojfwlejojirike ho?ne Convidion by the Edge of Scripture, // agreeable to the fofteft Pajfwns of humane Nature^ as well as 2i^^xov^6. by the [acred IVrit'mgs : But to indulge to keen Raillery^ black Inve^froe^ and fiery Perfecutiony the mifhapen Offspring of Ignorance^ Peevifi- nefs^ a7:d Bigotry^ ble?niJIoes the Purity of the Chriflian Religion^ and Jlains the Beauty of the Proteftant Faith j inftead of opening the Eyes of thofe we qi?n to injirud^ or co?mnce^ it throws a thick ^ ifl 'of Prejudice before the?n^ and fo has a direct Te?idency tojieel than in their Errors ;for Truth always appears moji amiable and comely^ when left to its native Plainnefs, and needs no Strains of Sqtyr^ no penal Laws, no Engines of Torture to enforce the Belief of it j but its own Strength and Charm is enough to recommend it to the Impartial, Animated witKa feeling Concern for the fink- ing Honours of the dear Redeemer God^ and a te?ider Regard to the Peace^ Welfare^ and Woy- Jhip of the Churches ofChrift^ as well as aferwent Defire that Truth ?nay prevail^ and your Soul prof- per in the lOiowledge ofhim^ whom to know is Life eternal j ij^j^//, without any Doublings or Difguifes^ with all the Warmth and. Force of Ar- gument foffibky without breaking in upon the Rules ■ . . . t"^ . , Rules of Decorum and good Humour^ Jlrenuoufij ejfay a Refutation of tbofe permciom Principles that are now beco?ne the Darlings of the prefent Age. Tt>efe Jhocking Dodrines^ which were long fince bafledl, being again rein'ved andrecommend- ed by Men of great Name and Figure in the learn- ed Worldy may the more eafdy creep upon, the un- guarded, ahdfo unhinge all their Thoughts^ and fpread univerfal Confufion on their Minds. This I know hath been the melancholy Cafe of fome, furprizing Doubts ha've broken in upon theirPeace^ impo'verijhed their religious Joys^ a?2d even unfet- tled their Faith in the great Propitiation ^ a fore Trial in this Day of Gloom ^ to know not where to fixforfolid and fleddy Hope of Sahation ! but Jiillfiuduating and wa'vering^ A(/P^f^^*^^^ and be- ing fujpected j if but one ofthofe^ whofeThoughti are thus miferably confus d and unfettled^ ?nay re-- ceinje any Help to compofe their fluttered Spirits^ by the following Ejfay^ which I can truly fay is iny fiHcere Aim^ and thejirfl Spring that put my Ptn in Motion^ I am perfuaded it mufl be afufficient Apology for ?ne^ in the Eye of all zbho can indulge to free and generom Sentiments. A fair and faithfulDif charge offo ijnportant an Undertakings ybu tnujl^ Sir^ be jenfible^ requires the utmoJlCare and Caution: And therefore I conceive^ it will nbt be amifs to lead you^ and every other candid P^euder^ into a View of the State of the Qntro- A 3 "^^^fji [ vi ] *ve}'fy^ before I enter into the Heart of hy f?y faj^ ing down a few neceffary Pre?nifef. Firft, In Enquiries of this Nature^ ourThoughfs and I'ensJJjjmld not be fufferd to range beyond the Limits of the infpired WritingSy and what arifes by neceffary Connection thence* Here we fhould fix our footing i for the Man*' ner of God's Exiflence^ the eternal Generation^ of his only Son^ &c. are 'very nice and tender Feints J and fhould be viana^d with the utjnoft Regard to what is repeal- d^ leafi we too curioujly' fry into the Secrets of Deity y and gi've a Lcofe to our Thoughts to ro^e beyond all the Bounds of Decency and firiSt Duty y which may perhaps' lead m to imbibe Notibns that are by no ?neans compatible to the divine Beings whereas^ if tds' faithfully adherd to the divine Teftimony aloney;, ^twould be a happy Means to refcue our Minds from many perplexing Doubts^ which otherwife they 7nu(l neceffarily labour under.- For^ Secondly, 'Tis rational to fupppofe that God' may reveal fome things^ the NatureSy Reafonsy Cirrumflances^ and diodes of which can't be brought down to the Level of our weak Under^ (landings. That God is an infinite and incomprehenfible Beings is a Propofition that no wife Man will cavil at ; for could we fully grafp the divine jMature and Perfections^ he nmfl ceafe to be what [ vii ] what he is : Which eafy and unherfal Concef- fion Jhouldy methinh^ byafs all humble Enquirer s^ who belie've God to be infinitely wife^ and ac- knowledge his So'vereignty ever them^ chearfully to acquiefce in the Difcoz^eries he has made of himfelf (who. perfedly knows his own Nature^ and as he is Truth itfelf^ 'tis imfojfible he JJoould deceive us fj for being infinitely wife^ he may repeal things far above the Reach of our feeble- Cafaciiies -^ and as he is the fupreme Lord and Governor of the Worlds our Lawgiver^ he ?nay certainly^ for the Trial of our Obedience and Sub- fnijjion^ command us to entertain them^ as the greatejl Truths^ tho' we may not be able to trace my clear and difiin^t Connections between what is reveaFd^ and our common ordinary Notions of things. Therefore^ Thirdly^ Should zve deny our Affent'^ till we fully underjiood the Manner how to reconcile all the Diffictdties of Fievelationy we ??iuji difcard the Tefiimony of him who cannot lye ^ and fo quite hje^f all divine Faith^ as ufelefsy trivial^ and iinneceffary. Faith^ JiriStly taken^ is nothing elfe but an Af- fent to the Truth of any Fropojition^ upon the Credit of him or them that deliver it. So that to fee things in their own Light and Evidence; is not properly believing^ it being neceffary to the ^ery Nature of Faith^ that the Credit of the Tef^ A 4 tiffionj [ viii ] timony he the Reafon of our Affent, ConfequenU ly^ if I deny my Affent to any Profofition^ which is reveard by God^ becaufe I have no clear Idea of its Co?ine6tio?i with freconceivd Notions^ I flight his Authority and Veracity^ which is the only Ground of my Affent in this Cafe ; for though 1 have a general Knowledge of what is to be believd^ before 1 can affent to it, which is con- veyd to vie by the Tefiimony of Gody in his Word^ co?icerning any particular Propofition: This is far from being co?nprehenfive , for had I a perfeS^t and addquate Knowledge of it^ there would re?nain nothing of it unknown^ to be teflifyd or received as a Matter of Faiths and then my Affe?it to any Truth would not be due to the divine Tefii?fwny alone y^ but to fuch other Evidences as are entirely foreign to the Notion of Faith y and fubver five of it. Hence Fourthly, It appears^ that the Difference be- tween Matters of Science and Faith ^ is not that we can't be at all certain of the latter as well asthe former i but only that our Knozvledge is lefs difiind and clear^ for Certainty depends on the divine Tefiimony ^ and therefore what we know God has reveaFd^ JJjould be receivd as Truths with the fame Readinefs of Mind^ as if we faw the very Manner how Hwas^ and could demonflrate it in every particular. By [ ix ] By Certainty here^ I can mean no more than a \firm and rational Perfuajion of the Truth of any Propcfition founded on fuch a "plain E'videmey as can admit of no jujl Caufe for demur ^ or doubts ingy by thofe who are unprejudiced^ and capable of exercifing their Reafon ; for 'twould be extra- 'vagant in a wife Man^ to expert pure Demon-^ flration^ and Mathematical Evidence^ in any Propcfition that depends on Teftimony^ whether Humane or Di'vine ^ for tho it may be indubi- table^ there is no Necejjity^ that^ like a Propoji- tion in Euclid, it JJjould be neceffarily true or falfe^ as affinnd or denyd, or elfe imply a Con- tradidwn in Terms :■ Allowing then^ that this latter kind of Certainty be fiyl'd infallible^ and let an ijtgenious^ but hafty Author^ ha've what he contends for, that there is no Certainty but what 75 infallible, fuch a ConceJJion can be of no Detri- ment to the Honour of re^veaFd Religion, or any Branch of it y much lefsgiw anyjufi Occafion to cenfure thofe (if their Meaning be underftood) who fay there may be Certainty where there is not Infallibility ^ for I apprehend all that any can defign by this Expreffion, as they have re- gard to fubje&ive Certainty only, is, that there may be an undoubted well-grounded^ Perfuafion of a Truth, where there is not infallible Perfua- §0H : And this feems to be the Meaning of the Londo-Q' [ " ] London Minifiers in their Introduction^ "^ how- e'ver jnifreprefented^ as their own Words Jhewi And none can deny this, uhlefs they will ven- ture to aflert, that we can in no cafe know we are in the right, but by being affur'd that it is impoflible for us in any cafe to be in the wrong, (^c. Now what purpofe can it ferve; to faften a Meaning upon the Words of others they did not dream of? Or to fcufflle about the ufe of a Term when our Ideas are the fa?ne^ tho' they may be cloathedin different Exprejions? For Scripture Truths y in the Nature andHeafon of Things^ can bear no other Proof than what is fetch' d from Teftimony ,• and fuppofe the Witnef- fes qualify d with fuit able Abilities and Integrity ^ we ought in all Reafon to acquiefce in the Evi^ dence, beyond which fironger could not be defired^ fuppofing the objeCti've Certainty; of the real Ex- ijlence of the thing teftifyd as an Object of Belief e'ver fo true and infallible : If we deny this^ we 7nuft fay nothing is to be believd^ but what hath the higheft Evidence pojjibk^ i. e; which_ liesfo open J clear ^ and difiinct to the Underftand-- ing, that every one^ tho\ never fo ?nuch prepop fefs'd^ muft irrefiftibly affent. At this rate {as Bijhop Wilkins obferv^s) there would be no room left for the Freedom of our Obediertce,^ nbt *P agey. [xi] hot eonfequently, any GrcHjnds for Reward 61t Puniflimentj which belongs to free Adlions^ not to fiich as are neceffary and forced, f But if we were under an tma'voidable NeceJJity to believe the Doctrine of the Son of God^ e'ven as viiich as we are forcd to afjent to this Propofition^ that one and two make three^ or the like^ our Confent would be equally conftrain'd^«^ extorted^ and then we intiji be all exactly of one Mindy and e*vcry one that has heard of the Chriftian Religion^ inujl unanimoujlyy and without the teaji Reluctance^embrace ity which isfalfe in fact. But fuppofing fuch an infallible Certainty attain-- able J there would appear no Occajion for it^ fee- ing if di'vine Truths are proposed with that Evi- dencey as every one of a teachable Difpofition can fafely and ^voluntarily affent to them^ with- out any juft and tolerable Grounds for doubting j this is fujficient to ejiablif1> fuch a Certainty^ as may guard againfi all the Cavils of Infidelityy^ Scepticif?ny and Burlefque. And let Men call this Certainty^ or unqueflionabky indubitable^ jujl Perfuafim^ 'tis not very material ; 'tis what all along has not been improperly caWd moral Cer- tainty, z9Mcb if rejected^ every thing in the World that depends on Tejiimony mufi be looked upo4 as precariouSy^ tmeertain^ and doubtfuly and jo our Minds ■ ' ' ■ ' "•■' ' - «ti f Of Natural Religion, pag. 30, 31. [xii] Minds mujl be in perpetual Agitation and Suf- pence about almoft e^ery things and no Affent can be gi'ven but to what is felj-e'vident^ or what I fee with ?ny own Eyes ; and confequent- ly Faith is no more Faith ; but our Lord tells us^ Bleffed are they that have not feen, and yet have believed. "^ . Fifthlyj Such a Certainty as .this can by no Means border on Enthufiafm, it being attained by the ufe of rational Dedudion^ and our Affent to thofe Truths y of which is)e have., no Caufe to doubt y being appro'vd by the ftri^ieji Reafon, Before we can affent to any re^veal'd Propofi- tion^ we mufi confider whether the Scriptures a re of a di'vine Extract ^ or whether fpuriom and counterfeit: Being once fatisfied of their heaxeiily Original^ and facred Authority^ we rnufi next^ as to any particular Truth ^ enquire whether 'tis ac- tually reveal'd in thefe Writings^ or no ; For; pojjibly^ fovie may pretend that to be a Doctrine of exprefs Re^velation which is only the Fruit of d towring Fancy ^ or their ownfalfe and incoherent Inferences. But after all^ when^ by the utmofi Stretch of rational Enquiry^ we have endeavour^ ed to find cut what is divine Truth^ determined its genuine Meaning by all the juft Laws of In^ terpretationy and are thoroughly convinced of its trfie , 1; — ■ ' * Joliii XX. 23f. [ xiii ] true Senfe ; 'tis then I concehe the higheft hi- fYO'vement of Reafon^ the Glory of it readily to comply^ feeing whatever God has reveal' d mufi be true. Should we now reject what we know is reveal' d by hi?n^ only becaufe 'lis above om Qompehenfion^ we Jloould run into farticukf Whi?nfies^ and falfe Conjedures of our own hatchings which looks frightful in thofe that cah fhetnfelves Majiers of Reafon : For all the Worla mujl own^ that a thing may certainly be^ and we may know it to be^ which yet we kno\M not how it fliould be. And confequently^ Sir, though I Jloould not be able to rejolve all yom Voubts concerning this fublime Subject before m~ by rendring it in every refpe^f obvious to yom Conceptions^ as 'tis no Stain to our Charaifer. that we are but Creatures^ and have not infiniti Capacities^ I may venture to fay^ 'twould be m Impeachment of our Wifdom and Prudence tt embrace the great Doctrines of Omjiianity in then Simplicity^ i. e. as purely reveal'd: For ^tis m wonder if a fupernatural Revelation fpeaks in- comprehenfible things of God^ who is ' infinitel exalted above all the moji elevated Screws o Thought I and therefore the coinmon Maxims o Fhilofophy^ the imperfect Meafure even of finit Beings^ are not rajhly to be extended to him^ un lefs we perfectly knew his divine Nature^ am bow to apply themo But here we are foon grovel' d ' hov [ ^^i^ 1 bow dim IS our Knowledge of the Mojl High ! The brighteft Idea we can form of God is vajily^ injinitely inferior to him^ which Jhould check all hafty Conclufions concerning his peerleff Majejiy^ whofe Manner of Exijlencefar exceeds the Fa^ thorn of created Intellects. Now as the Doctrine of the Son's eternal Generation is purely reveal' d^ being undifco'verable by the Light ofReafon^I con- ceive your Friend ad'vanced a Step too for^ when in his Appendix he attempts to reduce it to a di- iq{X and flat Contradidion, For my part^ I can pretend to offer nothing in the whole Compafs of Nature that Jhall give you a fuitable Refemblance of the Myjiery^ fo as to ajfijiyou in conceiving it, or me in defcribing it any further^ than that 'tis reveal' d^ and may be pojjible^ as far as we know-^ and if what we don't know to be impojjible^ and all the World by their utmoft Skill and Art carit prove to be a Contradiction^ appears to be tejiiffd by any Perfon of known Integrity^ cf whofe Ve- racity we can entertain no manner cf Doubt, we can't with any juft Reafon refufe to give our Af fent. And fince the Veracity of God admits of no guefiion, and we on both fides of this Con- troverfy concur to centre in the Holy Scriptures, as the only Rule of Faith, as well as Manners-, if thofe Faffages rf facred Writ, which way be produced to prove the Son of the fame Nature, Glory, and Eternity with the Father, Jhall be ex- pounded founded with that Candour^ Impartiality^ and Fidelity^ as not to be wrefied^ like thedouhtful Oracles of the Heathen Deities^ to any Senfe^ and fer'verted to Mec^nings the Words canH bear^ I flatter my [elf there will be no juji Caufe of fuf fending our Alfent. If it fhall beftill urged, that thefe Doctrines, of the Son's Generation, the Trir nity^ Incarnation, &c. can'tbefo explained as to be clear and adequate, and level to our CapacitieSy and therefore muji be rejected as abfurd, impof- [Me, or contradictory ^ this can by no means fol- low, unlefi every thing is [o that we cannot diC- t\n&\y conceive, and plainly account for ^^ which is [ucb a degree of Folly and Scepticifin, that I [carce believe any Man of firong Sen[e can be. drawn into -, [or at this rate we mu[i believe no^ thing, becau[e in fact we can fully comprehend nothing. So that I heartily wiffj your Friend had not engro[s'd[o prodigious a Share o[ the rea[oning Talent to him[el[ and Party as he [eems to do, by cafling that Glance of Reproaoh on his orthodox Brethren, as Men of more Zeal than Judgment. fV hat follows is a little more harfh and unguard- ed, which furprizes 7?te to fee one of his Com- plexion and Moderation, fit [o hard upon the Characters o[ others, and pofitively determine at the fir ft Start againft a Doctrine [o [u(?lijne and important -, as if the great Jehovah wasfuch a fhin and [hallow Being, as prefently to be [een thro* [ xvi ] thro' and thro\ jilaj^y we are all but of Tef- terday^ and know nothing; how then can we fpeak fo definithely cf a Being who dwells in impenetrable Lights and whofe Dignify tranfcends the Reach of Mortals ? 'Twill be no Excufe to -plead we know not how to reconcile our Ideas about what he has re'VcaFd concerning himfelf with any cf our natural Notions; for if we would demonflrate it to be a Contradiction^ we viuft know that it can't be reconciled to his own divine Nature. But we 7uay as wellgrafp the Sun^ andfpan the whole Circuit of the Heanjens^ as meafure the divine Nature by our fhallow Jp-^ prehenfions ; fo that your Friend has need cffo?ne candid and favourable Allowances in this Par- ticular^ and probably 'twas only his Fondnefs for his ozvn, Opinioris that led him unawares to thefe wild Excurjions ; and when I come to feel the Edge of his Arguments^ I hope you II difcern he had no fuch Bottom to proceed on as he imagined; and that the Doctrine of the Son's eternal Gene- ration hath no Contradiction in it^ but only in his manner of conceiving it. To confirm you in the Belief of the Divinity of the Son of God^ which is certainly the Beauty^ Glory ^ and Foundation of the Chrijiian Religion^ and to obviate^ if poffible^ fome Difficulties that may he thrown in your Way^ I have not only con- fickrd what Mr. Forfter has too precipitantly tir^d [ xvii ] m^d ngainft it in his Appendix^ but attempted form T(e?narks. on a late VampUet wrongly enti^ tuled^ The Unity of God not inconfiftent with the Divinity of Chrift,- both which I han)e interwo'ven in the following Treatife^ with no other View than to place the Controverfy in a more eafy Light. Since I finiJFd ?ny Defign^ thif Author's Reply to Dr. WaterlandV Preface came to hand ^ his juji Reflections on the hitter way of handling Contrcverfy amofig Chriflian D/- 'vinesy with that Air of Concern and Grief he JJoews on this Occafion^ and the great Strep he lays upon his following Pages^ had "very ??mch rais'd my Expei'iations of finding ?tothing elfe but [oft Words^ eafy Periods^ and folid Arguments : But I was difappointed^ and the iftore furpriz'd at ity to fee a Gentle?nanfofoon forget his own RuleSy and pra£ttfe an Art he had juJi condejnn'd^ of raifingihe PaJJions of his Readers^ and gaining their Allent (to ufe his own Words) by the low and unworthy Methods of Pofitivenefs^' Didating, Contempt, and Mifreprefentation."^; Injiances of all which might eafily be given^ but I would forbear whetting ; ?ny Defign being not to recrifjiinate^ but to pie ad for the Truth as His in Jefus. The Method I haw purfud in it may perhaps appear a little intricate 5 and therefore I B have * Reply, pag, i, [ xviii ] ha've digefted it into feveral difiin6i Chapterf^ for the greater Eafe of the Reader. If any thing that I ha've offer d may ha've a Tendency to efta- blifhyoti in the Faith of the Gofpel^ fromoteyour Peacey Comfort y and Joy^ in our common Lord^ and pre^vent others from running into the endlefs 'Mazes of Error ^ to the Difparage?nent of Chri- fiianity^ and the real Encourage?nent of Deifff^ and Irreligion^ the Confequences of zvhich are threatning and dreadful ! Let God alone ha've all the Glory y whilfl you forget not to remernher vie at the Throne of Grace^ who am^ andjhall jiill remain Tour unfeigned Friend and Servant ^ >"%. Joseph Pyk.e. A N Impartial VIEW Of the Principal DlFFlCULTtES THAT Affeft the Trinitarian^ or cldg the Arian^ SCHEME* CHAP. L The fir ft Argument for the Eternal Generation of the Son of God^ asftated in the Appen^ dix^ viz. That when Chrift is called the Son ot God, in that Phrafe is imply'd hi$ being of the fame numerical Nature aM Eflence with God, * briefly confidered^ and the Objediom agdinft it reinonfd : With Dr. WaterlaridV Account oj the Word Perfofij,' refcued iro?n the Charge of a Contradiction te'veitd againft him by the Author of Unity. HEN 'tis written, Goi fo loved the World that hegavs his only begotten Son ^ &c. f And in this u^as manifejt the Love of God towards tis^ that God Cent his only begotten Son into the World that we might live through him: if we compare thefe Words with 6 a dtbi?,? * Appetrdix to EtFay on FtJndamehtals, pag. 34- t Jdh-iii. 16. 