^^. '^--0^-':y^^ 1 / O^ Ot O^ I^ .^£^ Iia. "^2^ OF THK AT , PRINCETON, N. J. DO o :x- _'v-X" I c* 3r * J^ Jf^ uf\ jn, .^n, jT\ jn, jfh, jn, ' jn. jr\ jf\ jr\ it* jr\ j}^ j)^ ju jr\ jn, j;^ j*n _>^ _^ ^ j^ ^, _. _ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^i* ^ • ^ ^ I ^ *^ T ^ '^ 'ii^ *(P '^^ ^ ^ ^ "ip "^ '^ ^^^ !r/)^ Divinity of the Son of Go j> defended. pES^^ f? K. C/;/^^_^ calls hislaft Work, T^f* Supremacy o^ |y; f /^c' f^f/;^r vindicated^ or Obfervations en Mr^ m. Clagget's i?5d?^, ^??^?VW,Arianirm Anatomized. 1 rriuft indeed commend my Adverfary's ~==^^..==..^ Cunning, in not pretending to anfvver, but only to turn Obfervator \ b \ which means thofe things that are too difficult for him to oppofe, he can flip over without obfervation, and only touch on things where he thinks he can do befl. My AdvetTary oppofeth the Deity of the only-begotten Son of ,God ^ faith that I fet f-Tth an imaginary^on ^ faith that Chrift's human Nature is the whole and onty-begottea Son of God, p. %^ 57. and in many other places. My Bufinefs is to follow my Obfervator wherever he leads me, Only I fliall fuppofe, I have the privilege to ob- ferve his Omifiions, as well as VVeaknefTes. He faith that I have undertaken to confute his Arguments,; but have profecuted this Deflgn in a very unbecoming and unchridian Way, by reprefenting him as the vilcil of Crea- tures ^ laying a heavy Charge which I can by no means prove, ^'/2:. As one voho by holy and pious Pretences^ wonld introduce real Popery^ &:c. In general I anfwer, That I have done no more nor worfe than that which pious and holy Men have done in a like Cafe. And why it Ihould be accounted unbecoming and A3 m-- 6 The Divinity of the unchriftian in me, that was look'd on as a godly Zeal in them, I know not. Nothing is more common with the godly and learned Zanchy in his Writings againft the Arians^ than to call them Antichrifts, Knaves, Biafphemers, &c. And I fhould not have charged !t4riansmih Blafphemy and Idolatry, but that I thought them really guilty : Nor are there Arguments wanting in my Book to prove (I think) whatever I have faid of him. And I pray, what is it lefs than Blafphemy for Mr. ChM to call the eternal LogoSy whom Abraham^ Ifaac^ and Jacob owned for their God, and worlhipped as their God ^ which is the God that I am pleading for : I fay, to term him an imaginary Son, and fometimes the Father of God's Son ? For tho through the Luxurioufnefs of his Wit, he may make Sport and Diverfion for himfelf and others, with thefe facred and ever to be adored Perfons, yet his Confidence will not take off the Blafphemy. MrXhnbb hath heaped up together what lie fcatter'd up £nd down my Writings, without mentioning the place or occafion of the Words. Doth Mr. Chubb think it a Crime to fay a Man that blafpbemes that worthy Name of Chrift, , faying he is not God by Nature, is a Blafpheraer ? Did not ' themiftaken y^i^jfalfly charge Chrifc with Blafphemy, for afTerting his Deity ', and is not he really guilty that denies it? Is it not Blafphemy to fay. That the Maker of Heaven and Earth i^ an imaginary Being ? Did I not fhew fome reafon for what I faid ? If fo, why did not Mr. Chubb rt- move my Reafons out of the way, before he found fault with my Inferences from them ? I thought I only contended with Reafon and Scripture, thefe were my Weapons*, and are they carnal and diaboli- cal ? Had I railed, fure Mr. ChM forgot his Title- Page, where he cites the Apoftle commanding not to render railing for railing, Mr. ChM ought, I think, to have convinced the W orld, that where I ufed fuch Exprellions, I had not proved any fuch thing againft him \ and not to complain without fhew- ing caufe for it. For if I maintain the real Divinity of Chrift, 1 then juftify my fdf againit all his Complaints. Doth Mr. Chnhb bd eve in Chrift ? Doth he place his Hope in him ? Doth he love him above all Relations ? yea, above his own Life ? And doth he fay this Chriil is not God ? Then here again 1 proclaim him an Idolater : For he makes that which is not God, (or a Creature) the Ob- Son of God defended. 7 jed of divine and religious Worftiip. If he fay he doth not love Chrift aHove all, Chrift faith he is not worth v of him ; and the Apoille pronounces an Anatherm upon him j and the Prophet lays him under a Curfe, when he faith, Curfed is he that maketh Flcfij his Arm^ whofe Hope is not in the Lord his God^ Jer. 17. 