1 Job. iv. 9. Col. i. jj, it-, i Job. v. 30- &--:. to other Paflages of Sacred Writ, it apparently fhews there was a Relation between him and his Father 5 not only before his being fent into the World in the Fullnefs of Time, but even antecedent to the Creation itfelf, which muft render it a fruitlefs Tafk in any one to ef!:iy a Proof of his being denominated a Son from his miraculous Conception by the Holy Ghoft, his Office of Mefliah, his Adoption, Refurre6t ion from the Dead, or any other R^afon that can poflibly be affign*d 5 unlefs it be his being begotten from Evcrlafting in the one Godhead, or divine Nature 3 in refpecl: of which he is truly and real- ly Son of God, as much as in refpe£l of his humane Nature he is Son of Man. Agreeable to which the Scrip- tures call him the Root and Qffspr'mgy the Lord and .Sb^ of David 5 * and when "'tis faid God fpar'd not his own Son, i/tii qa «K, stptfiTfifclo, his ^i'o^er Son, it plainly fuppofes^ he was before all Ages begotten of Kis Father, which very eafily and naturally leads us to apprehend the divine Relation between the Father and the Son to be necef- fary and eternal 3 for if the Father is eternal, then the Son ''is eternal, and always a Son , for Relatives muft be mutual and coa^val 5 fo that the Father can be na more without the Son, than the Son without the Fa- ther, the Relation being infeparable. This relative Diftindion afTures us however, that the Father is not the Son ' (which is a ftrong Proof of more Perfons in the Godhead than one), for the fame Perfon in the fame refpetls cannot be Father and Son too 5 cannot- beget and be begotten. And further, as oar bleffed Lord is an eternal Son, of the fame Nature with the Father, as every true Son partakes of the common ha- mane Nature with his Parent, he mull be God in Ef- fence, equal to the Father, and confequently muit have the fame Eflence, Power, Will, and Glory : For we may fafely afifert^ that God did not beget another God,. • " diflina • Rev. xxii. 16. Matt. xxii. 45. Rom. viii. 3a, [3] ^Iftin£l and feparate from himfelf, and inferior to hiir, though he beg.it a Son 3 for the Power of God is nor, (and with humble and awful Deference to the divine Majefty) we may fay cannot be exercifed about any thing repugnant, and contradidory to his own Nature y* and as nothing is more repugnant to the Godhead than a Plurality of Gods, therefore we conclude, that the Fa- ther and Son are one in EiTence, &c. I here wave the Term Numerical^ till 'tis explained, for Number being only in Stridnefs of Speech applicable to compound Be- ings, it may perhaps be ufed improperly in this cafe 5 feeing God, ahfolutely confidered, is one, exclufive of every other Being 3 however, if all that be meant by the Word Numerical is to exclude a fe^ urate and different Ejjence^ I conceive it may be fafely ufed 5 and in this Senfe, wherever the Word occurs, I defire the Reader to take it. In thus ftating the Subject 1 have done it more Juflice than probably the Author's deiign*d Bre- vity would permit him to do 3 I fhall now purfue the Argument, and impartially try the Weight of his Objec- tions againft it. The Argument in the Appendix ihnds thus : " Every proper, natural Son is of the fame Nature ** with his Father who begat him 3 if then Chrift be ** the true and natural Son of God, he mull have the *' fame EfTence with God, and be, in the higheil Senfe '' of the Word, God." The Author's Reply to this, is 3 But now if this Argument p'ovES any things it proves more than they ivoitU defjre^ viz. That Chriji being the proper and natural Son of God muji have a really diJiinB Nature from Gody though fpecijically the fame, m every Son hai a really difiintl Nature from his Father^ ivho hegat him, though fup- pos^d to be ^ecijically thefame."^ To obviate this feeming Difficulty, I offer this Plea, which all Men, not bigotted to an Hypothecs, muft B 5 ac- * ElFay Oil Fundamentals, pag. 34, 35. [43 account juft and valid, viz. That there. is no ^riQ: and ^ciftve arguing from ;i finite to an infinite Nature, be- caufe there is no Pirallel, or Analogy between them 5 and coniequently, tho' a Father and a Son among Men have as it were diftin^ and feparare Natures, as well as ferfons, the uncreated Son of God may notwithftand- ing h ive one undivided Nature with his Father. Thofe Principles which are true of finite Beings can- not always, with any Reafon and Propriety, be prjedi- cated of the infinite jehovah 5 for though it fhould be undeniable, that Perfons of the fame Species, as a Fa- ther and Son among us, have each a diftind Nature a? well as Subfiflence, it don't at all touch the Argument, much lefs enervate it : For the humane Nature, which is common to all the Species (in which refpe6t it may be caird one) cannot be communicated to teveral pro- per Perfons of the fame Species, without a Dif^erfan of the common Nature, and a Multiplication uf it, into feveral, fingular, particular Natures, which the humane Nature we may allow will acjmit of, feeing tis imper- fe£l, finite^ and qivifible. But hence to infer, that Chrift, as the natural Son of God, muft have a reaU AiJiinB ISlature from Gody tkdttgh fpecijicully the fame ^ Oi every Son hxi a difiinB Nature from his Fatrer^ is forced and pre- pofterous 5 for the diyine Nature iS infiniie, and that which is infinite can neither be divided nor multiplied. This Argument is nervoufly profecuted by the great Bifliop Pearfon^ f whofe Words, as they may caft a bet- ter Light upon the Subject, I fliajl tranfcribe. " The Similitude then, in which the Propriety of *' Generation is preferved, is that which confifteth in '^^ the Identity of Nature 5 and this Communication of '* the divine Ejffence by the Father fo the Word, is ** evidently a fufficient Foundation of fuch a Similitude 5 ** from whence Chrift U called * the Image of God,' ■.■-■,-•■ ,, ^^^ """ ^ " V * ^ ' I ■ III' ' " ■ ■ 1 On the Csecd, pag. is7» * 2 Cor. ir. 4. Heb. i« 3- « tlie Brlghtnefs of his Glof y, and the exprefs Image of *« his Perfon. Nor is this Communication of the di- ** vine EiTence only the proper Generation of the Son 5 *« but we muft acknowledge it far more proper than any <' natural Generation of the Creature, not only bccaufe ** it is in a more perfe£l manner, but alfo becaufe the ** Identity of Nature is more perfeft. As in the divine ** Effence we acknowledge all the Perfedlions of the *' Creatures, fubikafting all the Imperfedions which " adhere unto them here in things below j fo in the ** Communication we mult look upon the Realityi •' without any kind of Defeil, Blemifh, or Impurity, ** In humane Generation the Son is begptten in the " fame Nature with the Father, which is performed by *' Derivation, or Decifion of part of the Subftance of ** the Parent : But this Decilion includeth Imperfection^ •' becaufe it fuppofeth a Subftance divifible, and confe- *' quently corporeal, whereas the EfTence of God is in- ** corporeal, Spiritual, and indivifible 3 and therefore «' his Nature is really communicated, not by Derivation *« or Deciiion,but by a total and plenary Communication 5 <* in natural Conceptions the Father neceffirily precedeth «' the Son, and begetteth one younger than himfelf 5 for «' being Generation is for the Perpetuity of the Species, ** where the Individuals fucceflively fail, it is fufficient ** if the Parent can produce another to live after him, *^ and continue the Exiftence of his Nature, when his *♦ Perfon is diflblv'd. But this prefuppofeth the Imper- ** feftion of Mortality wholly to be remov'd, when we *< fpeak of him that inhabiteth Eternity : The EfTence " which God always had without beginning, without *' beginning he did communicate, being always Father, " as always God. — And that which is moft remark- " able in humane Generations, the Son is of the fame ** Nature with the Father, and yet he is not the fame i* Man $ becaufe though he hath an Eflence of the fame ** hjndf yet he hath not the fame EJfence, the Power of B 4 ** Generation " Generation depending on the firfl: prollfical Bene- *' didion, Increafe, and Multiply, it maft be made ** by way of Multiplication 5 and thus every Son be- ** comes another Man 5 but the divine EfTence being, *' by reafon of its Simplicity, not fubje6t to Divifion, " and in refpecSl of- its Infinity, uncapable of Multipli- *' cation, is fo communicated as not to be multiplied 5 ** infomuch that he who proceedeth by that Comma- " nication hath not only the fame Nature, but is the ** fame God." The fame numerical whole undivided Nature then (if it be proper to fay the Whole of that which hath no Parts) being of boundlefs Perfection, doth really and eternally belong to the Son of God, without any Div iion of the divine Nature, or Separation of the Per- fons from it , and confequently, tho' the Perfons are dittinguifh'd into Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, they are not divided 5 yea, flrid:ly fpeaking, the divine Na- ture itfelf, as 'tis common to Father and Son, B'r. is not d I iti nguifli'd , for obferve,*' the divine EfTence is not *' diflingui/h'd from it felf, nor are the Perfons diftin- ** guilh'd from one another by the efiential Properties of ** the Deity, but by perfonal Properties, which are not ** common to Father and Son," as you will fee hereafter. Since then the one infinite and perfe(51: Nature is com- mon to the Father and Son, without any Divifion or Se- paration, as in the humane Nature, they may be one God in a mofl confummate Union j and confequently the Argument produced by the Trinitarians, from the Uen^- thy of Nature^ to prove the Equality of the Father and Son, does not prove too muchy as our Author fancies, and would drill his Reader into the Belief of, by patch- ing up a loofe Objection from what is only obfervable in humane Generations^ which is eafily refuted, not with the Trouble of denying it, but only by bare diflingui/h- ing between Natures finite and infinite, which have no exafl Agreement one with the other, but between which there , [ 7 ] there is juft the fame inconceivable Diftance, as between the meaneft Worm and the great Creator 5 and if our Conceptions were any way fuitable to the Nature of God, and not taken up from what we fee among Men, we fhould be forc'd to think fo. Thus have I fhewn, that the Argument does not prove too much, but juft Jvhat it fhould prove, 'viz, that whatever the Father isj as he is God, the fame is the Son, truly equally God, in one undivided God- head. If the Author had been thoroughly aware of this, he could not have fuggefted. That the Argument ■jTiW deJiruBive of the Unity of the Godheady and advancing, an Error ivorfe than Socinianifm itfef, as being fuhverfive of an acknowledged fundamental Principle of reveai'd Religion, the Unity of the Godhead. * In Reply to this, Any one that has but dipp'd in theControverfy,muft needs know that 'tis the received Dodrine of the Trini- ' tarians, that there is but one Jehovah, one divine Nature, which is undivided in every of the Three Perfons, and therefore every one of them is the true God (befides which EfTence, whatfoever exifls is a Creature, and not God 3) for the divine Nature being immenfe and indi- vifible, the fame intire Nature ( to ufe the Bifiiop*s Phrafe) is communicated to the Son 5 f fo that there is neither more nor lefs of Godhead in the Son, than in the Father or Holy Ghoft, but all three divine Per- fons * Appendix, pag. 35. t The ufe of the Word Commumcate Tias difgufted fome, and led others «ra- happily to furmife, that what is communicated is deriv'd, and confequently the Son can't be the fupreme God j whereas nothing elfe is meant by the Phrafe, than to exprefs the Order of the uncreated Perfons fubfiffcing in the divine Na- ture, according to humane Conception ; and if we always carried in our Minds- the Idea of its being eternal and necelTary, it would fhew us, that though the Word may be improper, yet can have no fuch Senfe juftly tax'd to it, as to give occafion for fuch a Suggeftion, feeing the Father never gave, or the Son receiv'd, any thing but what they both evexlaftingly poirefs'd together in the one undivided Godhead. rn fbns are equal in Subftance, Power, and Glory, and confequently the one God. But here Tome may imagine an invincible Difficulty occurs, how can this Hypothejj! be frovd to he confijient mtk the Unity of God^ luhen it a^j^ears heyond dijpute to he incomer ehenfihle^ if not contradtBory^ But tho* we may be ignorant how and in what manner 'tis confident, this ought to be no bar to our Belief of what we know is reveal'd, feeing 'tis neceflary in the reafon of things, that a Truth of this nature fhould be fubhme and above our reach 5 for 'tis impoflible that what is infinite fliould be comprehended by a finite Mind 5 and tho' it be thus infcrutable, it can never, by the moft fubtle Fetches, be fairly demoniirated to be a Contra- didion : Which very naturally leads me to animadvert a little upon the Author of Unity ^\ for ^charging Dr. JVaterland with a Contradi(fl:ion in his Notion of Perfon. The Do(51or's Words are, *' Each divine Perfon is an •* individual, intelligent Agent 5 but as fuhjjjhng in one *« undivided Suhjiance^ they are all together in that re- ** fpefl but one undivided intelligent Agent."!! Every unprejudic'd Perfon, that attends to the Defign of thefe Words, muft fee them very confiftent, and well guarded, and far from a Contradiction. The Terms individual and undivided^ admitting of a ftri6ler and larger Senfe, as differently applied, as the Dodor obferves for himfelf in his Preface : To which I add, had he afferted that three individual Beings of eternal fej^arate Exiftence are one undivided God 5 or that three individual infinite fe^arate Perfons are one Perfon, it would be a manifeft Contradiction 5 for their being feparate muft fuppofe them to be finite, &c. But on the contrary, the Doftor confiders the divine Perfons not asfeparate, but as fuh- J}fting in one undivided Suhjiance, Thefe Words, which de- termin'd the meaning of the whole Sentence, the Author having t Uiiity, p. 5. \\ Defence of fomc (^eiies, p i50. [9] having left out, fnatches an Opportunity to make the Podor fay what he pleafes, viz, three j^gents are one ^gent^ or three Perfons are one Perfon^ they are three^ hut one in the fame reJpeB. What, fuch Treatment , fuch maiming of the Dodor's Words and Senfe, by one, that with fuch Pain and Uneafinefs is forc'd to complain of Mifrepre- fentation ? But the Author is (o good as to palliate it in the next Words : " Indeed (fays he) the DoHor in- •* ferts a Claufe ivhich he feem*d to dejtgn as a SalvOy and to *f ohviate the Charge of a ContradiSHon.** And this in fa£l does intirely remove it 5 for what is fpoken of in tiio dif- ferent refpedls, can't be true in one and the fame refpe6l. ** The one refpe^l, in which all three Perfons are con- ** fider'd as one undivided intelligent Agent, is as they '* f^kflft '" ^^^ undivided Subflance ;" Which Words the Author kept out of fight above, as well knowing the honeft Reader could difcern no Contradidion, if they had not been fupprefs'd. As to the other refpeBy the Author queries, •* Jvlnji it not he as they do not fubjjft in *' one undivided Suhjlance ? if it differs from the other^ it mufi *' he this.** But why fb poiitive, can they pofTibly differ in nothing elfe ? may not their different manner of fub- fifting in the divine Effence fufficiently account for all the Dodlor fays ? for it amounts to no more, than that three Perfons fubfifting after a different manner in the divine Effence, are not one Perfon, but one God 5 for i^Q one of the three Perfons is con{ider*d abfolutely as God, exclufive of the others 5 but they are all together one incomprehenfible uncreated Being j which is as far fjfom a Contradiftion, as 'tis from Tritheifm, as I hope ^ill be prov'd in the next Chapter : In the mean while *tis worth remarking, that when Men launch beyond their Fathom, in queft of unknown and unreveal'd Truths, 'tis no new thing to meet with infuperable Difficulties to cptangle them. What the Doflor meant, however, by his Notion of a Perfon, I am willing to fuppofe the Au- . thor underftood, unlefs be o^^oj^d he l^new nop- ivhat 5 for ' " ' how [ lo ] how could he affert it to be a Contradiflion, unlefs he well underftood what it was which he pretends to be a Contradidion ? But notwithftanding this he calls upon the Do^or next of all, to let us hriow ivhat that is "Mch isfufpos^d to he the 'Medium between a Spirit and an At' tribute^ and I in my turn fummon him ever to prove the contrary 5 v;h]ch if ever he ihould attempt, as he can't underfland the deep things of God any more than the Doctor, I am fure he muft talk 'without a Meaning. What lie obferves, indeed, that 'where there is no Idea there can be no Ajjent^ is in part true, but not pertinent 5 for we all own that we muil have a general Knowledge of what is to be believ'd f which, as I obferv'd in the Introduftion, we receive from the Word of God) before we can aflent 5 becaufe ajpnting to nothing is the very fame as not ajjenting 5 but then to deny our AfTent to the Truth of a Thing, or the Reality of its Exigence, only becaufe the Manner of its exifting is unknown to us, which is the very Cafe, is moft unreafonable. I may as well re- fufe to believe that God exifts, till I can exaftly ex- plain how he exifls^ or deny that I think, becaufe I know not how, or by what fecrct Springs of Motion tny Thoughts are exerted. The Truth then of a Tri- nity may be known by the divine Teftimony ; and tho' there be unfurmountable Difficulties in conceiving or ex- plaining the Modm or Manner how it can be, this don't affeB the Truth itfelf, which is fupported by too big and facred an Authority to be weakned by what the Author thinh^ of it, has faid of it, or can fay, tho' he feems to entertain a Notion, that his calling the three Perfons three Spirits, will bring the Controverfy to an Iflue 3 but if each of the three Perfons in the Godhead may be call'd a Spirit, without fubverting the Unity of the divine Na- ture, this will be of little Service to him, tho' it may puzzle and amufe others that don't fee thro* the Fallacy. CHAP. [^n CHAP. II. An Enquiry whether any Idea can be jujlly fix*d on the Term Perfon, [o as not to deflroy the Unity of the dhine Nature j and whether^ in any qualify 'd Senfe^ each of the three Perfom ?nay be calFd a Spirit. ^r H E Defign of this Chapter is to vindicate the -■• Trinitarian Scheme j to fhew the Poflibility of three Perfons fubfifting in one undivided Godhead, fo as not to imply a Contradiction 5 that there may be a Medium between a Mode of Subfifience and a feparate Spirit 5 to confirm the Dodrine of the Unity of the divine Eflence, which is fo perfect, as not to be capable of fuch a Difference of Perfons as is among Men, which will farther obviate the Author of U«i/;y*s Charge of im- plying a Con tradition, and the Objedion of the Appen- dix againft it, as making three Gods. Ftrjl, I fhall try whether any Meaning can be fix'cl on the Term Perfon, Co as to obviate the Charge of a Contradiction. Secondly^ Whether this Meaning may be (o confident with the Unity of the Godhead, as not neceiTarily to introduce three feparate Gods. Thirdlyy Whether in any Senfe each of the divine Perfons may be call'd a Spirit. (i.) I {hall humbly offer whether any Meaning can -be fix*d ©n the Term Per/on^ fo as to obviate the Charge of [ tf ] of a Contradidlon 5 and in treating of this 'twill not be inipf&per to hint two Extreams which fome Perlohs have run into, that of Sahelliamfm ^ and fufpeded Tritheifm, Firjt, The Sahellians held, that a Perfon was nothing elfe but a Name, Attribute, Power, or Operation in God, which, according to feveral Appearances, or Ma- nifeftations , was fometimes call'd Father^ fometinies Son, and fometimes Holy Ghoft, according to the CharaBer that was fuftain'd in the Oeconomy of our Salvation. This is an Hypothefis that accounts for the Unity of God ; but as 'tis contrary to the whole Tenor of the infpir'd Oracles, it has been juftly rejefted By the Churches 5 and for the fafn& Reafon we ought to be /hy of the Definition of fome of the Schoolmen, who feem to defcribe a divine Perfon to be only a meer Mode of Being 5 which is too narrow and nice a Diftin£tion to be fafely admitted of j for if we ab{tra£l the Manner of Subfiftence in our Defcription of a Perfon from the divine Nature, we fliall take aWay real Divinity from the Perfon, and fo defcribe a Trinity of Cyphers, with- out God or Godhead. Secondly^ Others, who are reckon'd Tritheiflsy defcribe a Perfon by a diflin^l: , infinite , felf-confcious Mind ; tvhich as it feems to carry the fame Idea with it as God, there camnot be three Perfons according to this Definition, without fuppofing three Gods. But I conceive fome 6£ our modern Writers, how unhappy foever in their Ex- plications of the Trinity, are not rafhly to be cenfur'd as Tritbeifts, whilft they hold an undivided Nature and' a mutual Confcioufnefs 5 for in treating of fuch fublime Points, Men want Words to exprefs their confus'd Ideas (and fo are led to pitch upon a new Set of Terms, which feems to convey a new Senfe, but in reality th^y defign'd nothing new by it) for it muft be confefsM an arduous Tafi to fix any fudh Meaning on the Word Perfon, as may anfwer the diftinft pexfonal A^s attributed to Fi- thefy [ 13 ] ther, Son, and Itoly Ghoft, in Scripture, and be not at the fame time inconfiftent with the Unity of the di- vine Nature, fuch as may guard againft real Tritheifrti, and not throw us into Sabelliaflifm, and the unintelligible Jargon and Chaos of Metaphyficks. But tho* *tis fo difficult to affign what a divine Per- fon in the Trinity is, an EfTay towards it, that does not exceed the Bounds of modeft Enquiry, I appre- hend is neither unlawful nor unneceffary ; and therefore I ^^ould venture to reprefent my Thoughts of it in the following Words. A fpiritual infinite intelligent Agent, which muft not be confider'd as abflraded from, but as truly fubfifting in the divine Nature, and as mutually, eternally, and infeparably related to the other co-effential Perfons in the Godhead, from whom he is fuffciently and only dif- tinguifli'd, by fome perfonal, and as fuch incommuni- cable Properties. {i.) This Definition equally fences againft Sabellia- nifm and fome of the Schoolmen, as it defcribes a Per- fon not to be a Quality, Accident, or Attribute, but a compleat , proper , living, fuhftant'ial Perfon : I don't mean a feparate Sahflance^ becaufe the fame infinite Sub- ftance is common to the whole undivided Godhead, and the' it fubfifts differently in each, a Perfon is not a meer Mode of Being, becaufe the particular Manner of Subfiftence is in Conjunction with the Effence, and not abftrafted from it, but infeparably, neceflarily, and eter- nally remaining in it 5 which different Manner of fub- fifting in the divine Nature imports fuch diftinft Rela- tions, as can never co-incide in one and the fame Perfon, tho' they concur in the Unity of the divine Nature, (2.) This alfo guards againft real Tritheifm, vi^. of three Perfons being three felf confcious Minds, or ab- folute Beings, each exifting fe^arately by it felf , m Jngels or Men do : For, according to the Defcription I have given above of a divine Perfon, they all fubfift in one and the fame [ H ] .fame Nature, in which they mutually exift together, as in their Subject, or Suhflratum^ and cannot poflibly exifl by themfelves without it 5 for no Perfon can be abftraded from the divine Nature, which is undivided in Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. All the Objedions therefore againft a Trinity of Perfons in the Godhead* which are drawn from a Suppoiltion, that the very No- tion of a Perfon imports a feparately fuhjjfling Beings are here of no force 5 for the Word Perfon, as apply *d dijiinctly to Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, does not iignify a.fepa^ rate Suhjlfience^ but only compleat Subfiftence 5 and confe- quently tho' the Perfons of Men are diftindl Men, as well as diftin6l Perfons, this is no Ground to affirm, that the uncreated Perfons in the one divine Nature are diftinft Gods 5 and yet this is the Sum of all the Argu- ments againfl three Perfons and one God, and all the Con- tradiction Men pretend to fee in it. And indeed it may be fafely acknowledged (as Cuflom has fix'd the Idea of ^fej?arate Subfiftence upon the Term Perfon) 'tis in this Senfe very improper, and apt to lead us into pernicious Errors: But then again, confidering our broken Know- ledge, any other ftronger and clearer Term that we may arrive at, to exprefs our Thoughts of this Myftery, will give to others but confus'd Conceptions about Subjects, concerning which our own are fo lame and imperfeftj and yet probably this is the utmoft Height we fhall ever climb to in this Life, where we fee but thro' a Glafs darkly. And now if we wou'd but make fome Allowances for the Narrownefs of our Minds, and our Language, the Dodlrine of the blefled Trinity would appear defen- iible as "'tis reveal' J j and they who perfift in denying it, in order to difprove it, muft firft comprehend the di- vine Niture, or elfe they can never fliew, that three di- i)ine Perfons, according to the above Definition, may not be one God^ tho' three humane Perfons cannot be one Man^ much lefs with any Shadow of Ingenuity, Candour, and Juftice, charge fofublime a Doftrine with Contradidionc I'or [ ^5 ] I'or 'tis worfe than trifling to diTpute a^ainfl- three ?^r- (ons in the Godhead, fr9ni the bare Signification of the Word Per/on, when applied to humane Creaiurts^ for all the World knows we don't ufe it in the fame Senfe when applied to Fathejk Son, and H07 Ghoft, as wh^n applied to Men 5 and can it be fair to impcfe a Mt^an- ing_ on a Wordj which we unanimoufly rejeci ? Having thus endeavour'd to fix fome certain Senle on the Term Perfon^ that it may be known what is in- tended when we fay there are three Perfons in the Godhead, I /hall next proceed as 1 propos'd. (z^/jy.) To enquire whether this Meaninp; may be fo confiftent with the Unity of the Godhead, as not neceffirily to introduce three feparate Gods. Here I don't prefume to tell low it i.-^, (for iiio cart fearch out GoA^ 'who can jind out the yjlmhj.ty to Perftct'ion ?) my Defign being only to eflabl fh the Truth of the Dodrine, and thereby Ikrten it from the Attacks of So- phiftry, and the Miftikes of Ignorance. To do this, it will be necefTiry to ftate the Order of Persons tn the Trinity, and then fl:ew, that the divine Nature can- not he feparated from any one of the divine Pcrfonj, and confequently, that they are united in one common, di- vine, tnjintte Nature. (iji.) I am to ftate the Order of Perfons In the Tri- nity, which I would do with all SubmiiTion and Terf- dernefs. . . , Whether all three Perfons of tlie bleifed Trinity are effentially equal in Power, Glory, and Duration, is not now the Qued on. This we may affent to, and yet confidering the Father as the firrt in Order, we are led to coniider him as having oub/iflence fr>;m none but himfelf 5 to confider the Son alfo as recefving his Subfirience from the Father, in feme fu'ch manner as is exprefs'd in Scripture, by his being ll^l'd the py^'y he- ghtten 'y which is vaftiy different from humaiie Gene- ration, and to us altogether incomprehelilible 5 an^l fi- G ^itzWj]; C ^^ ] mlly, to confider the Holy Ghoft, as coming (or fr^- ceeding) from the Father and the Son. We have very little more than this revealM to us concerning the Order of three Perfons fubfifting in the one Godhead, which renders it a very abdrufe Poini| and foon runs the In- quifitive into a Cloud. Now as he that would dif- Gourfe to a Man born blind concerning Light and Co- lours, mud ufe perhaps very improper ExprefTions to make himfelf, tho' never fo little, underfiood 5 fo it is in the Cafe before us. As we have no Ideas propor- tionate to the SubjeCl- , we can form no other Word more proper to exprefs the Son's being begotten, but the Term Generation^ and the Spirit*s coming from the Father and the Son, but by the Term Proceffton 5 and the Father's primary Subfiftence, but the Term Vnori- gination. The Meaning of thefe Terms we know , but hoiv the Son is begotten, or the Spirit proceeds, or the Father is the Fountain, or firft Principle of Subfiftence, when they are all three equally eternal^ we can't dif- tindly account for : And yet this Manner or Order of fubfifting feems fufficient to ground fuch an Emphalis upon, as we may venture to fay, corijjjhnt with Trini- tarian Principles, that the Son, in this refpect^ is fuhor- dinate to the Father, tho' not inferior. Hence fome, unawares, have been drawn in to believe, that the Fa- ther alone is God of himfelf, becaufe the Son and Holy Ghoft receiv'd their Subfiftence from him. But this wrong Conclufion is entirely owing to their not dif- tinguifliing betvifeen the Eflence of God, and the di- vine Perfon's peculiar way of fubUfting 5 for the divine Nature was from all Eternity undivided in all 5 fo that every one of the three Perfons is eflentially eter- nally God 'y the firft Perfon fubiids in it after a Man- ner proper to the Father,, and the Son and Holy Ghoft infeparably with him» but in an ineffable way peculiar to themfelves. This, 'tis evident, makes a true Dif- tin^ion between the Father and them 3 for the formal Rela- try] Relat'dns, or Properties, by which the Perfons are diC- tinguifli'd, cannot be efiftintial in this refpe^r, becaufe they are peculiar to the Perfons onl}', and not common^ as the EiTence is. The divine Nature then of the Father (abflra^lly confider'dj is not his Fatherhood, nor the divine Nature of the Son his Filiation^ nor that of the Holy Ghoft his Procejfon 5 but the firfl: Perfon's Order and Manner of fubllfting in the divine Nature conftitutes hitn, as he thus begat his Son, a Father -, and the fame may be faid of the Son and Holy Ghoft, as begotten and proceeding 5 fo that as tbcy alfo fub- iift infe^arably and eternally in the fame Godhead, they are very juftly faid to be the one living and true God : For if the living Effence of the Father be the divine Godhead, or Supreme Being, fo is the EfTence of the Son, becaufe it is the fame. For 'tis moft certain, that a Nature of infinite and boundlefs Perfection can- not belong to any Being that is notinjinite, i. e. to any thing that is not itfelf $ it can't be extended beyond, or out of itfelf, becaufe 'tis boundlefs. And as there is nothing infinite but itfelf, and there can be but one infinite, therefore the Son and Holy Ghofl:, to whom this infinite Nature belongs (there being no Mode, Quality, or any thing eKe fuperadded by the Father to caufe their Subfiflence, that could be extrapjjent':al^ or really feparable from his own eternal Nature) is one attd the fame injinite God with the Fatherj poflefling the fame indivifible Effence, the fame divine Perfec- tions, and fo all three Perfons mutually fubfiil: in one omniprefent, fpiritual, independent Godhead, or Sub- ftance* Which leads me to fhew, (2^/)'.) That the divine Nature cannot be feparated from any one of the divine Perfons, and confequently they are united in one common, infinite Effence 5 fo that the Meaning of the Term Perfon is not fnconfiltent with the Unity of God. C % . Th^ ti8] The Father necejjarily begat the Son from Eternity, and fo he is not barely- the OfFspring of his Will, but God by Nature, as has been briefly hinted, and will be more largely handled in the Sequel, and confequent- ly he is Ens fummj neeejjaritimy as well as the Father, God of himfelf, and not God by Participation 3 for the divine Nature, which is from Eternity, is the Na- ture of the Son confidered ejjentlally^^ as well as the Fa- ther : 'Tis not begotten^ caus^d^ or proditc''d^ any more than the Ejpnce of the Father, but is of itfclf 3 fo that with the utmo-d Propriety we may fay, that the Son is God of him ft If though he be not a Son of himfef, but of the Father 3 the Suhjljhnce of the San being begotten, but the diviyie Nature of the Son is unbegotten. Our Lord then is the only begotten Sori of God, fubfifling in the unbegotten^ uncreated Nature of God, and fo is not a different God from the Father, but of the fime divine Effence, and therefore an eternal, in- dependent Being, who did not begin to be God, who cannot ceafe to be. And the fame may be faid of the Holy Ghoft 5 for fince the divine Effence is uncom- pounded and undivided, it mufl necellarily follow, that whoever fubiifts in it muft be God 3 and confequently, I humbly conceive, the Definition I have given of a Perfon is not inconfiftent with the Unity of God; which fliews, there is a Medium between the Mode of Subfiftcnce and ^fej^arate Spirit 3 between Sahdlianifm andTritheifm, c?bn- trary to the Insinuation of the Author of Unity : And that the Do6^rine of the Son*s eternal Generation does not lead us to admit three Gods, as Mr. Forfter has fug- geikd, becaufe the three Perfons are not to be confidered as ibftra6ted from, but as truly fubiifting in the divine Nature, there being nothing to di fiinguifli between one Perfon and another, but the ii' peculiar Mode o^l Exifi: nee in that Nature. And herein lies the Glory of the my- flerious Three, that dazzles the Eyes of Rtafon : (a Dif- ficulty which we own and confefs ourfelves at a lofs to ex- plain) [ T^ 3 plain) And no wonder if the Reader obferve a Penury of Words and Thoughts in any one that attempts to treat of it 5 for it tranfcends all poffible Conception, foon tires the richeft Language, and blunts the moft labourM Turn cf Expreffion. Therefore i have purpofely wav'd, as much as poffible, fording into thefe Depths , as believing that if the whole Church of God, miiitant and triumphant, the innumerable Throng of Cherub sms and S -raphims and thofe vafl intellectual Eeings in Glory, diouK' coai- bine in a full Aflembly to fit upon the Enquiry, and com- municate all their noble Ideis to one another abrwit the Manner hori; thefe three Perfons fubfift in one GodheaJ^ though I doubt not but they gl-'ry and triumph in r^e Truth and Confequetices of the Myftiry, yet they would readily acknowledge the Manner of it utterly inconcv - vable and inexplicable. This brings me to enquire, ('^dly.) Whether in any Senfe each of the three Per- fons may be called a Spirit. The Author of Uniy attempt*; to fhew, That Father^ Sony and Holy Ghoji are three dijilnct Per^ons^ as truy as three Jngelsy or^hree humane Souls are.* Bur if^each of che divine Perfons hath a diftindl: , entire and ftfarate Mind of its own belonging to it, and that as really dif- tin6t and divided from the Mind of t^e o^her two, as one Being or Mind can be feparated !"rom another 5 and if the Son be of the fime Nature with the Father, as has been in part already demonftrated, this muft necef- farily infer a fpecifch^ Nature^ and f 1 imply three Cods, as much as three humane Perfons are three Men, contrary to what has been already refuted : Or if it be alledg'd, that the Father is the Supreme God, and as he is a dif- t'lnB Spirit from the Son and Holy Ghoft, fo h'^ h.^s a quite different and fuperior Nature 5 this muft be flioek- ing to every ferious Chriftian to fee into whofe jN.ame C 3 he Page 7. he is folemnly baptized, viz. into the Name of God and two Creatures 5 for if the Son and Hcly Ghoft are not by Nature God, and in that refpc61 one with the Father, rhey muft be infinitely beneath l.iim, and confequently no God^ as wll appear. And if the Au- thor wjU call an inferior, fifamte Being from the Father, God, he can mean no more than a nominal God, which is but amufing his Readers 5 and too little an Artifice tu recommend the gilded Scheme. But let us examin what he has to fupport this, That Father, 6on^ and Holy (^loji^ are three d'JhnH (feparate^ Spirits. The firft Text he has chofen for this purpofe, is, God h a Spirit 3 f which is not fpoken of the Father ex- clujhe of the Son and Holy Spirit, as will be fhewn in a more proper Place. The fecond, as ill chofen, to prove our bleff d Lord a feparate Spirit from the Father, is, fioiv much more Jhall the Blood of Chrijh, 'n-ho, through the eternal Spirit, offered himflf luithoiit Spot to God, purge the , Confcience ? &.C. * If by the eternal Spirit is meant Chriji hiir.felF, as the Author thinks, this mull: be a clear ConcefTion to us, that our Redetm.er is an eternal Spirit 5 (the Di;^nity of whofe Godhead gave Virtue and Value to his Sacrifice, as this Text fhews) and fo it can't imply that he had a feparate Spirit from the Father (unlefs there be two eter- nal Spirits) any more than when he is called God, im- ports that he is another feparate God in the fame, exaH^ and highefl Senfe of the Vv^ord, as the Father is God, 17%,. necefTarily and eternally 5 which I dare fay the Au- thor won't vouch. The other Inflance produc'd to {hew Chrifl: is a fe- parate Spirit, is, Rom. i. 4. where the Apoflle fays, T(ai ^fus Chriji 'n-as declared to he the Son of God, 'with Poiier, according to the Spirit ofHolinefs, The Author con- ceals "t Joli. iv. 24. * Hcb. ix. 14. [21 3 ceals the next Words in the fame Verfe, by the Refur- reBionfrom the Dead, leaft the Reader /hould fee a Proof of his Godhead fhine out from that divine Energy which he exerted in railing himfelf from the Dead, by which he was declar'd to be the Son of God, and God, by a moft eminent and convincing Inftance of Ahiiighty Power j which is alfo attributed to the Father, to fhew they are one in Effence and Energy, and their Works undivided. This Phrafe then, according to the Spirit of Holinefsy demonflrates his divine Nature, or that he is the Son of God 5 as the Phrafe, according to the Flefi^ in the former Verfe, fhews his humane Nature, or that he was the Son of Man 3 the Antithefis being plain and undeniable. So that upon the Whole, though the Father be allow'd to be call'd a Spirit , the Son a Spirit, and the Holy Ghoft a Spirit, as is not difputedt this does not prove them three feparate Spirits, In the next Page, he aims to fhew, That the Son of God is a diJiinB Sl?irit from the Father, and iva^ fo before his Incarnation, j by confidering they have tuo diftinB Under- flandings and Wills. The firft Inftance he gives is their having two diftinB Wills, from "^oh- vi. 38. J came down from Heaven not to do mine own Willy hut the Will of him that fent me. The Author here notes, That our Lord fpeakj of his Will, as to his higheji or divine Nature 5 the Reafon he offers is, the humane Nature did not come down from Heaven 5 but if he will only confult '[joh. iii. 15. he will eafily perceive 'tis there exprefly aflerted, that the Son of Man was in Heaven whilft Chrill: was aBually on Earth 5 which fhews, that what is properly fpoken of the Perfon of Chrift, is not always true of loth Natures, which entirely overthrows this Argument he has offer'd to fhew the Words were fpoken of Chrifl: in h:s his^heft Character, hecaufe the humane Nature could not come dov. n C 4 from \ Pag. «. from Heaven, For 'tis equally inconfiftent to (uppofe the humane Nature to be m Heaven uhilft Chrift was ot^ Earth, as to fuppofe it to come djwn from Heaven when 'twas never yet there : The Truth is, the humane Na- ture being taken in'o Union with the divine, not by Confufion of Subftance, but only by being united in one Per on, tho' thefe two Natures remain as diftinB as before the Union, yet al} the Properties of a Perfon belong to both Natures unitpd 5 and hence, whatever was done or fuffercd by Chrift, wis attributed to his Perfon confiding of both Natures-* fo that he is fometimes denomina- ted by one Nature, and fometimes by another 5 and there are A61ions attributed to him in his higheft Cha- ra^ier, that are proper only to his lowcft 3 and fo vice verfi^ which notwithdanding are properly predicated of his Perfon , who fufliins both Natures, which is the Cafe before usj fo that the Jf'Hi here mention'd, for any thing the Author has advanced againft ir, may be as well underftood of Ks hunune Soul as divine Mind : *? For tho' there is a Communication of Names and ** Idioms (sis Dr. FiaJes vvell obferves) in confeqiience •f of the perfonal Union between the two i\atures of *' Chrill, fo thar the very fame Perfon that is caird *? the Son of God, and the Son of Man, is faid to *? have been born, and to be from everlafting, to die^ " and to have Life in himfeh^^ yet this manner of *^ fpe.iking , which wholly arifes from the Unity of ** Chrift's Perfon, does no more fuppofe any Change of " the two Natures, fo as to render the Properties of ** them convertible, than it fuppofes, that becaufe the «* fame Man is tail or healthy, with refpedl to the ** State of his Body, or wife and learned, with refpecl " to the Qualities of h's Mind, that therefore his *' Soul and Body have no feparate or diftin^l Proper- ' > ** ties, * See an InfVancc where Chrift: is faid to be the livirig Bread that comcth do-.vn from Heavca, and yet this Bread he tells us is his Fie^, •«. 