5. Were not Chrift the moft High God, it were not lawful to hope in h m for Salvation from Sin, Death, and Hell. And in how many places ia this little Book I am about to reply to, doth he fay, that the Man Chrift Jefus is the whole of the Son of God ? denying him anv other Nature than human. This I fay, whatever Men may think of Mr. Chuhh^ to be fure he thinks well of himfelf, and is defirous to fpare his own Errors. They are tender things which he can't endure to be touch'd •, they are the fmgular things he values him- felf upon, as all fuch Perfons who endeavour to maintain Heterodoxies and Herefies do. I believe Mr. Chubb thinks I have dealt hardly with h'm ; but my felf and the World would have been better con- vinced of ir, if in all thofe places where he thought I did fo, he had fliewed that fuch things were not naturally drawn from his Principles. What I faid that refleded on him, was grounded on his Tenets, and Condud in promulging of them *, which being evil, I thought Words expreftive thereof, had not been unfuitablc to my Undertaking, or my felf bbraeable therein. Our Saviour called the Pharifees Hypocrites ; told others of ihtjews that they were the Children of the Devil. John calls them a Generation of f^ipers. Stephen tells thofe (he fpake to) that they were ftiff-necked and HncircPtmcifed in Heart and Ears ^ and that they and their Fathers did always refift the Holy Ghoft. Did not St. Pad call Elym.js a Child of the Devil, and Enemy of all Righteoufnefs, becaufe he fought to turn away the Deputy from the Faith ? and doth not C b endeavour to turn the whole Nation fiom the Faith of Chrift as Vaul preach'd it, viz.. As the true God and Creator of Heaven and Earthy i\(fts 13. 8. Cannot I draw a parallel between Elymas and Arim f Are not People, under the Sedudion of falie Teachers, faid to be bewitcb'd.? Gal, 3. I. Thus, as Occafion ofFer'd, the meek and holy Jefus and his holy Servants, did expreis their Indignation againft the A 4 Enemies 8 The Divinity of the Enemies of God : yet 1 hope Mr. Chubb will not fay tbeif Weapons were carnal and deviiifh. Mr. Chiihh would willingly be fpared, and be thought a wife and good Man, whofe Endeavours were only to re- form the Church, whom he charges in his Epiftle to have loft the firft great Article of Prinmitive Chriftian Faith ^ and grofiy abufcs and mifreprefents thofe which call or efteera themfelves Orthodox i as that they hold that the Father and Son are two diftind Beings, p. 31. of his Su- premacy. Butdo they hold that the Father and Son are two di- 4 flind EfTences or Beings? no fure, they acknowledge a diflindion of Perfons in one EfTence, but deny that the Father and Son are two diilind Beings *, for then if both* were God, tbere cnair be two Gods. P. 9. of his Epifile, be charges others who differ from him with holding, That God hath from Eternity abfolutely predefiinated to Dam- nation the greateft Part of Mankind^ and that he created them for no other End but to glorify his abfolute Power in their Dedrudion ; Whereas I believe that there is not any Society of Chriiiians in the World that fo affirm^ or that hold Tenets, that fuch a Conclufion can be juftly drawn from. And as bad as this is, it is by him made a handle to his pious Dedgn of reforming (or rather deform- ing) the Church, by introducing the Ariarj Herefy *, which as it is a Denial of the Son of Gcd, and robbing him of his Glory and eternal Deity, (which I have called Blafphemy) fo alfo it is a fubftituting a falfe Chrifl, one that is not God, but a Creature, in bis room. They demand a liberty to difTent from the Judgment of the Church, wherein it plainly appears to them, that the Church has departed frem the Truth, (p. 9. of their Be- dicatio77.) Andean thev be angry at my charging Idolatry on them, vvhen they afTume the boldnefs to charge the whole Catholick Church with Apoftacy from the firll great Ar- ticle of the primitive Chriilian Faith, viz,, that there is but one fupreme God ? Doth not the Church preach and teach that very Dodrine that he condemns them of Apoftacy from ? Are not Chrif tians that believe a Trinity, able on that Principle to de- fend ihe Unity of tne Deity ? Is not the Reformation of the Church a pious Pretence, but is it not with a defign to make them Arians f an Evil that the Pagilb, as bad as they be, were never guilty of. Thus So/t of pod defended. 