51. [ ^3 ] «f^ ties, but only fuch as may be reciprocally or indi£fe- V» rently attributed to them both." * But after all, if we do fuppofe the Words to have re- ference to cur Lord in his higheji Capacity, they are far from proving that he hath a feparate Will from his Father, and may be interpreted, q. d. I came down from Heaven not to do any private Will of my own, con- trary to my Father's 5 being his only begotten Son, of the fame Nature, Power, and Operation, I muft necef- farily do the Will of him that fent me. Hence we often read, that what our Lord did, or fpoke, was ex- adly conformable to his Father's Will 5 for being one in Eflence wiih him, he can have no feparate Will of his own 5 and as he had t]^efame Defigns in view in com^ ing into the World, as the Father had in fending him, to give himfelf a Ranfom for Sinners, he had no fepa- rate Intereft to carry on. The next Argument that is produced to fhew the Father and Son tuo feparate iS^irir5, is becaufe they have tiio difiinB Underjiandings : For the Proof of which the Author very faintly alledges Matth. xxiv. 35, -where Chrili is faid not to l{now the Day of Judgment. In the Top of the Page he had propos'd to fhew this to be true, even before CKrift's Incarnation 5 but tho' the for- mer Text might feem to look this way, the latter he has offer 'd, to fhew tuo difiinB Undtrfiandings from Chriffc not knowing the Day of Judgment , every one may fee can be only underllood of him as aBually incarnate ; and befides, as fliall be hereafter prov*d, the Words are fpokcn of him as Son of Man in his loweft Character 5 and fo can't be in any refpefl pertinent to his Purpofe, whence all his Inferences in the next Page, to /hew where there 0re difiinB Wills and Vnderflandings^ are difiinB Spirit Sy are of no Force at all. Having * Thcol. Specul, Vol. I. p. 463. [ M ] Having thus far, as briefly as pofUble, examin'd tbe Author's Plea for the three Perfons being three feparate Spirits, I fhall now endeavour to offer an Expedient to unfetter his Thoughts, that he may not always fuppofe, where there is mention made of any one or more of the Perfons of the Trinity, that it muft imply they are fepa- rate and divided Spirits 5 and if I can fhew that in any refpedl the Father may be call'd a Spirit, the Son a Spirit, and the Holy Ghoft a Spirit, without making three feparate dljlinH Beings^ this will obviate thofe feem- ing Difficulties, which the Author imagines his calling the three Perfons three Spirits will throw upon the Trini- tarian Scheme. Now 'tis manifeft that the Term God may be given to each divine PerfonyFw^/y, becaufe each has the divine Nature and Perfedions , and to all three conjointly^ without involving any Manner of Contradic- tion 5 now *tis only to allow, by way of Analogy, the like Difference of Signification in the Term Spirit, when differently applied , and 'twill eafily folve the Author's Objection 5 and really there is the fame Rea- fon for it, as I fiiall attempt to /hew, by explaining the former Part of the Definition of a Perfon, which, in order to remove this Difficulty, I have referv'd to this Place, and which I /hall therefore be forc'd to repeat, viz, A fpirltual infinite intelligent Agent, which muft not he confider'd as abftrafled from, but as truly fubfifling in the divine Nature, and as mutually, eternally, and infeparably related to the other co-effential Perfons in the Godhead , from whom he is fuffciently and only diflinguifh'd by fome perfonal, and as fuch, incommu- nicable Properties. When I fay that a Perfon is a fpiritual infinite intel- ligent Agent, orSubfiftent, it can by no means beinfer'd that there are three feparate Spirits in the Godhead , for thefe Attributes of fpiritual, infinite, and intelligent, arife not from the j^erfonal Diftindion, but only from the divine [ 25 3 divine Nature, whicli belonging equally to all the divine Perfons, all the elTential Attributes of it mufl equally belong to e.ich , from whence it follows, that fpirituaf, infinite^ Sic, be'ng Attributes, not refiilting from the "Manner of Subfidence or perfonal Diftindlion, but from theEjfcnce^ which is common to all three Perfons, it may very juiHy be predicated o^ jach Perfon^ without any Shadow oF Con trad id ion 5 for every one knows a Con- tradidion is to deny and affirm the fame Thing in the very fame Senfe or Refped 5 and that 'tis no Contra- didion to call the Father a Spirit, the Son a Spirit, and the Holy Ghoft a Spirit, and yet not fuppofe them three feparate Spirits, will perhaps appear in a better Light, by conlidering particularly each of thofe Attri- butes. Brji, Tho' the Definition intend a ffiritual Agent diftindly fubfifting, yet it don't follow that there are three feparate Spirits in the Godhead 5 for one and the fame undivided Jjpiritual Suhjiance may fuftain three dif* tind Perfons, without any Mtltiplication of the one Jpiri^ tual Nature 5 for this being infinite, and confider'd in all and each of them, they cannot be feparate Spirits, as three humane Souls are 5 fo that each of the divine Perfons being of the fame fiiritual Subftance, may be properly calPd a Spirit, without fuppofing three feparate Spirits, becaufe this Attribute of Spiritual, which is predicated of each Perfon, fprings from the divme Effence, which is common to all three. Again, Secondly^ Tho' the Definition implies that each of the three Perfons may be call'd injlmte, it can't be under- stood of three feparate, infinite, alien Beings, and that each hath infinite Perfedions proper to himfelf alone, but of one and the fame infinite Effence that is common to ail three, that hath infinite Perfections, which alfo belong to each of the divine Perfons, even as the divine Na^ ture irfe/f does, which certainly may be confider'd under the Notion of three relative Subfiftents, mutually refer- ring c ^n . rwg to each other, without defiroymg the Unity of Go<3, feeing the Father himfelf is, sLndfub/jJis as a Father by having a Son 5 and therefore when the fame Scriptures* which aflure us of the Unity of the divine Eflence, do likewife join the Son in the fame Titles, Attributes, Operations, and Worpip, it fliews there are more Perfons in the Godhead than one, each of which is infinite, by one common infinite Subftance or Effence. Again, Thirdly, Tho' in the Definition of a Perfon is included an intelligent Agent or Suhjjftent, it does not infer a ft pa- rate IntelleB in each Perfon 5 for each divine uncreated Perfon has no other Principle of Knowledge, than the one infinite omnifcient Mind, or divine Nature 5 which, ab- folutely confidcr'd, is the fame in all three Perfons 5 and therefore they have one and the fame Knowledge : Hence, whatever each of the divine Perfons knows, he knows it by an infinite A£t of Knowledge, comprehending both himfelf and the other two Perfons, as well as all that is knowable bi fides : So that the perfed Unity of their Nature makes them mutually conicious and know- ing, not by :iViy ft par ate IntelleB, but by the one common omnifcient Mind, as is not obfcurely intimated to us, tAatth, xi. 27. compared with l Cor. ii, 10, u. ylnd no Man kitoueth the Son hut the Father, neither kno'weth any J^an the Father but the Son. The Spirit fearcheth all things, yea the deep things of God ; for ivhat Man knoneth the things of a "-^an, fave the Spirit of Man ii:hich is in him ? fo the things of God J^vweth no Man but the Spirit of God : Hence tho' there be three intelligent Perfons in the Godhead, there are not three feparate Underjiandings 5 the Father is omnifcient, the Son omnifcient, and the Spirit om- nifcient, which does not ipiply three diftin6l feparate omnifcient Beings, as different from one another u)s three humane Souls can be, but only varioujly diftinguifh one and the fame Knowledge, as it proceeds from each : In like manner God's comprehenfive View of all things is ftyPd Omnifcience, and his Knowledge of Futurity Prcefcience 3 [27] Prafciefice 5 and yet none dare fay there is fuch a Diffe- rence between Praefcience and Omnifcience as will not conjtft with one infinite Underflanding. I own the In- flance is not exactly parallel, but it may a little conduce to /hew, that tho* one Perfon neither is nor can be the other, and each of them diJi'mBly underftand, yet they underftand by one and the fame IntelleB j Jo that 'tis one thing for each Perfon to have an infinite ieparate Under- Jianding belonging to himfelf alone, and another to have an infinite Mind belonging to each of them, which is the fame undivided Effence in all ; And this holds equally true of Omnipotence, and all the other ejjential Attributes, for each Perfon fubfifling in one and the fame infinite Nature has the fame Perfedions and Attributes , as well as Nature, belonging to him 5 , which, if carefully attended to, would tmtye moft of thofe knotty Objeftions which fome have aim'd to twifl, in order to perplex the Trinitarian Scheme. The Author himfelf is a little appriz'd of fomething that may be urg'd in our Favour : All that I conceive they ivill fav^ is that three divine Performs are not feparate Beings^ or Spirits , like three created Perfons ^ but this is the very thing in quejiion^and fo will not be granted to them without Proof * Ihis being evidently prov'd from what I have already advanced, and will be further illuflrated and confirth'd in the fol- lowing Treatife, I need not here enquire why Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft are not three difl:in6t Beings, as well as three created Perfons are , but fhall rather exa- mine what the Author has offer'd to prove they are fo. His firft Argument is this, That the Father y Son, and Holy Ghoji are three Perfons is evident, in that the Son tool{ upon him the humane Nature^ and fuffer'd in it, whereas the Father and the Holy Ghoji did not : Novi U) nitjr, p, [.8] Now if the Son fuJfer^J and the Father did fiot, furety they mufi he more than two diJiinB Somewhat s in one and the fame Sprit. * In Anfwer to this, That there are more Perfons in the Godhead than one we own,and think it evident, from the Son^s taking u^on him the humane Nature, which I alfo conceive is a Proof of his Godhead 5 for 'tis faid he did not take the Nature of Angels^ hut the Seed of Abraham. Now as there is no other Underftanding, or rational Nature, that the Scrip- tures difcover, but the Divine^ Angelical, and Humane^ 'tis apparent that the Son was pojffs'd of the divine Na- ture before he affum'd the humane (for he did not take the Nature of Angels) and in that refpedl was one in Eflence with his Father, as the very Notion of a propr Son im- plies 5 fo that this Perfon, the Son of God, was more than a hare Somewhat in one and the {^me Jpiritual Sub- ftance, being a compleat Suhfifient in that Nature, thp' not a fe^arate one. But here lies the Abfurdity, accor- ding to the Author: If they are hoth one Spirit^ it would he a ContradiBion to fay the one fujfer*d when the other did not. To which it may be reply'd, in the Incar- nation of the Son of God, the whole divine Nature, as he poffefi'd it, became incarnate, and not intirely in refpe^l of all its Ways of fubfifling , but in that •Manner which was ^ro^er to the fecond Perfon of the Trinity only ^ and therefore iince the Godhead is not Incarnate under the proper Mode of fubfifting which the Father has in it, nor that other which the Holy Ghoft has in it, the Incarnation of the whole di- vine Nature, as the Son fuhjifts in it, does not infer the Incarnation of the whole Trinity 5 and confequently, as one Perfon is not another, he may become Man^ and fo * Unity, p. 10. [ 39 ] fo fuffer and die, without any Jpf^earavce oF a Contra- diction 3 for the divine Nature is houndlefs and omm^re- fent y and why may it not, as the Son fubfifts in it, be united to the humane Nature, and yet the Father and the Holy Ghoil be exempted from the Union, as well as God be in Heaven and Earthy by his Prefence, at the fame time ? We are told, no Man hath afcended up to Heaven^ hut he that came doun from Heaven^ even the Son of Man ivhich is in Heaven. "^ Which demonstrates, that when our Lord vilibly converfed here, he was ac- cording to fomewhat invifible, i. e. his divine Nature then aBually in Heaven, and according to this Nature he was ever in Heaven, tho' by the Union of it to our viflhle Nature here, he might be faid to come down, becaufe hereby he took up a move peculiar Refdence in the Fle/li than he had before done : No more Inconfiftency, I conceive, can be prov'd in this Account of the Son's Incarnation, than in fuppoiing God, who is infinite and immenfe, to be in tuo or more Places at a time. If any are diffatisfied with thefe Hints, and ails how this can be, let them tell us how Aaron s Rod, being a dry SticJ{_y could blojfim and bear ripe Almonds : f If they ftill demurr, let them confult i Tim. iii. id. where the Truth of this Myflery is fo eftablifli'd by the divine Teftimony, as to be put beyond all difpute: Without Con- troverjy great is the Myjiery of Godlinefs : God ii'as manifejl in the Flefi. Adorable Goodnefs ! God the Son fo far humbled himfelf, as to defcend from that infinite Height of Glory, which was co-ejjential to him with the Father and the Holy Ghoft, and tahemacled with us here below J but in this low Stoop, tho' his original Glory and Excellencies were veil'd and fhadow'd, they were not loft or diminifh*d, but remained as they were from all Eternity without the leaji Alteration, notwithftanding his * John iii. I J. \ Num. xvii. 9, I 30 ] his perjonal Prefince and Union with our Nature 5 the Word was made Flefli and dwelt among us, and yet was iHli in the Bofom of the Father^ ^ohn i. 14. compared WJth the 18th Verfe3 and how this can agree with the y^nan Logos ^ a Creature to be omniprefent, to be in Heaven and Earth at the fame time,- is prodigioufly un- accountable. But leaft any one fliould think it too mean and lew a piece of Condefcenlion, in the Son of God*s becoming Man, and fufFering for our Sins, 'twill not be amifs further to obferve, that tho'' he was in a peculiar and intimate Ma««^r united to our Nature, he was not tranf- form'd into it 5 and confequently could not become j^'«/>^ and paj/ible like Mortals, or undergo any Change deroga- tory from his fupreme Dignity. For as God appear'd of old to the Prophets, and by an immediate vifible Glory in the Ark and Temple was in a peculiar Manner pre- fent with the Children oi Ifrael ^ which, upon the ftri(0:eft Principles of Philofophy, may be granted to be true, without fuppofing the divine Being ever the lefs prefent, or lefs happy and glorious in Heaven ; So his Son may become incarnate, yea, and the humane Na- ture, to which he is vitally and itri^Lly united, may be incident to all the ^ffliBions of this Life, without any leffening of his divine Majefty (efpecially when this was the very End and Deiign of our Lord's Incarnation, tojhed his Blood for the Kemijfon of Sins) and all his Suffe- rings terminated in his humane Nature only, whilft his Godhead, incapable of Frailties and Imperfection, re- mained in full Blifs and unconfin'd, filling Heaven and Eirth with his Prefence. What the Author again obferves froin Dr. ^^f^r/^W, ivhere there is no Idea there can be no Jjjent, looks very odd, for doubtlefs we may believe this Proportion upon the Teftimony of God, the Word was made Flejh^ the Terms of which we underftand, and fo may fafe- 1y afTent : But there is no occafion to have a cleat Korio^v f^ 31 ] Notion how this can be before we believe it 5 and fliould the Author wait to know the exaSl ivlanner how God was manifeft in the Flefl-i, I may renture to fay he will continue an Unbeliever to the End of Time : Is it not furprizing, that Men who lay in for fuch a Claim to Reafon , as they'll fcarce allow any one elfe to Jhare in it but themfelves, ihould talk fo irrationally ? He might as well deny that there is any fuch Proportion in the Bible, as, God was manifejl in the Flejh^ tho' he had read it a hundred times over, becaufe he can't apprehend how it /hould be, and by all his Struggles of Thought can't form one adarquate Idea about it, as rejefl- theTruth oCufupported by dixine TeJiimO" ny^ becaufe he is ignorant of the "Manner of it. But let this fuffice. The two other Inftances he has pro- duc'd to prove Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, to be three diflin^l: Perfons may be allow'd as juR 3 but his In- ferences thence, that they are three diJiinB or feparate Spi- rits^ I deny, having already /hewn that the Father may be caird a Spirit, the Son a Spirit, and the Holy Ghoft a Spirit, without implying three divine Beings, or feparate Spirits : And I hope, if the impartial Enquirer will honeftly weigh what has been faid, he will have no oc- cafion to fear being cenfur'd as an Heretick, (as the Author intimates) which dreadful Name he would fhroud his yielding Reader from , by the venerable Au- thorities of V>x. Sherlock, y Ah\ How, atid Athanafms^ and other orthodox Fathers, -who (fays he) have maintained the fame in their Writings, But when the Author can fhew me from either of them, that they make three Perfons, three feparate divided Spirits, or Beings, as three Jngels a?v, or three humane Sottls, as he has done, ( which if they do not, 'tisnothingtohispurpofe) I'll fay he has read them, fairly reprefented their Meaning, as well as done ^ttflice to the World. That the Reader may have a Specimen of their No^ tion, I fliall give him a diflind and brief View of it D . in [2^] in their own Words. As for Dr. Sherlock^ thus he deli* vers himfelf from the Author's Mifreprefentation. *' We conftantly affirm, that Father, Son, and Holy *' Ghofl, by an intimate and wfej^arahle Union to each ** other, are but one true God 5 but as their Perfons can •' never be feparated, fo they mufl: never be confider'd *' in a feparate State 3 and if we will imagine fuch aff *« impojjible ^bfurdity as this, neither of them are the •< one true God, for whoever feparates them dejhoys the *« Deity^ and leaves neither Father, Son,^ nor Holy *' Ghoft.* As for Mr. Hoiv^ f he fays, " That the Godhead is not ** fuppofed more neceflarily to exift, than thefe three '' are to co-exiji in the neareft and moft intimate Union- ** with each other therein. As for Jthanafms^ the Creed (if his) that bears his Name, will witnefs that he held not three dtfilncl fepa- rate Spirits : ** For there is one Perfon of the Father,- ** another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghoftj •' but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of *' the Holy Ghoft, is all one, the Glory equal, the Ma- ^^ jefty co-eternal. Jnd u^hen he fays in the next Words ^ *' fuch as the Father is, fuch is the Son, and fuch is the ** Holy Ghoft 5" the Meaning of them is, that all the Perfe6tions and Attributes of the Godhead may be affirm'd of each of the Perfons, which are Attributes not of the Perfons as fuch, but of the Effence which is but one (as I explained it before) fo that each of the Perfons in the divine Nature are Eternal, Almighty,. &c. in one and the fame eternal almighty Effence 5 which I am fure is far from making the three Perfons three feparate Spirits; 'tis what Athanajius firenuoully contends againft in all his Writings.