9 Thus I can prove, what Mr. Chubb was plctfffd to fay I could not , and that Ariam would introduce real Popery. See Mr. W Jion\ Addrefs to the Princes and States of Enrope, See p. 6. of the Introdudion to my Ariarjifm jinatomiz.ed. In the 5th Page of thefe Obfervations, he faith, that by bafe Inlinuations, Fallhood, and Slander, (thefe are the fbft Terms of this meek-temper'd Man) I have given occafion to raife Men's Anger againft him. But if I have faid any thing unreafonable, let hina convince me of it, and not flip over it, and pretend that he has anfwer'd all. I might complain of falfe Infmuations, but Mr. Chubb will not open his Eyes to fee ir. Rut, Sir, have you not irfmuated againft me, p. 5. That by my Principles God muftbe the Author of Sin? And againft others, p. 9. of his Epifile^ That God made the greateft Part of Mankind for no other End but to glorify his abfolute Power in their De- flruftion ? And that I fhould believe that God fees no Sin in his People ? p. 5. What, 1 warrant, Mr. Chubb did not infmuate thefe things to raife Men's Anger againft me ? No, good Man ! he will purfue me with no other Revenge than to remind me of my Faults. What a deal of Meeknefs, Kindnels, and Chriftian Charity he purfues me with ! And pray what did I to him more than mind him of his Faults? But Mr. Chubb rnculd have proved my faults on me firfl, and then he had laid a good Foundation to build his Re- proaches on \ but that was too bard a Work. If bis Word won't pafs for Proof, and that in his own Caufe, truly the World muft go without it forbim. In the 4th Page indeed he hath charged me for faying. That he affirmed that Chrift's Divine Nature was a created Nature \ tells the World, that 'tis a direft Fallhood : Whenas he wrote above 100 Pages to prove that very thing. And I appeal to all the World, if his endeavouring to prove, that Chrift is not the fupreme God, is not the fame thing as to fay, that Chrift is a Creature ? For ft eiqg all Being is divided into God and Creatures, ce*t..inlV that which is not God by Nature, muft be a Creature. And I Ihall not for fuch little invidious Refledions as this, for- bear to fay. That he atiirms Chrilt to be a Creature, and I am fure the Reafon of all Mankind will juftify me in it. Bcfides> 10 The Divinity of the Bcfides, my Words are nothing more than I wilJ under- take by due confequence to prove from an hundred Places in his Writings, if called to it. As for his other Charges, they arc not particularized fb as the Reader may know where to find them \ and by that means cannot fee whether what I faid was pertinent or not ^ except that in my Title- Page, Job 13. 7,8, 9. where he faith, That I infinuate that he (peaks wickedly for God. But what other thing, I pray, is the whole Defign of his Book, than to advance God the Father fo above the Son, as the Creator is above the Creature ^ and thereby deny the Son to be God by Nature ? If this is not to fpeak wickedly for God, I know not what is. This I have faid in my own defence, and defire once for all it may be obferv'd, that I fliall ftill fay, he allows the Son of God to be no more than a Creature, feeing he every where denies him to be the true Gcd *, and hath not at- tempted any where to demonftrate that there is a middle Nature, that is neither God nor a Creature. When I attempted the Anfwer of Mr. C\m\)h\ Book, I had no other View but to (hew the Invalidity and Incon- clufivenefs of his eight Arguments, which I endeavour'd to do by reafoning againfl: the Abfurdity of bis Notions, and ImpoiYibility of the things he afTerted •, which how fuc- cefsfully I manag'd it, I leave to the Judgment of my Readers. I did not in that Anfwer look on it as my proper Buflnefs, to prove from the Holy Scriptures, the Co-efTentiality and Co eternity of the Son of God with the Father. But what I did of that nature, was as occafionally it ofFer'd it felf to me. But becaufe I find many of the Abfurdities, which Mr. ChM in his Obfervations charges on my Writings, arifeth from this Miftake of his, viz.. That he always fuppofeth that the human Nature of Chrift was the Whole and only-be- gotten Son of God^ p, 25. And as in his 24th Page^ he aP ferts. The Son of God to be a diftind individual Being from that God whofe Son he is, where he afierts the Father aru Son to be diftind EfTences : I fliall therefore now in the firft place prove from Scripture and Reafon, That Chrift, or the Son of God, is of the fame Subftance with the Father : That he was that Gcd who created all Things \ that called himfelf the God ot Abraham^ Ifaac^ and Jacob , and was of them, and all the Son of God defended. 1 1 the holy Prophets, efteemed and worftiipped as the God of I Ifrael : That he that appeared to Abraham^ and covenanted with him ', that wrought all thofe Wonders in Egypt ^ that brought forth the Ifraelites from under the Egyptian Bon- dage i that ftlled himfelf / AMy and J E HO rA //, was this Son of God. ^^ Dr. Clarke in his Book of the Scrlpture-DoElrmc of the tTrinity^ p. 102. tells us. That every Appearance of God under the Old Teftament, was Chrift appearing in the Perfbn of the Father, in the Form of God, as being the Image of the invifible God, whom no Man bath leen at any time, or can fee. What this learned Man intends by Chrift's appearing in the Perfon of the Father, I know not *, except it be that the Perfon of the Father is in the Perfon of the Son : as Chrift himfelf faith, that the Father is in him. For it feems to me. That the EfTence, yea Perfon, of the Son (which is in the Form of God) is altogether as invifible as the Perfon of the Father i and that that vifible Form which exhibited the Prefence of the Son of God, or God to the Patriachs, was not the Son himfelf, nor yet the Father j but was the Son fpeaking by that vifible Form to them : And therefore that vifible Form could not be called the Image of God the Father, or Form of God, as Mx. Clarke there infinuates. The faid Dodor quotes a PalTage from Irciif^m \ * The Word of God did himfelf, in a divine and glorious * manner, converfe with the Patriarchs before Mojes^ and * with thofe under the Law.* And again, ' The Scripture is full of the Son of God's * appearing, fometimes to talk and eat with Abraham^ at ' other times to inftrud Nonh about the Meafures of the ' Ark, at another time to feek Adam^ at another time to * bring down Judgment upon Sodom,' So he quotes Juftm Martyr : ' Our Chrift, faid he, con- ' verfed with Mofes out of the Bufh in the Appearance of ^ Fire.' And he laith, ' The Jews are juftly reproved for ' imagining that the Father of all things fpake to Mofcs^ ' when indeed it was the Son of God/ And the fame Dr. Clarke^ p. 114. tells us, * That it is * the unanimous Opinion of all Antiquity, that this Angel * who faid, / am the God of thy Fathers^ was Chrift, the ' Afigel of the Covenant^ Mai. 3. I. the Angel of Cod's Pre* * fence^ Ifa. 63. 9. In whom the Name of God was, Exod. 23. * 21/ Now the the Primitive Fathers (as the iiiid Dodor reprefents 1 2 The Divinity of the reprefents them) deny the Son to be the Creator of the \ Univerfe ^ and that it was not the Creator of the Univerfe \ who faid to Mofes^ that he was the God of Abraham, liaac, rfW Jacob, &c. it is but a human Te{iinnon\, and is con- trary to the Teftimony of the Apoftlc, who faith, Allth'wgs were made by hlrtJ^ and for him \ and that withom him was not any thing made thai ^was made. But whatever the Fathers thought, or in what Senfe they do explain therafelves, I know not. We acknowledge but one God in three Perfons, which are the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft ', which tho Mr. Chnbb will not acknow- ledge, but faith, ' that the Perfon I call the Son is an i- ' raaginary Son *, and is in truth the Father of God's ' Son :' yet the Vanity and Ground lelTnefs of thofe Af- fertions, I truft I fiiall deraonftrate in the following Pages. Onlv firft I dial! endeavour to prove from Scripture, That the Son of God, as fubfifting in the Divine Nature, was and is the true God of Ifraei^ and Creator of all things. I begin with Gen. i. i. In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. And I obferve from the learned Zanchy^^ ' That (God) is ' in the Hebrew Elohim^ which he faith is a Noun Plural ; ' and that the Word which is tranflated Lord, is in the ' Hebrew Jehovah i which I pray the Reader to bear in mind, as what will be necelTary to the under/landing the Proofs 1 (liall bring of the Deity of the Son of God •from the Old Tedament. So in this Text Elohim created the Heaven and the Earth, /. e. The Gods created the Heaven and the Earth ^ and Who thefe Gods are, our Saviour hath taught us, when he coaimandcd us to be baptized, in the Name of the Father^ of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghoji ^ each of which we own to be Jehovah^ and all three but one Elohim^ or God. Let Mr. ChM lay whether he that created Heaven and Earth be the true and eternal God, or not', yet he that is in this Chapter called Elohim^ and is faid to create Hea- ven and Earth, in the Chapter following is called Jeho- vah. But not only the Father, but alfo the Son, created the Heaven and Earth *, as the Apuftle witneflern in i Col, i6. By h/m were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earthy vifiblc and invifibU^ whether they be Thrones Son of God defended, I j r Dominions^ or Trincip.illties or Towers^ all things were reated by him and for him. The like Tcftimony David ;ives in TfaL 102. 