-ff CHAP. * Notes on Athanajiuih Creed, p. 87. t Calm Difcourfc, p, 43, tt Athaitaf. de utiitd dutats Xnuitatii ad theo^. Lib. i. [ 35 ] CHAP. IIL '2ih Enquiry^ whether the Term God, according to its proper Import^ is taken abfolutely in the Scriptures to denote the one Supteme Being j or whether 'tis only a relative JVord^ fignijying a Perfon halving Dominion or Office. IT 7 HEN Men have pfecipitantly run into Notions ^^ contrary to Scripture and Reafon, and perhaps with fome Warmth endeavoured to propagate and de- fend them, 'tis furprizing to fee, when pinch'd by fu- periour Argument, how they wriggle and twift to guard their dear Reputations ^ and, like thofe who are juft drowning, greedily catch at the leaftTwig, to /^'Uf theni from a final Plunge : A fid, but too common hicident irf moft of our religious Difputes, and which to me feems to be the real Cafe of our Author's fubtle and inge- tiious Leaders, whofe S.eps he has aini'd to follow 5 for when they difputed againft the Divinity of our Lord, 'twas urg'd againft them, that he was ex^rejly ftyl^d Cody without any Limitation or Re{lri£lion, and fo muft be true and J^roper God 3 and feeing there are nd more Gods but oW, he mud be o>2e in Nature and Ef- fence with his Father 5 agreeable to what he him- felf fays, / arid my Father are one. This could not be denied without a dlreB Violation of the infpired Wri- tings 5 and therefore to elude the Force of the Argu- ment, they fled to this thm Refuge, of making the Word God a relative Term^ denoting only one having Power, Dominion, and Authority, S^c A fine fpud Criticifm,' it mud be own'd, and extremely well calcu- lated to amufe the Thoughtlefs and Unw ry : So ihst 'tis no wonder to haat fOme of th^f*^ Gentlemen* [ 34 ] complementing our blefied Lord with the Title of ha- ving real and proper Divinity, as well as the Father 5 for thus they may flourifh with Words, and yet in their *very Hearts believe him to be a mere Creature at the fame time y for, according to this Notion, ivhoever has Domi- nion is in a proper Senfe God. *Tis really worth the good Reader's while to take feme Notice of this, which is the great Foundation of the Author's Diftin61;ion of a fitpreme and fuhordinate God, in the i ith, i zth and 13th Pages, viz. that becaufe God, the eternal, fu- preme Being, ftands in fome relation to his Creatures, fuch as Creator, Governor, and the like, that therefore the Term God, which is exprej^ve of Ilis infinite Nature and Perfe^ions, is merely a relative Word, and may be properly apply'd to any other Being that is not fu- preme. To lay open the Abfurdity and Weakneii of this Fallacy, I fliall briefly confider, (i.) In what Senfe the Term God Is ufed. (2.) That, according to its ihitl and proper Mearv- ing, it always, in Scripturey denotes the Supreme Being, (5.) Conlidcr what may be ofTer'd to obviate the Author's Plea from the relative Terms, my, thy, oun^ his, &c. By fliewing in what Senfe the Term God is usM in Scripture, I hope to nuke it appear that 'tis taken in ttuo difjerent Senfes, fomctimes Jiguratively, and more fre- quently fro^erly, but never JhiBly, in a higher or lower Senfe for a fu^reme a.nd fuhor din ate God, which to afUrt, is both unfcriprural and inaccurate. (i/?.) 'Tis fometimes ufed in ?, figurative Sen^e, upon the Account of fome faint Refemblances that inferior Beings may have to the one fupreme Being : As, I. The Angels are ftyl'd Gods by way of Allullon, either for the Dignity of their Nature, or their Might and Wifdom, wherein they excell all other Creatures 5 [35] Creatures 5 as in Pfalm viii. 5. thou haft made him a little lower, CZi>nb&iD, than the Gods, or thm the Jn- gWj, as 'tis explained, Heh, ii. 7. « 2. In the fame loofe, metaphorical Senfe 'tis apply'd to Kings and Judges, &c. becaufe they refsmhle God in Point of Dominion and Power, PjaL cxxxviii. i. ^ liill praife thee ivith my ivhole Heart, before the Gods ivill I Jjng praife unto thee 3 before the Judges, ii^Jn, as the Ctaldee renders it, q, A. I will confefs thee ptihlickly^ O Lord, nor will I diflemble thy Praife, and the Glory of thy Name, even before Princes and Judges of the Earth. 3. In the fame improper Senle 'tis given to others that are invejled with fome dignified Office, or Power, to a6l for the Caufe and Honour of God. Thus the Lord Cummiflions Mofes j Behold, J have made thee a God to Pharaoh 3 * not abfolutely, but in a limited and re- fir ain^J Senfe, to Pharaoh 3 and Aaron thy Brother fk> all he thy Prophet. 4. The Word God, by a Metonymy, is applied to Idols or falfe Gods, becaufe, according to the depraved Opinion, and Eftimation of Idolaters, they were account- ed realy and religious Worfhip paid them, contrary to Reafon and the di^me Precept 3 f wherefore the Lord commanded faying, He that facnjiceth unto any God, fav^ unto the Lord only^ he Jhall h-e utterly defiroytd. T 5. The Term God is applied in this figurative Senfe fo the Devil, in 'whom the God of this World hath hlinde4 the Mmds of them* 'which believe not, leafi the Light of the glorious Go [pel of Chrifl, ii-/. is the Image of God, Jhould Jhine into them. |* No one can well think that the De- vil is here iimply and abfolutely called God, but only that he is as it were a God unto them over iihom he has Dominion, and who prefer his Service to the Ho- D 3 nour • Exod. vii. I. ^ Exod. XX. 5, 5. ;|:Exoi. xxii. 20. \* 2 Cor. iv. 4. pour of the great Jehovah. So Mamfiion is a God to ihe Covetous, the Belly a God to the Glutton and Drunk:- ardy becaufe they are more fwayed by the Dilates of Intereft, Senfe, and Appetite, than by the Commands of Heaven, and place a greater Happinefs in them than in the chiefelt Good. Now if the Term God be only relative, and implies nothing but a Perfon having Dominion and Authority, &c, an Angel, a Magiftrate, an Apoftle, an Idol, yea the Devil, the great Abaddon, may be, properly and ftri'Si-'y fpeaking, as much a God, as God the Father ; and what confidcrate Chriftian can eafily give into fo ftrain^d and ahfiird a Conilru^l:ion ? For tho' all thefe may be in a figurative way fly I'd Gods, to apply exa^ily tHe fame Idea to the Term God^ when us'd to defcribe the fuj^rtme Being, is a furpnzing Stretch of Thought to ferve an Hypotheils, and can anfwer no End, feeing the* Lord God Almighty has forbidden it, and affur'd us, that none h properly Gi)(\ but himfelf alone. The Lord is the true God ■ The Gods that have not made the Heavens afid the Earth, even they Jhall perijh from the Earth, and from under thefe Heavens, * Now nothing is inore clearly reveal'd in Scripture than that our blefle4 Lord made the Heavens and the Earth, things vifihle and inviftble^' Sec. fo he comes plainly under the Defcrip tion of the true Gcd in the Text, God in the higheft, only, proper, and original Senfe of the Word. From what h^-s been already fuggefted it plainly appears., I. That the Term God being only attributed to others improperly and figurately, merely upon the Ac- count of tome Refemblances they bear to the Supreme Being, either in Excellency or Dominion, &c, it mull: follow, that this Name God is proper to the Supreme Being alone, and in a peculiar and differerit Senfe from all others appropriated to him. Or, 3». If [ 37 ] 2. If the Term Go J fhould not be f roper to the Supreme Being alonCj then he wouldniot abfolutely b^ the one God, as the Scriptures a0ure us. There is no God hejjdes him ; for we can't fuppofe the Word God^ in a proper and ftrid Senfe, to denote one having Dominion, or inverted with any high Office, without necejjarily implying, that there be more Gods than one^ in a proper, firia Senfe. But I fhall proceed, 2dly. To prove, that according to the Ariel and pro- per Meaning of the Word God, it always in Scripture denotes the Supreme Being. Though there be many who are called Gods in a Ux and metaphorical Senfe, yet there is but one Supreme Being, who therefore, in Comra-difiinBion to all other falfe, figurative Gods, is ftyl'd ahfolutely God, the true God, great God, mighty God, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, God over all, and the like 5 all which eminent Titles are proper to the one Supreme Being alone, and incommunicable to any other, they being grounded upon the Dignity of the divine Nature, which all others who are called Gods have not, and therefore arc not by Na- ture Gods, but only nominally fo. Now 'tis evident, that our dear Saviour is ahfolutely called God, The Word iL-as Gody without any retraining Phrafes, {uch a.s I have made thee a God^ or the like. He is alfo called, God with us. Lord God, true God, great God, mighty God, God over all, blefled for evermore, Jehovah^ Al- mighty, Lord of Glory, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Jlpha and Omega^ the Beginning and End, the Firft and Laft^ t which is a (liining Proof that he is in a pro- per Senfe God : A Term that carries with it the grand and auguil Idea of an invifible, immaterial Being, of infinite and eternal Perfedion, neceffarily exifting 5 D 4 fupreme t See Dr. Waterhtnih Sermons, pag. 197, &--C. wKere all thefe glorious Titles ate dearly proved to belong to Chrift the great Redeemer of the World. [38] . iupreme over all Creatures, depending on none, before all, above all, and from whom all things come. Ens optimum maximum^ as feme of the Heathens themfelves have ftyl'd him. And 'tis remarkable, that the Scrip- tures never call any one abfolutely definitively God, but him who is fo by Nature 5 and therefore the Apoftle calls the Worjhlj^ of the Heathen Deities, a doing Service to them ivhich are not hy Nature Gods. * There is then a God by Nature, and others which are denominated Gods, but really are not fo, only in the falfe Opinions of their deluded Adorers. And tho' Kings and Magif- trates are cal'ed Gods, becaufe they fiintly refemble the true and only God in their borrowed Authority and Power, yet the Term Gd^ can't lignify one having barely Dt minion, becaufe the Perfe£lions of the divine Nature are the Foundation o^ all Dominion j abftra6i thefe, and the very Notion of God's being Creator and Governor muft ceafe. Or, if you fuppofe it neceffary to the very Idea of God. that Dominion is included in it, then it will follow, that there was a Space when God was not 5 for if the Term God he a meer relative Word, expreffing the Charafler of one that has Domi- nion, and nothing elfe, there could be wo God when there was no Creature to govern 5 and confequently the Supreme Being is not without a Beginning, nor neceffirily exigent. Upon the whok, Dominion is not included in the primary .Notion of one that is really God, but only the Confequence of it. And, as Dr, jVaterland very jufily and accurately obferves, *' it muft *' be Dominion fupreme, and none elfe, which will fuit ** with the Scripture Notion of God 5 it is not that of a " Governor, a Ruler, a Protestor, a Lord, or the like, ** but a Soverei'^n Ruler, an Jlmighty Proteflor, an om- " nifcient omniprefent Governor, an. eternal, immutable, all- *Gal. iv. «. L39] ^' all-fufficlent Creator, Preferver, and Protestor 5 what- *' ever falls fhort of this is not properly in the Scripture ** Notion of God, but is only called fo by way of Fi- ** gure. "* This I fhall endeavour to illuftrate by the following Arguments. -F/V/?, wherever we have a Defcription of God in the Scriptures, there is generally mention made of fome of thofe Perfections ivhich ar/- /?> o/^^r to the fupreme Being alone 5 and confequently the Word God is not a re- lative Term , denoting a Perfon having Dominion : Thus to mention no more, in Exod. iii. 14. God f aid unto Mofes, I am that I am 3 "xHch is a Defcription of God by his infinite and unchangeable Nature j fo that the Name Godh proper only to the fupreme Being, to one poffefs'd of all Perfedlions. ' ' \ Secondlv^ As the Word "Man denotes the Nature of Man, and dijiinguljhei him from all other Creatures 5 fo the Word God iignifies the Nature and Effence of God, and dijiinguifies him from all other Beings whatever : And thus he fpeaks of himfelf, for I am God and not l/lan^ \ i. e. a Being of a boundlefs compafTionate Nature, that change not, and not a frail, peevifh, mutable Man. This declares the intrinjjcli Excellency of the divine Na- ture, and at the fame time ihews the genuine Ufe of the Word God. But according to our Author, the Senfe of this Place muft have been, I am a Ruler, a Lord, a Go- vernor, and not a Man ; and fo the beautiful Antithefis, defign'd by the Prophet to reprefent the compafTionate Nature of God, would have been loft : But what Rea- < fon can be affign'd why the Word God fhould be thought a Term of Ojf^ce, more than the Word 'Man, to which it was oppos'd, I believe none can well guefs. Thirdly^ If the Term God was only a Name of Power and Dominion, then they who attributed to any Being fuch * Defence, p. 63 . t Hof. xi. 9. [ 40 3 fuch Dominion and Power, &c, as he was invefted with, and honour'd him accordingly, would acknowledge and worfliip the true God, tho' they thought him a ror- foreal or material God, or whatever other flrange and Oiid Conceptions they might form of him , which is ri- diculous to imagine, feeing he that cometh unto God^ muft helieve that he is a Being of infinite Perfe6lion and Good- nefs, and the Rewarder of them that diligently fec\him 5 they muft alfo believe him to be a perfect Spirit, and ivorfiif him in Sj^irit and Truth 5 for the fuperlative Excellency of any Being, and not his Power, is the proper Foundation of all that Worfhip that is due unto him. Fourthly, If the Term God, in itvS proper genuine Mea- ning, denotes one having Dominion , &c» then the Word Gody in all refpecls, will be exadly of the fame Import as the Word Lord, which by the Confeilion of all implies Dominion and Power 3 and confequently that famous Text, produced fo often tonopurpofe, in favour of the ArianSy To m there is hut one God the Father, and pne Lord ^efus Chrifl , in their oun Way of Reafoning, ^'iZ/lofe all its Force 3 for one God and one Lord being equivalent Terms, it muft follow either that God the ^ Father, and the one Lord Jefus Chrift, are the one fu- prenie God, or elfe that they are two diJiinB, feparnte, fo ordinate Gods ; for the Term one God, and the Term one Lord, being of the fame Signification, 'tis plain that pne God and one Lord, fuppofing the Text to fpeak of two, are two Gods, /. e. two Beings having equal Domi- nion, feeing our Lord is ftyl'd emphatically the one Lord 3 and in another Place, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords 3 and how harih this muft found in the Ears of fhofe that were always taught by the Dictates of Reafon^ as corre£led and improv'd by the fuperior Light of Re- velation, to acknowledge and worfhip but one that is properly abfolutcly God, I leave the fober Reader to judge. The Author, indeed, fancies he has hit upon a Crevice thro' which he may creep out of every fuch Dif- £culty. I 41 3 £culty. In tie Senfe in 'which he isfyrdone Lord apd qne ^^- "viour, he is the fupr erne Lord andSaviour 5 that is tu u.y^ he is the higheji of all conftituted Lords^ there bein^ no Lord in this Senfe (tho' there is a Cod) above him,^ Buz who du(.s not fee this to be a meer Quibble and E v.ifijn? tor he that is a con- Jiituted Lord only, nothing can be more obvious than that he is not the fu^reme Lord, but a delegate;!, commiflion'd^ Inferior Lord j and can fuch an inferior Being^ with any Propriety, be ftyl'd the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, which is the diftingui/liing Charader of the great Jehovah? how eafily, at this rate, may the Scrip- tures *be moulded into any Form that beft pleafes ? Sq that it ftill remains as an impregnable Argument what Dr. Waterland had offer'd againft the Diilindion of a fu- preme and fubordinate God (which the Author here en- deavours to refute) *^ That if God figniiies one fu^reme *' God, then (ince all but the fupreme God are excluded " from being Gods in any religious Senfe, the Confe- *' quence is, that an inferior God is no God." To ex- tricate himfelf from this Dilemma, he refers to Unity ^ p. 42, where he tells us : I am fure ive do not afftrt ^uo Gods (flnce tuo Gods and rzvo fupreme Gods are alt one") yea on the contrary U'e mofi earnefily contend that there is but one fupreme God. But by the Author's Leave, if two Gods and two fupreme Gods are all one, it ii^uft neceflarily follow that an infrior God is no God j for two Gods, according to his own No- tion, neceffarily fignifies two fupreme Gods 5 Supremacy is imply 'd in his very Defcription of God, which excludes an inferior God from being God at all, vit, becaufe he is not fupreme 5 and if fo, the Reader, with half a Glance of his Eye, muft fee the Juftnefs and Strength of the Doctor's Inference 5 but the Author adds a very fine and eafy « Reply to Dr. Waterland, p. js. [ 4' ] eafy Solution : If ive apfy (fays he) this kjnd of Talk^ to a parallel Cafe^ the DoBor himfelf^ I Jhould hope^ would have Honejly enough to give it up as vain 5 God fays ^ Ifa. xliii. II. Befides me there is no Saviour, yet the Man thrift '^efus is called a Saviour.* In this Cafe the DoBor^s Sentence muft run thus : Since all hut the fupreme Saviour are excluded from being Saviours in any religious Senfcy the Confequence isy that an inferior Saviour is no Saviour. Very true, and what then ? Then^ fays he, the DoBor muft al- low that the Man Chrift ^efus is a Saviour in a religious Senfe^ and yet that he is not the fupreme Saviour^ hut a Saviour under Cod, But if the Do61or fhould not allow this, nor the Scripture vouch for it, what will be the next Shift ? When 'tis faid, ^Bs v. 31. Him hath God exalted with his right Hand (to be) a Prince and a Saviour^ for to give Repentance ana KemiJ/ion of Sins : Tho' thefe Words partly refer to the Exaltation of the Man Chrifl Jefus who was crucify'd, yet they do not imply that he was in that CharaBer alone a Saviour under God 5 but the Perfon who was exalted, being both God and Man, is one fupreme Saviour with the Father, as he is one in Eflence with him, as to his Godhea.d 5 (his humane Nature only affording the Sa<:ri- fice of Expiation which the Son of God made for us) he has Power, who is God as well as Man, to give Re- pentance and Remiflion of Sins, which is the Prerogative of the fupreme God alone , for who can forgive Sins but God'i Now unlefs the blerfed Saviour be confider'd here as a mere Man, it can't anfwer the Author's Purpofe 5 and I believe he himfelf, upon a fecond Thought, muft grant that our Lord is more than a mere Man ; if not, let him hefo honeft as to fpeak out 5 and if Chrift is God as well as Man, it remains, for all that he has offer'd, an unfiaken Demonftration , that fince two Gods, and Rtfply, p. I J. [ 43 ] arid two fupreme Gods are all one, an Inferior God is no God. But to return from this Digreflion to the Confideration of the Meaning of the Term God, this I have iliewn does always in Scripture, 'i^^^^ tahsn i?roperly, denote the fupreme Being 5 for he that exercifes fupreme Dominion muft be frevioufly fup- pos'd to have an infinite, fupreme, and perfefl Nature to capacitate him for it (as the Author himfelf can't deny) and he that has this divine infinite Nature, and fupereminent Perfedions, is God, whether he had ex- ercised any Dominion or no 5 fo that the Word God is ex- preiTive of this Nature. To which I add, can we rea- fonably imagine the Scriptures would defcribe God by his having Power only, and his bare Relation to his Creatures as a Governor, &'c. when there are Attributes and Perfections in God, fuch as infinite Wifdom, Good- nefs. Love, Eternity, &c, all which confpire to make up the Notion of the true God, and can't be abflraded from him without a manifeft Injury to the Honour of his Majefiy ? But it muft next be feen, Thirdly, What may be offerM to obviate the Author's Plea from the relative Terms my, thy^ ours, his^ &c. He afferts, without any prefumptive Proof: Th^t the Word God, when a^^lied to the Father, frgnifies fome Re- lation ivhich Jehovah bears to the Creatures-, that he ivho is related to us muji be fuppos'd to have ahfolute PerfeBionsj that Chrift, the exprefs lma-<:e of God, ftands in the fame Relation to us 5 that he refmbles bis Father, or is the ex^refs Image of the invtjihle God in every PerfSilon that the Father foffejjes.^ Thus far confident enough with himfelf, and the Varnifh neat 5 but he adds : That there is fiill this Difference, that God the Father has his Being, and Perfusions * Uflity, p. 1 1, 12. coiPiar'4 with P*gc ^ of bis Reply. PerfeBions from mne^ i. e, that he is a neceffatily ex- iftent Being, independent and felf fufficient. But are not thefe abfolute Perfections of the Deity ? and if the Son refembles the Father in e^cery PerfeSion he pofTelT^s, is he not netejjarily exiflent and independent ? and if he has they^?w^ Perfe61:ions as the Father, and e^ery Perfec- tion, he muft be fo 5 unlefs they are the fdme and not the famcy every ^Perfec-tion and not all : If the Son then is in the fame proper Senfe God as the Father, by the Author's own Confeflion, as he poffeffes every Perfec- tion, there can be no room for his DiftlnBion of a fupreme and fubordinate God 3 which being founded entirely upon his Notion of the Term Gody as implyitig Domi- nion, &c. which I have fhewn is foreign and abfurd, it can do him or his Caufe no Service. As to the relative Terms, my, thy, yours, ours, &c. wliich he urges to back his Pretenfions, I am now to confider them, and he tells us they are us'd in two Cafes. Firft, When the Words to which they are joyn'' d Jlgnify a Poffeffon^ &c. in this Cafe (fays he) the 'Name of a thing needs not he a relative Word. Very well. Now 'tis obvious to all, that the Word Gbd carries this Idea with it, as is evident from Pfal. Ixxiii. 16, Aty Strength and my Heart faileth 3 hut God is the Strength oj my Hearty and my Portion for ever. Oblyb CD'n^fei ""P^n^ /. e. and God is my Poffeffion for ever. So Pfal. xiviii. 