25. Of old thou haft laid the Foimdations f the Earthy and the Heavens are the Work of thy Hands : Which place the Apoftle in Heh. i. 10. applies to Chrift, repeating the TrimeText with the follo'Aing Context. Pharaoh faith not, Who ts the Lord that wc^ but, that I lyoiild^ and, I have fet thee over^ &c. and NehHchadnez.- lar fpeaks in the iingular Number. So we read that FAohim faid, Let us make Man : By [which it is plain, that in the Word Elohim more Perfons than one are comprehended. And that which fome ohjed: t^.gainfl: this, (that it is fpoken in the Piu al, after the man- ner of great Men, who now fo exprefs thcinlelves) is very frivolous, for it can never be proved that fuch manner of Speech was then in ufe. Befides, that more Perfons are included in the Word Elohim (God) may be gather'd from Ifa. 54. 5. where the Learned fay the Hebrew is^ Thy Makers is thy Husband, the Lord of Hofls is his name ^ and fo Zanchy renders it. And in Pfal. 149. 2. Rejoice^ O Ifrael, in thy Makers, This might latisfy fuch as lift not to be. contentious •, for nothing feems more certain, than that Mofes wa^. well ac- quainted with this Myftery ot the Irir-ity -^ and he declares that God, or Elohim^ created the Heaven and Earth. So Wildom in the Perfon of Chriit in Prov.S. ly. When he (Jehovah) prepared the Heavens^ I was there. Where the Wifcman teacheth, that the Wildom of God, which is Koyoi 7^ G5», created all things together wirh the Father. So that it appears, that the Logos^ or Word, or Wifdom of God, is a Perfon by whom God made the World. And therefore Mr. Chubb had little reafon to divert hitnfelf at my ia.ing with the Apoitle, that ChriH: was the fubftantial Wifdom and Power of God. But he i. all hear more of that in its proper place. Another Proof of the Deity of Chrifr, is in Gen. 12. i, 14, 19. Andjchov.ih faid unto Abraham, get thee out of thy Country. In Ver. 7. Jehovah appeared unto Abraham^ and faid, Unto thy Seed will I give th^s Land : And there he builded an Ahar unto the Loid that appeared to him. Now Jehovah that appeared unto him, was, m the Opinion of ail ihe antient Fathers, the Son of God, to whom Abraham built an Altar, and called on the Name of the Lord. Now this bad 14 The Divinity of the bad not been lawful for him to do, bad he not been the true God. In Gen, 15. 18. we read the Lord, or Jehovah^ made a Covenant with Anaheim. But the Author of the Covenant is not only the Father, but the Son •, as the Apoftje to the Hebrews teacheth, Heh. 9. 16. For where a Tefiament is, there mnfi aljo of nece^ty be the Death of the Teflator, But who died and confirmed the Covenant with his Blood, but Chrift, to wit, God manifeft in the FleOi ? It is faid Abraham believed in the Lord, (viz. Jehovah) Gen. 15. 6, and he counted it to him for Righteoufnels : And furely by no other Faith was he accounted righteous, than that by which we are accounted righteous*, as the Scripture teacheth, jRom. 4. 3. And wherefore are we accounted right eons ^ unlefs by Faith in Chriji f Now feeing it was Chrift that made a Covenant with Abraham *, and Chrift is here proved the Teftator by bis Death : By Faith in whom Abraham was JMfiifiedy even as we : And feeing Abraham did fet up Altars to this Jehovah^ and alfo prayed to him ^ who dare deny but this Jehovah^ or Teftator Chrift, was the true and moft high God ? What Hardnefsof Heart then, and Blindnefs of Mind muft poffefs that Mm, that againft fo great Light of divine Revelation, dares call this an imaginary Son of God ? And bow can any one fay, that the human Nature of Chrift is the whole of the only-begotten Son of God, who don't wilfully fhut his Eyes againil his Divinity ? He is alfo called the Angel of the Lord, who appeared to Ag'^r in the Wildernefs. And among other things he faith to her, / will greatly multiply thy Seed^ &c. And Hagar c^W tx!!:\\\\m J ehov ah \ and Mofes^ in reciting this, doth not disapprove the Appellation. Who therefore was this An- gel of the Lord, who appeareth, and promifeth, and was called Jehovah ? Was it any other than the Son of God ? A created Angel is not Jehovah^ neither worthy of that Ho- nour \ nor durft a created Angel take that Honour to him^ nor could a created Angel multiply .^g^r'sSeed. This was then the Angel of the Covenant, the eternal Son of God ^ and it is Blafphemy to call him an imaginary Son. Who except an ^r/,^;?, will fay that the Author of the Covenant with Amtham, Gen, chap. 17, 18. was not the true Jehovah^ efpecially confid^ring thofe things before- mentioned from the Hebrews .<* It Son of God defended. i 5 It is now alfo to be further confidered, that he who maketh the Covenant with Jbraham^ appeareth to hioi prefently after, and is fometimes called an AngL^l, and fome- times Jehovah. In the beginning he faith, j4/7d Jehovah appeared to Abraham in the Plains of Mamre, &c. j4nd he lift lip his Eyes, and looked and behold three Men flood before hini\ Gen. 18. I, 2. To one of thefe Abraham ipeaketh. The fame promifeth and confirmcth the Pro- mire of Sarah's conceiving and bringing forth a Son, at the fame time. The fame in the 13th Verfe is called Jehovah ^ And Jehovah fald unto Abraham, wherefore did Sarah laughs In the 14th Verfe he fays, Is any thing too hard for the Lord ? or for Jehovah ? Of what God I pray did he fpeak, if not of himfelf? for prefently he addeth a Confirmation of the Promife, affirming nothing was im- poflible to him. Who now cannot perceive that one of thefe three that appeared to Abraham fand with whom Abraham intercedeth for Sodom, and whom Abraham cal- kth the Judge of all the Earth) was the Son of God ? For the Father never is faid to appear to any *, the Father never is the Angel or MefTenger of any : therefore, he that is here called an Angel, and Jehovah, was the Son of God, who appeared in the Likenefs of that Nature he was afterwards to afTume. It is not lawful for any created Angel to take on him the Name of Jehovah, or to have Altars built to him, and to be called upon as God. And for any to fay, he reprefented God the Father, it is true, if taken in a good Senfe, vItl. as the Brightnefs of the Father's Glory, and exprefs Image of his Perfon : But to fay as fome, that he reprefented the Father, as an Ara- baflador or Legate reprefents the Prince they are Tent by, is to fay nothing ^ for no AmbafTador ever fo reprefented the Perfon of a Kmg, as to take upon him to be the very- King that fent him : but this Angel calleth himfelf, and therefore is that Jehovah, who i'j, and was, and is to come. Rev. i. 8. / am Alpha and Omega^ (faith Chrift) the Beginning and the Ending, which is, and was, and is ta come, the Almighty. Here Chrift alTerteth his Self-Exiftence, Eternity, and Omnipotency : Therefore I would fay to the Arians^ Kijs the Son, acknowledge his Power, Godhead, and Eternity, left he be angry. The Name Jehovah figni- fies a feif-esiltent Being, an eternal I A M. Chriftians, this is not an imaginary Son, but the true Son of God, who will deny them who deny him j who will rule over hh Ene- mies 1 6 The Divmity of the fniesvolth.ci Rod of Jron^ andhreak them to pieces like a Tot- ter sFeffeL Tlie true God commandeth Jhrahim^ Gen.ziAh^t he take Ms Son, his only Son, and oilfer him to himfelf for a Burnt- Offering : "When Abraham had brought his Son to the Mountain, had bound him, laid him on the Altar, and had ftretched forth his Hand to take the Knife to iky his Son, then the Angel of the Lord cailed to him out of Hea- ven, and Tud, Liy not thy Hand upon the Lid^ &c. for row I know that thou feareji God^ feeing thou haji not with- held thy Son^ thine only Son from Me. Here cbferve, that God commanded AhrahiVm to offer his Son for a Burnt- Offering *, and to whom was Abra- ham to offer his Son, fave to the true God ? The fame God in the nth Verfe is called the Angel of Jehovah \ and in the I2th Verfefaith, Now I know that thoM, feareflGod^ feeing thott hafl not withheld thy Son^ thy only Son^ from Me. So that 'tis plain that the true God, who in the beginning of the Chapter commanded Abraham to offer his Son, is in the nth Verfe called the Angel of Jehovah^ and in the I2th Verfe gives us to underiiand that he was the true God, to whom Abraham was about to offer up his Son. And feeing God the Father is never called an Angel, nor is fentof any, therefore this Angtl muii be God the Son, to whom Abraham was about to offer his Son, and to whom afterwards he did facrifice. So that hence it appeareth what God it was that Abraham knew, and worOiipped ;, to wit, fuch a God, who was Elo- him^ or more Perfons truly (ubfifting, calling Abraham^ and fpeaking familiarly to him, leading him from his own Country, jullifying and making a Covenant with him •, and therefore is not only God the Father, but alfo God the Son, and conlcquently the Spirit of them both: who, be- cauie they are all but one Jehovah^ are therefore called God by Abraham hiatCdL The fame Angel, we find in the 15th Verfe, called unto j4braham out of Heaven the fecond time, and faid, By my felf have I fvorn, faith the Lord^ for hecanfe thou h iji done this things and haft not with-held thy Son^ thine only Son : from whom? but from that fam-e Angel, who in the 12th Verfe faid, from me. Here we have the fame Angel calling himfelf Jehovah^ promifing a Bleiling to Abraham in the 17th and 18th Verfes, where the great Bieiiing of the -Vicifiah is prcraifed ', In thy Seed fnall ail the Nations of ths Earth Son of God defended. i-r I Earth he hleffed^ that Promife is made by this Jehovah^ or Son of God. Gen. 26. 