14, this God is our God for ever and ever ^ the Saints have God foif their God, their Portion, their Inheritance, their PoiTef- fion (a far more durable and certain PoffefHon than th^ fleeting Enjoyments of Time, and infinitely more worthy of the Name, as the Scriptures fully declare) they always can claim him as their own Propertjr. Thus believing Thorns appropriates the Saviour to himfelf, in' the warmeft Language of Faith and Prayer, my Lord and my God: So that there is no occafion, by the Au^ thor's own Conceffion, that the Term God^ when it figV fifes' ^; [45] tildes the Name of any Thing (or Being) we pojjefi^ /hould be a relative 5 and if he can in Faith call God his God, I doubt not but he will heartily fubfcribe to this, that God is the Portion of his People 5 and confequent- ly, that the Term God need not be a bare relative Term^ himfelf being Judge. Secondly, The other Cafe^ iiiherein lue ufe the Words my^ thyy hisy Sec. is when they are joyn^d to a Word that Jjgnijies a Superior J as my King^ &c. In Anfwer to this, ^ 'Tis only to fuppofe the Word God to include in it the Idea of an infinite, eternal, uncreated Being, who was pleas'd to become our King and Governor 5 and then when we fay our God^ or your God, ** it does not barely ** mean one who has Dominion over us, but one whofe ** Nature and Perfections are the Ground of his Domi- *' nion, whofe Subftance or Effence is as truly divine *' and fupreme as his Dominion."* And thus it is ex- prefs'd, Zech. xiv. p. y^nd the Lord Jehovah Jhall he King over all the Earthy in that Day there Jhall he one Lord and his Name one. So Ifa. xxxiii. 22. The Lord is our Judge ^ the Lord is our Lawgiver, The Word jehovah is of an abfo^ lute Signijicationy denoting the divine Nature, and yet you fee Jehovah is confider'd in the Relation of a King, Judge, and Lawgiver. Thus the great Redeemer, who with the Father and Holy Ghoft is fupreme God, is Je- hovahy and has with the Father fupreme Dominion, and therefore may be (lyTd one Lord m the highejl SenCe, even Lord of Lords and King of Kings. ■\ So that the Term God is properly expreflive only of the divine Nature, notwith- {landing he that is the true God, the fupreme Being, may ftand in fome relation to his Creatures. The next thing the Author defcants upon is the Doc- tor's Diftin£lion of the Term God^ taken fometimes * See Fiddesy Vol, i. p, 387. t ^cv, xvii. 14. [46] ejpmially, and fometimes perfinally, which, he obferve^, is cunningly clevis*d^ not reveard, and u-ill anfiver no End : And therefore to reprefent the Fallacy of this DiftIn61:ion, ^5 the Author aims very aukvvardly to hook in ^oh. i. i. ' where the Term Go^/ is only taken /^fr/ow^/Ay to imply both Senfes of the Word 3 and thus runs his Comment. The Word ivas with a Perfon having the divine Nature^ and the Word ivas a Perfon having the divine Nature. What is the Author's Inference ? God 4s three Perfons^ that is^ the divine Ejjence is three Perfons 5 whereas it fhou*d have been, the Word Was a Perfon having the divine Nature, which is the obvious Concluflon from the Premifes5 for 'tis an invariable Principle in Logick, that the Premifes ought to contain the Conclulion 3 and thus the Dodtor, very confiftent with this Senfe of the Term Gody para- phrases the Text. ** In the Beginning, before there was •' any Creature, and confequently from all Eternity, •* the Word exifted, and the Word was no diftant fepa- *' rate Power eftrang'd from God, or unacquainted with ** him, but he was with God, and himfeif alfo very '* God, not another God, but another Perfon only of t* the fame Nature, Subftanceand Godhead,* &'c. This is a fair and genuine Interpretation of the Text, wherein the Term God is taken perfon ally for one poffef- fed of Deity : But feeing the Author is for fattening an Abfurdity where there is no Appearance of one, let us fee how the Text f would run according to his Senfe of the Word God. " In the Beginning, before the World had a Being, ** was the Word, and the Word was a Perfon having . •' Bominlon^ and the Word was with a Perfon having *' Dominion, and the Word was a Perfon having Domi- ** nion, Qpc. Our Adverfiries themfelves acknowledge, that he exifted before all Worlds (and by the way, whether a Du- ration f Wattrh^etm. p. 17, \ Job, i. i. [47] ration before Time is not Eternal, they had beft think, or aflign any poflible hiedium between Time and Eternity. ) Now if our BlefTed Lord had an Exigence before the Creation of the World, as is very evident from his Crear ting all things^ unlefs the Caufe be after the EfFe£}, he could not be God according to their Senfe of the Term, i. e. a Perfon having Dominion or Oifice , for he could have no Relation to the Creatures before they were made, nor Dominion over them when they were not 5 fo that the Term God^ when apply*d to our Saviour, muft be proper and ftri6t to denote his infinite Divine Nature, his Co- eternity, and Co equahty to the Father, and his vS'tt/^r^- rnacy over all. This Text then will not ferve his pur- pofe. The next he cites is, To us there is hut one God the Father^— ivhich according to the Dorlor (\\Q fays} ivill run thus 5 To us there is hut one Divine Ejjence^ the Father y ivhicb 1 fu^- fofe no orthodox Man will ajjert. To refcue this Place from the Author's Note, and fet it in a true Light, 'twill be proper here to conlider the Defign of it 5 what Turn is generally given by Expo- litors to it, and what other Meaning may be truly fix'd on the Words confident with it. i/?, 'Tis obvious that the Intent of the Apofile was to fliew that to us Chriftians there is but one God, contrary to the Polytheifm of the Pagans, ufco had Gods many and Lords many.^ Shou'd we therefore fuppofe the Father a . Supreme God^ and the Lord Jefus 3l fuhordinate God, fepa- rate from the one fupreme God, how weak and invahd would the Apoftle's Reafoning have been j nay, contradic- tory and repugnant to the very Defign of it? for this had been proving there is but one God, bccaufe there are fuo, one uncreated God, and another made God, one a God by Nature, and another by Office. Or if we fhou'd take the Term God to fignify,only, cn^ having Dominion, this Argument to prove one God would have been equal- E ly Ve'fe 5. [ 48 1 ly foreign and impertinent, as has been already pfov\!. Therefore aJly, The Defign of the infpir'd Writer being to eftablifh the Belief and Wor/hip of one God, let us fee what Conftru6tion is generally put by the Trinitarians reconcileable to their Faith of three Perfonsm one Godhead^ and thus the Words may be paraphras*d • *' To us there ** is but one fupreme Being, whom we own and wor. ** fhip, which fubfifts in three Perfons, but is prlmari- *' ly to be confider'd in the Perfon of the Father, as *' the Root and Fountain of the Deity, not excluding ♦* whatever effentially and inftparahly belongs to it, &c,^* So Dr. Waterland obferves upon the Place • * " All that *' can be reafonably gatLer'd from it is, that the Father ** is there emphatically ftil'd one God, but without De- *' fign to exclude ^-he Son from being God alfo, as the *' Son is emphatically ftil'd one Lord, but without De- *' flgn to exclude the Father from being Lord alfo." This is very judly retorted, and with the utmofl: Force of Reafon urg'd ; for if the Words, to us there is hut one God the Father^ exclude the Son from being God, by the very fame way of reafoning, to us there is but one Lord^ would exclude the Father from being Lord 3 whereas if the Fa- ther and Son be confider'd as one God in Eftcnce, the Difficulty on each Side will be fairly adjufled 5 for ac- cording to this 'tis fuppos'd that when the Father is cal- led the one God, and there is no Mention made of the other two Perfons, they are fufficiently intimated, and virtually and implicitly underftood, in the Word Father^ which neceffarily implies that he has a Son of the fame Nature and Perfe61:ions 5 and when the Son is here calPd one Lordf 'tis not in O^pojjtion to the fupreme Dominion of the Father, any more than the Father's being ftyFd one God excludes the Divinity of the Son 5 but they are fo differently ftyl'd on account of their perfonal and more peculiar • Pefenctf p. 9. peculiar Chara^lers, in Oppofition to Gods many aiid Lords many. This is the ufual Turn given to the Words^ and fufHcient to iilence all Obje^lions ^ particularly to obviate the Author's, the Word Father being taken per- fonally. But I /hall offer another Explication, which perhaps may be lefs liable to Exception. 3i/y, That the Term Father in this Text is not ta- ken for the firft Perfon of the Trinity, but effentially in- cluiive of all three Perfons as the one God, Author of all things, and Father of all Men. And then the Words may run thus : To us there is but one living and true God, the Creator and Father of all, of whom are all things created out of nothing, and in him we live, move and breath, and all things fubfift, and one Mediator the Lord Jefus Chrift, &c. To confirm this Interpretation, let it be obferv'd that the Text fays barely the Father, and not the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, or any other Phrafe or Word in the Text or Context, to limit it to that Senfe, as in o- ther Places of Scripture, as may be feen in the Margin.* And further let it be taken notice, that the Word Father iignifies the Creator of all things, as is evident from MaL ii, V. lo. Have we not all one Father, and did not one God create tts ? Now nothing is more obvious than that the Son of God was our Creator, u-ho made all things, and by whom alt things conjiji. So alfo was the Spirit, and confequently Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, as the one Creator is the one God and Father, of whom are all things j and this is plain from E^h, iv. v. 6, One God and Father of all (j» e. Creator of all) ivho is aho'oe all^ and thro' all, and in you all, which the Ancients generally underflood of the whole Trinity j and 'tis certain the "Jews had a Notion prevailing among them in our Saviour's Time that God was their Father. So that the God of the Jews, who is alfo the God of the E 2 Gentiles, * Rwoj. XV, <>. 2 Cor. i. j, Bph, i. 3. Col i. 3. Qps, C 50 ] Gentiles, may be juftly flyl'd God the Father 5 Jf4 have one Father^ even God -^ * and even the Heathens could fay> We are hisOjffiriug : f So that the Term G'od^ when join'd with the Word Father, does not always denote the firft Perfpn oF the Trinity, but is taken ellentially j whence 'tis poflible that an Orthodox TVlan^ as the Author is pleas'd to term it, may fay, without any Abfurdity, to us there IS but one EfTence, the Father, the Term Father not fig- nifying the Father of our Lord Jefus in a peculiar Senfe^ but the Creator and Father of all, as will be /hewn more diftind^ly. (^zdly.) That the latter part of the Text is to be in- terpreted of the Mediator, is not to be doubted. This will appear if we confult only the fifth Verfe, where 'tis faid, that the Heathens had Lords many, i. e. Daemons, who they thought prefided over humane Af- fairs, and were Mediators between the Gods and Men. Thus the Author in his Re^ly 4= explains it him- felf, and Lords Mediators many. Contrary to this, as we Chriflians worship .but one God, fo we have but one Mediator 5 for there is one God^ and one Mediator between God and Man^ the Man Chrifl Jefm 5 J who we are told is made Lord^ ** who mufl be therefore God as well as Man, or eife could not be imagined capable of fuftain- ing fo high, grand and peculiar a Character, as the one fovereign and only Lord 5 for who is Godfave the Lord^.^j Since then there is no God but the Lord, and our Sa- viour is emphatically flyl'd the one Lord^ and the Lord of Lords, he muft, as to his higheft Capacity, be in Effence and Power equal to the Father, and fa has a na- tural Right of Government, as God, by whom all things conftf}^ as well as a dif^enfatory Power, in the Chara6ter of Mediator and God-Man united 5 and if we confider our dear Lord under this complex Chara61:er as reveal'd^ viiLi * Joh. viii. 4T. t Aasxvii. iz. ^ Page 2^. J i Tiai. li. s. ** Aftsii, 36. \\2 Sam. xxii. 32. [ 51 ] X72,. God manijejl in the Flejh^ 'twill anf^'er all the Diffi- culties v/hich the Author of U«?ry pretends to ftart 5 and will equally ferve what he produces the Diftindlion of a fiipreme and fuhordlnate God for, far more agreeable to the Tenor of Scripture, the Nature and Reafen of things, and the Honour of our blefted Redeemer. As to what he adds, That the Vford God is never to he taken otheru-ife than perfonally — from the ufeofthe Pronouns, I, me, thou, thee, him, his, Sic. it can be of no force at all 5 for when the Scripture fpeaks of God, without any par- ticular refpedt to theDiftinftion ofPerfons, it muft fpeak but of one in the fingular Number, becaufe God is, and cannot but he, one. Agreeable to this God fays, Theu Jhalt hav£ m« other Gods before me, which being fpoken of the one God, inclufive of Father, Son, and HolyGhofi-, and only exclujjve of all the Gods of the Heathens 5 and as the Scripture reprefents thefe three as the one God, equal in Dignity, Power, QPc. the divine Efl[ence being but one, the fupreme Being may be certainly, and with the utmoft Propriety, app^y'd to by his Creatures in all the A61s of their Worfliip and Adoration, as the one living and true God, by the pngular Pronouns^ thott^ thee, 8cc. Hence, entirely confonant to the Language of the facred Oracles, when we pray unto God, orpraife him for his abundant Mercies, (as the Object of religious Worfhip is but one) we generally addrefs the fupreme Being with, O thou njoft High, we befeech thee. Sec. "What feems to lead the Author into this Miftake is, he prepofteroufly borrov/s his Idea of the one God, not from plain Scripture, but from his own Conceptions of a humane Perlon 5 and becaufe the Terms /, me^ thou, he, &c. are, according to the ordinary, though not conjiant Cuftom of Language, applicable to one Perfon, he ima- gines when they are fpoken of God, it implies that he is one Perfon : But as there is no Example in Nature of three Perfons who are eflentially and undividedly one, tho* this manner of fpcaking concerning God may not E 3 in [5^ ] in every refpefl be conformable to the Modes of fpeak- ing among Men, becauf. tlicy have no Example of fuch a Unity, upon which account alone (ho' the three Perfons, •when fpolcen of as fuch, require the plural Number) yet confiJer'd as infepirably join'd in the divine Nature, they are one God, and we may apply iingular Pro- nouns to the one God, without any Breach of Grammar, or the common Forms of Speech , it being proper to our Language, as well as others, to fpeak of one in the iin- gular Number. And conftquently, the Author's Infe- rence from the ferfonal Chara^ers, I, thou^ &c. which are applied to God, can be nothing like an Argument zgxin{}: d. Plurality of Perfons in the one Godhead. For, as one well obferves, " iince plain Reafons may be •' given, why God is more Perfons than one, and no ** plain Reafons can be given, why any one of the Tri- *' nity is more Perfons than one j therefore it is, that ♦' the Scripture-Arguments, to prove any one of the «* Trinity to be one Perfon, does not equally prove that « God is one Perfon. '* * 1 fhould now examine the Method which the Author takes to reconcile the Unity of God with the Divinity of Chrift 5 but I muft leave him at prefent, and return to the Appendix. ♦ Anfwcy to fome Qu«iies printed at Exoth pag. 7. CHAP. [ J3 ] C H A P. IV. The fecond Objection of the Appendix againfl that Argument for the Dhimty of Chrift^ de- duced from his being ftyl'd the Son of God, and upon that Account thought equal to God by the Jews^ confidered i and John v. 1 8. flacd in fuch a Lights as is agreeable to the Charader of the bleffed Jefifs^ and the Te- nor of the facred IVritings. HAV I N G canvafs'd this Author's firft Objeaion, and Aiewn his Reafonings to be inconclufive, I think it time to purfue him to his other Refuges. And the next Step he takes is to weaken the Strength of that Text in ^o^w v, i8. f which is frequently, and not unjujily alledg'd to prove, that in Chrift's being the Son of God, is implied his being of the fame Nature or Effence with God 3 as the Jfu-^ really thought he made himfelf equal to God^ hecanfe he faid that God 7i\i^s his Father. In order then to refcue this Text from the very forc'd Turn the Author gives it, I /liall reprefcnt fairly the Confeqttence of his Explication, which, if wc fuppofeyw/?, muft appear to every unhyajVd Enquirer^ to be inconlif- tent with the Chara(5ter of our Lord j and next of all fliall endeavour to put it in luch a View, as is agree- able to his Character, and his reafoning with the^^xy^in this and other Places. ift, I fhall fairly reprefent the Confequenqe of his Explication, which, if we fuppofe juft, mufl: appear to be inconjijlent with the Charafter of our bleffed Lord. E 4 Now t Appendix, p?.^.- 3 5. r 54 ] Now nothing can be more open and obvious, than that our Saviour is defcrib'd in the infpirecl Writings to be meel^and lowly, a Perfon of the utmofl Humility and Condefcenfion , one that was not of a vain, afpiring Temper 5 that never boafted of himfelf,or thirfled after Grandeur 5 but though in the Form of God, and the Bright -• pefs of his Glory, made himftf of no Reputation, and tooJ^ujp- on him tJ>e Form of a Servant^ &c. This being undeniably his Character, either upon fome Occafions he afferted ot himfelf things that muft favour of the utmoft Vain- glory and Ambition, or elfe things that muft neceffirily imply that he was the eternal Son of God, and equal to the Father. Now every one in his Wits muft be forced to acknowledge, that the higheji Degree of Often- tation lies in affeBing divine Honours, or for a meer Creature to be thought a God. How rigoroufly and feverely did God puriifh Herod, for being only pleased with the People's ftupid Folly in crying out, i\\Q Voice of God, and not of Man ? * And could our Lord, ever confiilent with the Chara6tcr of Innocency, Meeknefs, and Humility itfelf, prefume to fay, that God was his Father, Hdili^. \^tov, his proper Father, and fo make himfelf equil with God, or what is equivalent, land tny Father are one 3 f which the jews underwood in fuch a Senfe, that immediately ihey took up Stones to have fioned him for a Blafphemer ? § What pofTibly could be the Meaning of fo much Zeal, of fo much Indigna- tion ? Not furely for fiying he had Unity of Confent with his Father (as our Adverfaries glofs the Words) Th.'s mu>:h mi.;hr have been faid of a Prophet, or any other good and ho'y Man. The ^ewsy 'tis plain, under- fluod it of a higher Union, even Identity of Power and Nature, and Equality with God 5 and being jealous of every th'n-', thit fivoui'd of Idolatry, or a Plurality of Gods, and bel cving he was not the Mejpah, were the more * Afts xii. 22. I Juh. X. 30. ^ Ver. 31. [55] more alarm'd at this Saying of our Lord. But, fays the Author very warily, Su^jpo/mg that the Jews thought this their Charge juji, and that his calling God his Father^ did imfpiy in it a making htmfelf equal with him, ikm there a neceffary and infej^arahle Connexion between their 'judgment and the real Truth of things ? Well, let it be fuppos'd that the Jews miLnderftood the Drift of his Argument, and too haftily concluded him equal to the Father, can it be ever thougat that the meek Saviour would not have im- mediately explain d himfeif, to prevent fo dangerous and fatal a Mifconftruaion ? Could an Ambafjador, in Juftice to his Malter, ever miflead a foreign Court, to whom hewasfent, into a Belief that he was o^ equal Dignity and Dominion as hisMafter, and be cleared of Arrogance and Prefumption, if he did not, upon the iirft Notice of the Miftake, reBtfy their wrong Apprehenfions ?■ And can we think the lowly and lovely Jefus would have left any in fuch a pernicious Error ? Did he then attempt undeceiving them ? No, inftead of this he confirms them in their Sentiments, as being God's Envoy and AmbafTidor to the Children of Men 5 not barely repre- fenting his adorable Majefty, Dignity and Dominion, but fojfeffing it originally, indivifibly, and infeparably^ with him 3 and therefore he readily aiks them, what it w^ they were about to ftone him for ? the Jews anfwer dire6ily and plainly, for Blafphemy, becaufe that thou being a. Man make/i thyfelfGod, ver. 33. This was home to the purpofe. And here our Lord might have fiirly nick'd an Oppor- tunity to have denied it, had it not been fo 5 (efpe- cially feeing this Difcourfe was entred upon at the Re- queft of the Jews) who came round about him, and defi- red him not to hold them in Sufpence any longer, te to tell them plainly whether he wM the Chrift, or noy ver. 24. But does he deny, or wave the Charge ? Does he fay 'twould be Blafphemy in him to afTume an Equality with God ? Nothing lefs 3 he defends himfeif, and proves it to be no Blafphemy for him to fay he was th [ 5<5 ] the Son of God equal to his Father 5 ^efus anfivereei them, is it not written in your Law, I faid^ye are Gods ? if ye called them GodSf unto whom the jVord of God came, and the Serif- tttres cannot he broken, fay ye of him, whom the Father hath fanBifed and fent into the World, Thou hlaffhemeji, hecaufe J faid I am the Son of God 'I* This Argument is grounded up- on the infinite Diftance and Imparity between the Of* fice of a Mediator, and the Office of a Ma^ijiratey be- tween the only begotten Son of God, who is one with his Father, and the Sens of Men, who are but his infe- rior Deputies : And *tis as if he had faid, if Kings and Magiftrates are figuratively called Gods, only becaufe they have (ome faint and remote Refemblance of the di- vine Majefty, in refpefl: of their Office, how much more may I be properly called God, who am the /«^- ftantial and eternal Son of God ? And fo have a proper Kight to the Name, having been one with my Father from all Eternity, fan^tify'd, and now fent into the World, and fay ye of him, who hath fuch a ftrict and indifpu- tahle Claim to the Title of Gody Thou hlafphemeji ? If you won't believe my Words, yet the regard due to thofe mighty Workj, which you fee wrought by me, which are a convincing Evidence that the Father aiis in me^ and I in himy and that there is the fame divine Nature, and Principle of Operation, in us both, may fatisfy you of the Truth of what I fay. f This the ^ews underftood of his defending his former AiTertion, that he and his Fa- ther were one in the high Senfe they took the Word jn, and therefore they fought again to take him §, hecaufe. he made himfelf equal to God , as will more fully appear un- der the next Particular. In the mean while I muft trace the Author. Nor can it be proved, fays he, that by equal with God they meant having the fame individual, nume- rical Nature with God, i. e. that they charged him with ma- king * Yes. 34, is, 36. t Vcr. 37, 3 8. § Vcr. [ 57 ] king himfelf the felf fame Beings whom they charged him of ar- ro7atin^ an Equality u'tth 5 in other Words y uith making him^ felf the fame t'eing ivith the one fu^r erne Beings and yet another and dtJhnB Being from him. Here the AutliOr would gradually and foftly deal upon us a Contradiction in Terms, and then gravely afks whe- ther it can be prov'd : To which Infinuation I anfwer, none ever pretended to prove, that Chrift is the fame Be- ing with the one fupreme God, and yet another difiinH Being from him y and if the '^eus had thought he intended this, they would rather have left him, as one of no great Brains, than levell'd a Charge of Blafphemy againft him. This can be only owing to the Author's own falfe, and yet riveted Notion, that the Son cannot be the fupreme God in oppofition to all Idols, and fo of the fame Na- ture with the Father, unlefs he be the u^ry Perfon of the Father : 'Twas never aflerted by thofe of more Zeal than ^udgmenty nor ever entered into their Hearts, that the Son was the fame Being with the Father, and another diftinCl: Being from him 5 for tho' we contend that he hath the fame undivided Nature with God the Father, he can't, in the reafon of things, be a feparate diftinft Being from him, but only a Perfon diJiinBly fuhfifi'ing in^ and not ahftraUed from the fame Godhead, and confcquent- ly equal in all effential Perfe6lions ; and therefore when we fay that the Son is equal to the Father in Power, Good- nefs, Wifdom, or any other Perfe£lion, this is only to note the Diftin6lion of the Perfonsy and not the Diilinc- tion of the Power ^ Goodnefs and Wifdom, as 'tis inherent in different Subjects 5 or eife . 'tis to /hew that one Perfon doth not exceed another in degrees of Power, Goodnefs, and Wifdom, and all other effential Attributes ; for as we believe all three have the fame infnite Eflence, we fafely conclude there are no Degrees in that which is firiBly infinite 5 and therefore when we confider any of thefe Attributes referring to the divine EfTence, which is common to all three Perfons, we ufually fay it is t\\efame Power, [58] Power, Goodnefs, and Wifdom, d^r. that is in Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft : But when we confider thefe At- tribures, as they are prcedicated of the Perjans who fublift in this Effence, we fay this Perfon \s equal to that in Power, &"€. becaufe all thefe efuntial Perfef^ions equal- ly belong to. Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. So that |he Author here very widely mifTes the Mark 5 and if previoufly fenfible of it, he aded a little difingenucufly, to faften a Meaning on the Argument of his Brethren, who utterly deny the thing, difown the Confequence with both Hands, and which never, by all the Art of Men, can be made good againft them. However, ha- ving thus darkened the Argument, by jumbling dii{in£l: Being and Perfon together, one an ahfolute^ the other a yelative Term, which is really enough to nonplus the plain Chriftiafiy ivha can^t dift'mgtiijh between Soph'ifhy and good %eafomng^ he proceeds to difcover a Secret, which he opens by a folemn QueHion. But lohy muji the Jews he thought good Interpreters of our 'Lord's Wordsy ivhg were confejjedly his inveterate Enemies^ and CO*iflant Perxerters of them to an ill Senfe, whenever they had the leaji Colour for it ^ and who fought continually to betray him in his Speech^ that they might findfome Matter of plaufble Accufation againfl him ? I anfwer. Granting this a Delign to enfnare him, and the whole Charge the efFed of Spight, and whatever elfe may be added, and what will be the Confequence? plainly this, that our blefled Lord tamely and quietly fubmitted to the Charge 5 and by not difowning it, if he was not truly fo, to the great Di/honour of the fu- preme Being, implicitly perfifted in affuming Godhead to himfelf. But can it ever enter into our Thoughts, that a mecr Creature, linowing his Original, /hould arro- gate this to himfelf j and yet God bear jVitnefs to him^ not only by Miracles, and Wonders, and Signs, but by a dire6l Voice from Heaven, faying, This is my beloved [ 59 1 Sony in ivhom T amivell j^leafed^ hear hlm^. Matth. lii. 17, Now if Chrift was not the eternal Son of God, equal to the Father, as the ^eivs thought by this Phrafe he made himfelf, and which he aims to confirm them in the Belief of, by the following Words 5 one would think all his Defigns niuft have been blafted, the Religion he was going to fettle in the World come to nothing, his Difciples be all fcattered, filled with Shame and the ut- mofl; Confufion. But the glorious Defign flourifh'd, the Religion of a crucify'd God, without any Artifice or Force^ fpread from Sea to Sea, from Shore to Shore, even to the utnioft Bounds of the habitable World 5 his Difciples ftrenuofly propagated the Caufe, even in the Face of Jealoufy, Anger, and Rage itfelf, with ajionijhing Suc- cefs 5 they faithfully bore witnefs to his Divinity, with a fleady, manly, and undaunted Spirit 5 and, in iliort, in all their Writings, made ufe of fuch fublime and lof- ty Expreffions concerning Chrift as God, and that by fuch a. continued Strain of Words and Phrafes, as feem like a Torrent to over-bear us 5 Expreflions fo ftrong and ner- vous, as hardly to be foften'd by the Skill of Criticksc 1 fay, if we impartially confider this, and more that might be urg'd of the like Nature, wemuft be forc'dto bewail it, that our bleflcd Lord, which is a ftartling Thought ! a(5ted the Part of the vileft Impoftor ima- ginable 5 and that his Apoftles, inftead of being plain, fincere, honeft, infpired Men, were no better than com- mon Cheats, and a Cabal of Knaves that actually itnpofed upon a credulous World 5 which is enough to vacate all their Writings, and tempt any Man of Reafon to turn Apoftate from the Chriitian Inftitutes, as a meec Heap of Forgeries 5 for when thofc, who deny the God- head of Chrift, perceive what high Titles of Sovereignty and Divinity the Scriptures every where give him, they are naturally led to think the facred TVrittngs to he contra- ■ diBory and fpuriousy as affirming him to be lowly and meek, and yet aftuming divine Chara^ers, and divine Honour^t t€o1 Honours, which, If not truly due unto him, as they be- lieve they are not, they may, without any Paufe^ drop in- to Deifm, and be ever loft in that thick Cloud of Error. Thefe are the horrid Confequences of the Author's Explicatioity which therefore can't well be thought ge- nuine 5 but fuch is the Magick of Prepofleflion, that he is led to offer the moft (lender Proof in Vindication of this ftrain'd and uneafy Turn which he gives the Words 5 an Argument, that inftead of making for him, if duly weigh'd, muft overthrov; his whole Plea. His Words are : Indeed^ as it hap^ens^ the Anfiuer ivhich our Saviour gaie to this Charge^ plainly Jheivs it to have been a Calumny 5 and that in thefe Words^ My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, ^hich ivere the Foundation of it^ he defignd nothing lefs than to ajjume to himfelf an Equality with the Father. 'Tis plain, our Lord intended by thefe Words only to excufe himfelf as innocent of any fuch Breach of the Sabbath^ as the ^eivs charged him with, for healing the im- potent "Man 5 and he offers, in Vindication of his Condudl on this Occafion, this Argument, "My Father worketh hither- to^ and I itor/j^, q. d. God, my Father, from whofe ref- ting on the feventh Day you derive, by his Command, your Celebration of the Sabbath^ who can interpret his own Laws, does not ftop the Operations of his Providence on that Day, but hitherto continues to preferve and go- vern all things, and exercife Works of Mercy on that Day as well as others, without any Violation of the Sabbath 5 and I, who am the Son of God, alfo work by t\iQ fame Energy^ upholding all things by the Word of my Power 5* and furely my miraculous Works of Good- nefs on the Sabbath Day can't be chargeable with any Breach of it, any more than the Works of Providence, which go on every Day without Intermiflion 3 my Father ivorketh hitherto, and 1 work. It ought to be obferved, that our •Heb.i.a. C <5i ] our Lord cloes not fay, I may work Miratcles of Mercy on Sabbath Days as well as other Days, becaufe the Precept for obferving it does not forbid Works of Neceflity and Charity, as he had alledg'd in anfwer to the like Charge in other Places 5 but the Father worketh hitherto, ia>f *pr/, even from the Beginning to this time, KAyf$ i^ycLi^ouaUi and I ivork^ hitherto 5 which /hews, that as Chrift created all things with his Father, fo he fupports and governs all with him , he works undividedly with him, having eternally one and the fame Virtue, Majefty, Sub- fiance, Will, and Operation. Suppofing then thefe Words the Foundation of the Charge, as the Author fays it is, the ^evjs Inferences, that our Lord intended an Equality with God, had not been ftrain'd. But I conceive 'twas meerly his calling God his Father, that drew upon him this Charge of Blafphemy, which they took in fuch a high Senfe, as to imply that God was his oivn proffer Father, and which really our Lord intended they Hiould, as will appear, idly. By placing the Text in fuch a Light as is con- fident with our Lord's Character, and his reafoning with the jews in this and other Places of Scripture. When our Lord called God his Father, the ^eus im- mediately receiv'd it in fuch a peculiar Senfe, that he -jaas the proper Son of God -* and therefore charged him with making himfclf equal to God, meerly upon this account, as is as plain as Words can make it 5 Therefore tt? Jews fought the more to kill him^ becaufe he not only had broken the Sabbath, but faid alfo that God was his Father ^ mahjng bim- felf equal luith God. f This fhews that a double Charge was commenced againft him, one for his breaking the Sabbath^ and another for faying God was his own Fa- ther y both which our Lord vindicates himfelf from, not by denying it flatly, but /hewing the things, whereof he «Vcr.i7. tVcr. I?. [ 62 3 he was accus'd, to be conjtftent with the Honour of Go<3, and his MiJJion to the loft Sheep of Ifiael -^ and withal, their Sentiments to be juft. Agreeable to this, when the High Prieft afk'd whether he was the Son of the Blef- fed^* our Lord anfwered^ lam; which was a punftual and pofitive Affirmation of it, fuch as was confiftent with his Charader, as he was God as well as Man, and no way intrenching upon the Honour of his Father, feeing he was one that counted it no Robbery to he equal ivith God ^ and we may eafily know in what Senfe the High- Priefi put the Queftion, and received the Anfwer, by his renting of his Cloaths^ and condemning the Lord of Life and Glory for Blafphemy. 'Twas now no time for our Lord to fhift the Qaeftion, when in view of an ignomi- nious and cruel Death 5 nor could it be imagin'd he would hide the Truth from them, when fo folemnly adjur'd by the living God, and when his explaining him- felf (had he not aflerted what they thought Blafphemy) would have filenc'd them all, and cut ofF every Pretenfion againft him tha.t might touch his Life. So that by the dire6l Anfwer our Lord gave, / am the Son of the BleiTed, he muft mean as they thought, that he was the proper Son of God, who had the fame Nature and Power with the Father, and therefore was able to do, and aBually did the fame Works 5 which I havefliewn you is the true Senfe of thofe Words, My Father worketh hitherto^ and I 'worl^-, and the Deiign of our Lord's rea- foning with the Jews^ who certainly thought fo them- felves 5 and therefore not barely from the Force of Ca- lumny and malicious Intention, but out of Prejudice to his Perfon, (who they thought was not what they ap- prehended he faid he was) they pleaded the Law againft him as one that deferved to die for Blafphemy. The Jews anpwered him^ lue have a Law, and by our Law he *Mwk. xiy. 16. ought to die, hecaufe he fhatie hinifelf the Son of Go J. * Ob- ferve the Reafon, not becaufe he made himfelf a King^ and Co was guilty of Treafon agxioft C<^far 5 but becaufe he made himfeif the Son of Cod, and fo was guilty of 'Blafphemyt^ and deferv'd to hejloned to Death^ whica be* fore they had often threaten'd him. Now if our Sa- viour had not meant that he was the true Son of God, a Son equal to the Father, and one with him ^ and if the >Tiy did not take him in this Senfe, they could have had nothing to accufe him of Bbfphemy. Agi nft this, indeed, Dr.C/ar)(;^obrerves, that the Charge of blifphe- my, here alledg'd againOfour bleffed Lord, *' was only ** for his taking upon himfelf to be that Son of Man, of " whom Daniel had prophefied, chap. vii. 13. and that ** the Law, by which he ought to de, d\i\ not refer to *' LfO). xxiv. 15. but tothat, DfKt. xviii.20. wnichthrea- ** tens Death to him that fhall prefume to l^^eak a Word ** in the Name of God, without being really fent by *' him.'*** In which Objection there are two things obfervable, Erji, That the Doctor acknowledges the Title of Son of God was peculiarly and emphatically af- cribed to the Chrift, or Meffiah. Secondly^ That the Charge of Biafphemy againft our Lord was meerly upon the account of the "3^1^^ thinking he was not fent of Gvdi and yet prefuming to fieal{_in his Name, In Anfwer to the firft, 'tis highly reafonible to think, with the Dodofj that the Jevjs had a Notion, that rheir Mefliah fhould be the Son of God, but in a more fub .'ine Senfe than as the Chrift^ for it does not appear that Chrift and Son of God are fynoi.ymo.s Teims , but different Titles denoting the fame Perfon, confider'd under dif- ferent refpeasi the Title of Chrift denotng his Rela- Hon to the People as their Km:, 5 and the Title of Son of God j \i\s pctiliar Relation to Gcd 3tt and tWis Nathaniel F confeffesj • Jolin xix. 7. t Levit. xxiv. 16. ** Reply co xU ObjcOioiw ^i confefles, Rahhij thou art the Son of Gody thou art the. King ofKrsiel'y* and when our Lord tells /V^irrfc^, jVhofoevef liveth aKd believeth on me Jhall neier Aie^ helievejl thou this^ She faith unto him^ yea, Lord^ I believe that thou art the Chrtfty the Son of Gody ivhich fhould come into the World :\ And With this, as a Falfioody the ^eus upbraided and revil'd him at his Crucifixion $ laying, Tho» that de- firoyejt the Temj^le^ and buildeji it in three Days, Jave thyfelfy if thou he the Son of God^ come down from the Crofs.** And thus one of the MalefiBors^ that was hang'd with hiniy ratPd on htm^ f^yingy if thou he the Chr'tfly fave thyfeif and w^.ft All which plainly intimates that the ^ews of old lookM upon 'heir Meffias (tho* they may now deny it) as the proper Son cf God, and equal to the Father. Agreeable to fhefe Sentiments, the other Thief, ver, 42-. applies himft if to Lim for Salvation and eternal Life, fnyingy Lord, remember me ivhen thou comeft into thy Kingdom, And jefus fci'id unto him, verily I fiy unto thee, to day fJjalt thou he with mt in Paradife, And in what more authoritative Manner could he have fpoken, fuppoiing him God? Upon the whole 'tis manifeft, that there was a prevailing Opinion aii.ong fomeof the^^'ii-^, that their Meffiah fliould be the Son of God j and according to this Expedatyon, our Saviour endewour'd^ by degrees, to reprefent himfelf in this aniuble and divine Characlrer, that fo he might rai fe the Thoughts of the ^ewijh Nation in general, above the low Hopes of a mere temporal King, to a juft Idea of the Son of God, whofe Nature was truly divine, and whofe K'ngdom was properly fpiritual 5 and, as Dr. Fiddes very iuft'.y hints, " tho' he forbids hrs Difciplcs *' to uDlifh, that he v/as the Chrift, or Meffiah, be- <' cuCe the Generality would take it in a wrong Senfe, ** in -rj reting it ot King IVleflich (i. e. of a Temporal *' Prince) according to the current Prejudice of that '' Time 5 • John i. 4.het. This ^ ews tha. our Lord does not a6l as t ^e Father's Indrument, but b) th^ fame Power, becaufe with the fame ^bfolute Fretdom 0/ W^ll 5 and though as Mediator he may be faid to do every tning in Obedience to his Father's Wui, yei he always works feely, and infeparab y with t ;e Father» feeing moved hereto Dy an Exctllence of Nat we tiiat is the fame in boih, and thit equally moves tiieni to tne ume A As of Power and Goodneis 5 the Son therefore, in Conjim^ton With h:s Fa her j not ex luiive of the Holy Ghoif, is the Principle of :ill Life, both nataral, fpiritual arid eternal. Now, feeing *tis f r> per ci.ly .0 God to ^ive or reilore Life, as he is the fole Quickener of the De.id, j th s lex miy well be taought a flagrant Teftuiiony of our Lord s E juality with the Father 5 for though the Prophets of Old both healed lick Perfons, and rais*d tue Dead to Life, yet not one of them did it either under the Notion that he was Son of God, or afcrib'd to himfelf a Power of raifing the Dead equal to God, niuch lefs afferted, that they qmkened whom they uoutd. Ver. 22. For the Father judgeth no Man ^ hut hath com- mtted all 'judgment to the Son, This further demonftrates our Lord's Equality to the Father 5 for to him, as the Son of God, as well as the Son of Man, who alone is qualified for fo ftupendious an Office, as Governor and Lord of all th ngs, belongs all Jurifd dion 3 he is the fovereign Di(pjfer of Life and P aih, invefted with a plenary Power and Authority to cxercife univerfal Sway over all, according to Matth, xxviii. 18, all Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth j in the Father's thus committing all judgment to our t I S»m. il. 6. Deut. xxxii. 