2. we may fee, that Ifaac had no other God than Abraham had, ^'/::. Jehovah Elohim. Therefore the Anael of the Lord whofware to Abraham by himfelf, and blefil'^d, and made a promife to him^ the fame appeareth to Jfaac^ and confirmeth the fame Oath and Promife made to Abra- ham^ and is called Jehovah : And Ifaac buildeth an Altar to him, and calleth upon him, even as Abraham his Father bad done *, and he that was called the x'\ngel of the Lord, the fame was Chrift himfelf, a? before was manifeded. And in the 27th Chap, the fame Ifaac^ when he blefTed Jacob y prayeth to Jehovah Elohim^ for a Benedidion on him', protefting, that he acknowledged for his own God, one Jehovah^ and more Elohim, God^ (or Elohim J faith he, give thee of the Dew of Eleaven. Compare this Prayer of Ifaac with the Prayers of the Apoftles, and you will fee what thofe Elohim were from whom Ifaac prayed for a Blefling of temporal and eternal Things for Jacob, The Apoftles pray for the Faithful, Grace and Peace from God the Father^ and from his Son Jcfus Chr'ifl ; and confeqaently from the Spirit of them both. If therefore the Patriarchs did wcrfliip the fame God as did the Apoftles, it is manifeft that by Jehovah Elohim^ are to be undcrftood the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, Let us now fee whether Jacob knew the fame God as his Fathers Abraham SLr]d Ifaac worlhip'd, Gen, 28. 11. And whether Chrift was to him the true God. Let usconfider that Ladder he dreamed of, that reach'd from Earth to Heaven, and beheld the Angels of God afcending and defcending on it. And behold, the Lord (or Jehovah) flood above, and faid-, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father, and the God of Ifaac To which we may very well think our Saviour alluded when he (aid to Nathaniel^ Hereafter ye fljallfee the Heavens opened, and the Angels of God afcending and defcending on the Son of Man, As if. he fliould fay, In teftimony that I am the only-be- gotten Son of God, and therefore true God as well as true JVJan, by whom alone, as by a true Ladder, the Afcent to Heaven for Men licth open, ye Jhall fee the Angels of God afcending^ &c. Chrift there manifeftly ftieweth that he is this Ladder,on the Top whereof was Jehovah. ' Three ' things concerning Chrift (jAiih Zanchy) this Ladder feems * to fignify ; The Deity on the Top, touching the Heavens • B ' tbe' i8. The'Divimty of the « the Humanity on the Bottom touching the Earth *, and * the Office of a Mediator, by whom alone the Heavenly * Father is pleafed with us, and communicateth his Grace * to us •, and by whom accefs into Heaven to the Father ^ lieth open to us.' And add to this, that Jehovah who ftood on the Top of this Ladder, faith to Jacob in that Vifion, / am Jehovah^ the God of Abraham thy Father, and the God of Ifaac. And before it is Hiewn, that the God of Abraham zi^dJfaac was not only the Father, but alfo the Son and Spirit of them both ;, declared by the Name Elohim, to fignify he was more Perfons *, and by the Name Jehovah^ to fignify one and the fame Effence of them all. Add to this, that Jacobs becaufe of the Myftery of this Ladder, (aitb, This is the Houfe of Gody and this is the Gate of Heaven : So Chrift, becaufe of his Office of Me- diator, calleth himfelf the Door^ the IVay^ &c, and faith. No Man cometh to the Father hitt by ?ne. And the Apoftle declares. That in him dwelleth all the Fdnefs of the God- head bodily •, which expreffion muft fignify a real and elTen- tial Union. Tis likely Arims may laugh at thefe things : But Jacob reverenced them, and was taught thereby •, for he faith. This is the Honfr of God^ and Gate of Heaven, And we may very well conclude from thefe things, that Chrifl: was known to Jacob for his God, as well as to Abraham and Ifaac. Jacob, after he had feen this Vifion of a Ladder, and had received the Promife, and confecrated the Stone, made a Vow to this Jehovah, faying, If God will be with me^ and keep me, then I})all the Lord be my God •, and this Stone which I havefet up fiall be God's Hoitfe, Ver. 21, 22. Now in the 31ft Chap, it is faid, the Angel of the Lord (even that Jehovah who appeared to him in Bethel) ap- peared to Jacobin a Dream, faying, / am the God of Be- thel where thou anointed [I the Pillar, and where thou vowedfi a vlw mto me, "Who feeth not that this Angel was not a created Atigel, but