39. Rom. iv^ X7< [74] am bleffed Lord, Dr. ^hithy tells us, * « Wolttogenlm «« himfelf grants is comprehended totum regimen^ Qp M- ^' vinum totim mundi imperium^ an entire Government, ** and divine Empire over the vi'hole WorM, and efpe- ** cially over the whole Church of God. " And I don't think 'tis a ftnin'd Confiruftion 5 fur Judgment, accord- ing to the Hehreiu Idiom, is fome times taken for Rule or Empire. Thus, jn 'Judges xvi, 31. bsn\i;^nN lOS^, he jud*?ed yrael^ thit \s^ rul'd Ifrael : Now if the Son be Governor of the World, who fu'laineth all things by the Word of his Power, and by whom all things conlift* furely he is God equal to the Father^ of one l^a.ure, Will and Power 5 for the Father judgeth no Man, What then, hath he rejigned his Empire ro his Son ? This can' I be fuppofed, unlefs we make God the Father like an indolent Epicurean Deity, that iiis in the Heavens lijilefs and unconcerned about the Affairs of Mortals. But now if Chriil- be confidered in his higheft Character as one with the Father, the fupreme King and Lord of Heaven and Earth, God over ally hiejpd for ever 5 this unties the Knot, and plainly /hews, that the Father alfa doth govern the World, though not alone, yet together with his Son, who being one in Eflence with him, and in Power, as he fir ft created, fo by his unerring Providence he fleers it through all the Floatings of Time and Cafualty. And tho* under the Gofpel-Dif- penfation the Son is repreflnted as having a peculiar King- dom of his own, adminiflred in his Name, and by Virtue of his fovereign Authority, by which he governs this lower World, and difpofes of all things in Subferviency to the Ends of his Mediation, it cap't be thought that the Father has put the Power of governing the World out of his own Hands : For tho' all Power is given to Chr-.ft, the Mediator, yet the whole of it is Ml retain d by God 5 becaufe he who is Mediator is God m well as "Many • Upon the Place. [ 75 ] 2Vfrf», and elfentially and infeparably one with the Fa- ther, and fo a<5ls by the fame Energy, tho' under a nevi Chara£ler. If any fhould contend, that this Text muft be inter- preted of the loft 'Judgment^ 'twill be equally ftrong for our Lord's Divinity ^ for this muft fuppofe him to be moft wife, omnifcient, omniprefenr, to know all Secrets* to fearch all Hearts, and to have the abfolute Power of Life and Death, of Abfoiution and Condemnation ^ and that he faves and dcilroys, accjuits or condemns, and executes the whole irre^ealahle Sentence in Conjunc- tion with the Father. We vre told, indeed, the Father judgeth no 'Man (i. e. God under the Ch irader of Father, or firft Perfon of the Triniry as fuch 5 ) for ^ he is God by the ConfefTion of all, he can't be conceiv'd a hart S^eBator of the Work, feeing God is frequently in Scrip- ture declar'd to be the !^udge of the World -^ and yet the Apodle tells us, we Jhall all ft and hefore the 'Judgment Seat of Chrift 5 but this he immediately explains confident enough 5 fo then every one of usfiallgrce an account of him- felf to God'j* which /hews that Chrift, the ^udge of Piuick and Vead^ is God, or Jehovah (as appears by the Citation) which being the peculiar Name of the moft High, who is only one Being, God himfelf is Judge^] and not an inferior Agent, or Reprefentative, who only bears his Authority, and is not poiTefs'd of his Nature and Perfedions. If this was duly confidered, 'twould ne- ceflarily convince us of the Fanity of any Attempt what- ever to reconcile the Unity of God with the Divinity of Chrift, by making the Father the Supreme, and the Son a feparate fubordinate Being 5 and how the Author of Unity has fucceeded in it, will be feen prefently. He obferves, § That the DoBrine of the Unity of God hi^ afforded the moft plaufihle OhjeBions agaittft Dr^ ClarkV HeUrine of the Trinity, ^I'll venture to add, the U- nity * Rom. xiv, r6, la, \ Exgd.iii, ijt i>c«t.?i,e having Dominion ( which is the fpecious Saho to evade the Force of thofc Scriptures where Chrift is exprtfly caird God ) there muft be a fupreme and fubordinate God, i. e, two Gods: Or if it be reply 'd, that there can't be two Gods, unlefs both are {uipipos^d fufreme 5 then our Saviour is no God, contrary to feveral exprefs Texts of Scripture. Here is an infuperable Difficulty 5 if there be two Gods, how is Unity maintained ? Or if Supremacy goes into the true Notion of God, and the Son is not fupreme, he is no God : Let this be iifted into, and turn'd over and over, 'twill be found an invincible Ob- jedion. And this Dr. Water land had urg'd to great Ad- vantage 5 but the Author notwithftanding pufhes on for a fupreme a.hdfuhordmate Senfe of the Word God 5 ant the Weaknefs of this Way of Rea Toning, I fhall fliew, ift. I'hat Creation is appropriated to the one fuprerae Being, as his oivn handy Work, and is competible to none bcfides. zdly. That our Lord Jefus Chrift had 3. joint Ejfciency In Creation with the Father, and fo was not an inftru- mental Ciufe. ^dly. That, admitting the Author's Explication, the Arguments from the Creation of the Worldj to prove ths Being of a God, will be of no force. iji. I fhall /hew, that Creation is appropriated to the one fupreme Being as his cwn handy Work, and is com- petible to none befides. In what a majefticJ^ Manner do the Scriptures difplay the Power of God, in giving Being to all things I And how ■ftrong and peculiar are the Defcriptions they give us of the great Creator as the only God ! Lord God of Ifrael^, "which du-elleji between the Cherubims, thou art the Gody even thou alone, of all the Kingdoms of the Earth — JU the Gods of the Nations are Idols, hut the Lord made the Heavens* He is infinitely fuperior to all others, and none but he who is * 2K iogf %ix. 1 5. Pfal, xcvi. 5. [8i] is the great Kiiig above all Gods, excluf?ve of all trt- ftruments, made the World, and therefore he claims the Honour and Glory of fo amazing a Prodh^y of Power to himfelf. I am the Lord that maketh all things ^ that Jiretcheth forth the Heaiens alone^ that fpreadeth abroad the Earth hy my felf \ But how can he be fiid to do it alone^ and by himfeif, if he employ'd a.notherfeparateJgent to do It for him ? But to convince us there was no dele- gated, inftrumental Power concerned, he affures uSj I, even my Hands have JiretcFd out the Heavens 5 $ fo that the Scriptures plainly afcribe Creation to God alone 5 and even Reafon itfeif may teach us* that he could have no Deputy 5 for either this x\gent was infinite or finite 5 not infinite, for whoever is fo, is the firft Caufe, the one fupreme Being, (which is giving up all) j nor washefi° nite, for a finite Agent cannot receive Power to produce fo vaft an EfFccl, as^«rf, naked Nothing into Being, which exceeds all created, limited Capacities. This is fo in- conceivable an Inftance of Power, that the Arijloteliayt Philofophers could by no means digeft it 5 and there- fore upon that Principle of their Maflers, Ex nihilo ni- hil jit ^ Of nothing nothing is made, which is only true concerning natural Produdlions, they falfly argued, that the World muft be eternal, becaufe they could not ac-^ count how all things fliould be produced out of No- thing : But as our (liallow Underftandings cannot com- prehend the utmoil: Extent of Omni potency, 'tis irra* tional to deny, what, if not granted, may be reduced to moft palpable Abfurditjies. This however may convince us, that Creation is fo ftupendious a Work, that it can be attributed to none, but to one, fupreme^ infinite, firft Caufe 5 for fo far Arijiotleh Maxim muft hold, that Nothing can be made out of Nothing by any treated^ jintte In^mvnQVit 'y for a greater Di/? fcarce intelligible. If he takes the Word in the Senfe 'tis generally ufed, it muft imply an Impofli- bility, T/z,. that an Inftruirent fhould be employed in Creation, where there wis toothing to work upon 5 no frce-exijient Matter to fhape and mould up. But his ex- planatory Claufe, or God gave him an ylhlltty^ and a Com- mand to create the World, feems to aim at an inferior Agent, di{iinoke and it u^ done, he commanded and it jtood fuj'i : Befides, if Chrift begun to be, and there was the le.ift: Point of Duration when he was not, he muft be created immediately, by the Power of God, out of nothings and why ftaould it be thought, that God fhould not as well create all things without an Inftrument, as create G 4 that that Injlrtmeytt without an Infirument, the fame Power being reqiufite to create one as the other ? But the Scrip- ture knows no fuch thing as an inftrumental Creator 5 the efficacious Command of God gave Original to all things, and nothmg was neceffiry to God's bringing forth a World out of nothing, but the iimple A6t of his Will, which is both the principal, and, if proper to fay any, the inftrumental Caufe, feeing hy his oun Power and ourjiretched y^rm he made the Heavens and the Earth • * 'twas form'd by a Word, and eftabli/h'd by a Command, without the leaft Labour or Toil, which muft exclude all Under-Agents. Thirdly^ it follows, that this <^t/'«ff^ Creator, tho' a fi- nite temporary Being, had an Ability to produce all things out of nothing, which is the fnre CharaBeriJlick^ and Mark of eternal Power and Godhead , t and fo he, who is but a Crtature, or not the fuprcme God, according to the Confeflion of our Adverfaries, is, by the Defcr'tption of Scripture, the fupreme Being, which is a Contradic- tion. Or, Fourthly, As no created Being is by Nature and Neref- Jity God, he cannot be the Creator of the World, accor- ding to thefe and other Texts of Scripture , fo that this infinite and almighty Power, by which all things are created, no Creature can he invejied with 5 and confe- quently, Chrift Jefus, if only a Creature, is not Creator of the World, contrary to many plain and direB Tefti- n30ni.es of facred Writ. Or, ' Fifthly, If Chrift was made, in order that we might be created, he was made ^0/- us, contrary to Co/, i. 17. where 'tis faid, ail things ivere created hy him, and for him:** So that if there is any Jaftice and Beauty in the Apofile's Argument, to (hew the Preheminence and Dignity of the Male Sex, Mankind muft be thought of greater Ex- .. . : cellency * Jcr. X. 12. xxxH. 17. t Jerx- lo. ii. com^ird ■with'Rom/rk. si. **.-j Cor. xi. 9. - C 87 ] telleney than the Son of God's Love j and what debaling and low Sentiments might we then entertain of him ? 'Tis no Wonder, according to this, to hear fome (other- wife Men of a fair Character) who ftick not in common Converfation to fay, God might, if he had pleas^d^ made you or I Redeemer of the World^ &c. A /huddering Thought ! is there any Comparifon between him who is the eter- nal Son of God, the Brightnefs of his Glory, and feeble dying Mortals of a Yejierday^s Date, who in thus frofjfng themfelves to he wife^ to di6late what God might do, 'tis to be fear'd a£t far below the Character. But, Sixthly^ If the Father gave Chriji an Ahdity and a Com- mand to create the Worldy he was only himfelf an ttnaBive gpe6tator, and had no immediate Hand in it, but left all to the Contrivance and Condu6l of his Under- Agent, contrary to jer. x. 12. He hath made the Heavens by his Power, he hath ejiablijhed the World by his Wijdom^ and hath Jiretched out the Heavens by his Difcretion, Seventhly^ If the Father is Creator, and the Son Crea- tor, fuppofing thofe Places are to be literally underftood of a prober Creation, where Chrift is faid to make all things^ then our Adverfaries neceflarily introduce two Crea- tors, contrary to Mai. ii. 10. Hath not one God created us ? EightHy, It will follow, that we may give to another the Glory of God's Name and Works 5 but the Heavens only declare the Glory of God, and /hew hts handy Work.t and not that of an inferior Agent 3 for the Lord hath referved the fole Glory, of fo great a Work as Creation, to himfelf alone j therefore fays the holy Pfalmifl, viii. 3. When I conjider the Heavens, the Wbrk^of thy Fingers, the Moon and the Stars which thou haft ordain* d^ 'what is Man that thou art mindful of him ? Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy Name in all the Earth, &c. Thefe, and many more, are the unavoidable Confe- quences of an inffrumental Creator 5 but the Scripture Ac- epunt will appear eafy and obvious, if we confider the Son of the fame Nature and Subftance with the Father, [ 88 ] fo infeparably united, that nothing can be the Work of one, without being at the fame time the Work of the other, as our Lord himfelf tells us 5 my Father worketh hitherto^ and I ivorl^. This, I fay, will be a Solution to all the Difficulties that may be fiarted againft the Crea- tion of the World by the Son, and yer retaining one Creator, he being one with his Father, far more natu- ral and confiflent with Scripture and Reafon, than what the Author has offered. For, Thirdly, Admitting his Explication, the Argument from the Creation of the World, to prove the Being of a God, will be of no force 5 how then may Atheifts triumph, and Infidelity and Prophanenefs go thro' our Streets at Noon^day mmalk'd and undifguis'd, rnftead of 'lurking, as it now does, in the vileft Cluhs of Dark- nefs ? If we fuppofe with the Atheift, or wijh with the Li- bertine, fo far 3is fupine/y to give into the Notion, that there is no God, 'twill be impofTible to give any tole- ^ rable Account of the Extjience of the World 5 for nothing is more evident, than that this vaft and beautiful Syftem was either from Eternity, or elfe that it had a Begin- ning • and if it had a Beginning, this muft be afcribed merely to Chance, toa Concourfe of Atoms (a Thought as ivild as the Space they are fupposM ever to rove in, before they luckily hit the World into Form and Shape) or elfe it muft be owing to the Operation of fome wife and almighty Agent : It might be demonflrated from the cleareft Principles of Reafon, that the World had a Be- ginning. But this \s not the Difpute : Whatever then had a Beginning, muft have an efficient Caufe 5 it could not make itfelf , for that would be to give it a Power before it was, and to fuppofe it to be and not to be at the fame time 5 hence it muft follow, that fome more excellent Being made this World, whom we call the %ne living and true God j for if more concurred to the making of the World than one infinite Being, they were were either total or partial Caufes of Its Exiflence. To be total efficient Caufes of one and ;he fame Effedl, is a Contradiction 5 for if the World wis wholly crea'ed by one fupreme Being, nothing of it could be created by another : If only partial Caufes, there may be fnany who did concur towards the Creation, and how many 'twill be impoiTible to judge, for when once we acknowledge more than one that had any Hand in Creation, their Numbers can't be afTign'd, we may run into all the He- refies of the GKoJticl^s^ Menandrians^ Saturnilians, "ajtli- diatts^ Carpocratlans^ Falentintans^ and others, who all com- bined to degrade the Almighty, and take away from hifn the Glory of this fir ft TvJanifcftation of his Power and Godhead, in creating and framing the Fabrick of the Univerfe, by attributing it to Angels^ their feign*d ^ones^ and what not 5 but the Scriptures are plain, that there is but one Creator, the true eternal God. Chrill is Crea- tor, the Creator is true and eternal God j therefore Chrift is true and eternal God 3 he made the Worlds and aded herein by the fame Power, Wifdom, and Will, as the Father j for tho' another Perfon in the Godhead, thefe Attributes of Power and Wifdom, &c. which he exerted in Creation, fpring from the one undivided Eflence 5 fo that the Catife of the World's Exiflence is not many, but one, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, the one living and true God. But fhould we afiert that Chrift, as an inferior and feparate Being from the Father^ made the World as his Deputy and Inftrument, we fub- vert all the Arguments urg'd with the utmofi Strength and Advantage, to prove the Being of a God from the Formation, Beauty, and Defign of it, which would then appear weak and inconclufive $ for if a mere Creature, or one who is not the fupreme God , could do fuch^^M- fendious things by a borrowed Ability,how do I know, may any one objedt (that denies the Authority of the Scrip- tures) that he was commiffion'd to do it by a fuperior Power, or that this fuperior Power was not delegated by another, [Po] another, and fo on in Injinitimi^, by which all our Knowledge of God's Being, Powers, and Perfections, which is deduc'd from the Wonders of Creation, is at once loft 5 for how can it poflibly be offerM, as an Ar- gument from the Creation of the World, to prove the Exigence of one infinite, fupreme, firft Caufe, if one, that was not fo, could, and aHually did, make the World? and at this rate, how abfurdly mufi- the Apoftle argue ? how unjuftly muft he accufe the Heathen World for their wretched Dulnefs and Stupidity, in not attending to the irrefragable Proofs of a Deity, from the things that were made, and fo glorify him accordingly ? For the invijib/e things of him (fays he) from the Creation of the World are clearly feen^ being underjiood by the things that are made, even his eternal Power and Godhead ; fo that they are ivithout Excufe 5 becaufe that u-hen they knew God, they glori- fy^d htm not as God, neither were thanl^ful, but became vain in their Imaginations, and their foolijh Heart was darkned, Profejjing themfelves to be wife, they became Fools* Upon the whole, if Creation is the peculiar Work of the one true God, and a Dtmonfiration of his being, when Chrift is fa id to create the World, it cannot be as a fuhordinate ^Jgent, feparate from his Father, but as one that has the fame Power and Perfections, &=c» and confequently, the Author's Explication of a fupreme and inferior Creator muft be prodigioufly fqueez'd, unnatural, and unfcrip- tural 5 and fo can be no parallel Cafe to illuftrate the blazing Invention of a fupreme and fuhordinate God 5 and his Method of reconciling the Unity of God with the Divinity of Chrift muft appear, after all, trifling and abortive. The Socinians long ago rejeded this Scheme as inconfifient and monftrous 5 and therefore, by a furprlzing Turn of Language, and fome peculiar Reaches of Criticifm, they had a knack of wrefting all thofe * Rom. i. 20. &;:. [91] tliofe Texts, iKat fpeak of Chrifl's creating the TforUt to a metaphorical Creation, which is doubtlefs a torturing of the infpired Writings, but more favourable to com- mon Senfe, and lefs clog'd with Difficuliies, than the very fine Advances of our Author and his Coilegues. CHAP. VI. An Enquiry concerning the Object of thChriftians Worjhip -y wherein the Unreafonablenejs of de- grading the Son of God^ who^ according to John V. 23. "^ is to be honoured even as the Father, will appear confpicuous ; and the ajjigntng fuch Degrees of divine Wcrjhip^ as will admit of the Dijiin^tion of fupreine and ftibordinate^ trifling and unfcriptural^ feeing the one ultimate Obje^ of it is Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofl^ exclujive of all others. Ver. I'^.^H AT all 'Men fiouU honour the Sony even as •■ they do the Father. He that honoureth not the Son^ honoureth not the Father, This is a pregnant Demonftration of ourLord*s Equa- lity, as Son of God, with his eternal Father, both in Nature, Dignity, and Glory 5 for to whom f^«a/ Honour and Worfhip is due in all refpects, theymuft be of equal Dignity, &€. So that if the Son was not God by Na- ture, there would neceflfarily be fome peculiar and dif- tinguifhing M^r/^^of Honour due to the Father, and com- manded to be paid to him, which was not due to the Son 5 * Among the Vetfes referr'd to by the Appendix, and will therefore be con* fidci'd if, the Fouxidaiion of the following Chapter. Son 5 but there Is none ; for all Men are under equal Ob- ligations by this very Text, to hoyiour the Son even ^ the Father^ actd-cos^ in like manner, i. e. with the fame divine Homage, facred Adoration, and religious Obedience $ and however fome have attempted to uring this P4frige to a low Meaning, fuitable to their low and prejudic'd Thoughts of the Saviour of the World, who not only ranfom'd us from temporal Thraldom, but eternal Mife- ry, no other Interpretation, than I have given, can be conliftent with the Context, and the whole Strain of Scripture 3 for are we bound to call upon God the Fa- ther, as one that alone can hear and anfwer our religious Prayers ? fo we muft call upon the 'Name of ^efm Chrifl his Son^* our Lord. Are we to adore and bow down proftrate before God the Father ? the fame Expreflion of Submiflion and Allegiance is due to God the Son, by the whole rational. Creation, by the higheft OrJe)- of Creatures, f Are the moft lofty Afcriptions of di- vine Honour, Glory, and Praife, paid to God the Fa- ther ? they are alfo paid to God the Son.^^ Are we oblig'd to make the Father the Objeci of our Faith, Hope, Joys, and religious Truft ? fo we are requirM to make the Son. II Are we commanded to love God above all, with all our Hearts, Mind, and Strength ? fo muft we love our dear Lord Jefus more than Father or Mother^ Brother or Stjier^ Houfe or Landi j yea^ than Life itfelf-^^ and if any Man love him not (fincerely and with the higheft AflFedion) let him he, fays the Apoftle, an Anathema Ma- rayjatha 5 for he is our Life^ our Ho^e, our Peace, our ^//.J Are we requir'd to make an abfolute Re/ignation of our iJnderftandings and Wills to the Authority of God ? fo muft we befubje-a to Chrift, our very Thoughts ijiuft be * Aas ix 14. 4 Cot. x'li. 7, 8. I Cor. i. 2. t Rev. iv. jo, if* rjraPet.iii. 18. Rev. v. 12. UJohniii. 36. xiv. i. Phil. vii. ij. '*^i-"- '. 2. $ Matth.x. 37. jCoi. iit, 4. i Tim. i. A^ Eph.ii. x