that Jehovah, v^ho before appeared to Jacob in a Dream, to whom he vowed a Vow ? For no holy Angel would tak^ divine Honour to himfelf, and with a Lye fay, that he was the God of Bethel to whom Jacob had made a Vow. He was therefore the Angel of Jehovah^ the Son of God. Son of God defended. ic^ If the Arlans objed and fay, it was a created Angel tha^ appeared to Jacobs and fpake in the Name of Jehovah : To this I fay. Why fliould it be thought that a created Angel appeared to the holy Patriarch, and that God himfelf fhould appear to Lahan an Idolater ? Jacob hirafelf teftifieth, Ver. 42. Except the God of my Father^ the God of Abraham, and the Fear 0/ Ilaac, had been with me^ Sec God hath feen 77iy AffiiEim^ and rebuked thee. Therefore fuch an Ob- jedion is very frivolous, and is but invented to avoid the Force of the Text, and is a Corruption of the Word of God. Jacob calleth the Angel of the Lord who appeared to him in Bethel^ Jehovah^ Gen. 32. 9. and as to Jehovah^ he prayeth to him. And Jacob (aid, O God of my Father Abraham, arid God of my Father Ksi^c^ the Lord which faidfi unto me^ Return unto thy. Country^ 3cc. Alfo Jacob calleth the Angel which wreftled with him and blefTed him, Je- hovah '-y Becaufe^ faith he, / have feen God face to face. But who was this Angel of the Lord, lave the Son of God ? (feeing that the Father never appeared to any, is the Senfe of all Antiquity, nor could be the Meflenger of any.) And when^^co^ faid, that he had feen God face to face, doth he not confefs in thofe Words, that the Angel that appeared to him, and wreftled with him, was not a created Spirit, but God ? And Hofea the Prophet, interpreting this Place of A'fofes^ tells us who was this Angel of the Lord, (to wit) Jehovah, Hof. 12. 3, 4, S- ^^ ^"^^ ^^ Brother by the Heely and by his Strength he had power with God : Tea^ he had Power over the Angel^ and prevailed \ he wept and made fupplication unto him, he found him in Bethel, &c. But whom did Jacob find in Bethel ? See in the Sth Ver. Even the Lordof HoflSj the Lord is his Memorial, That is. It is to be remembred of the Church for ever, that it was the Lord of Hofls that was the Angel who wreftled with Jacobs and blefled him •, and therefore not a created Angel, but the true Son of God, and not an imaginary Son, as Mr. Chubb in his Banter would have it. Gen. 35. I. Here God faith nnto Jacobs jirife^ go to Be- thel and dwell there ^ and make there an Altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddeji from the Face of Efau thy Brother, As alfo in Ver. 3. Let us arife, ,andgo up to Be- thel, and 1 will make there an Altar unto Go d, who anfwered me in the Day of my Diflrefs. And in Ver. 7. Hebmlt there onAltarj and called the place El-beth-el, becaufe there God B 2 appeared 20 The Divinity of the appeared to him when he fled from the Face of his Brother* Where obferve, that Jacob calleth the Angel, who appeared to bim, Elohiw. But one Angel is never called Elohim in the Scriptures, but either all the divine Per Tons, or elfe fmgularly, for the fame Eflence in which all are united. Add alfo Ver. 9. And Elohim appeared again to Jacob, vohen he came ont of Padan aram, and hleffed him ^ and Elo- him faid unto him^ Thy name^ &c. And in the nth Ver, And Elohim faid^ I am God Almi^ty^ &c. From thefe things it very plainly appeareth, that the Angel who at firft appeared and wreftled with Jacoh^ was not a created An- gel, but the true God *, and the Father or Holy Spirit are never called Angels, but only the 5w, the Logos^ or Word^ and Wifdom^ or Amhaffador of the Father^ who was Gody and was made Fleflj^ John i. at the Begin- ning. Therefore this eternal Logos^ who is the fubftantial Wildom and Power of the Father, is not an imaginary Son ; nor yet the Father of God's Son, as ray Adverfary doth ridiculoufly banter. And from what is before faid, it appears, that Chrift was to Jacob the true Jehovah^ or moft high God. Gen. 48. Wh^re Jacob about to die, blefled the Sons of Jofeph ^ and it is to be obferved, that thofe things Men fay when they are about to die, arc wont to be efteemed highly, becaufe (poken from the Heart, and without Hy- pocrify. And here the holy Patriarch prayed for a Bleding for them from Elohim^ and from the Angel of Jehovah^ who had appeared to him, and been with him, rer. 15. And he blejfed J okiph, and faid^ Elohim, or God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Ifaac did walk^ that Elohim, or God^ which fed me all my Life long unto this Day^ the Angel which redeemed me from allEvily blefs the Lads, Who I pray w^as this Angel, from whom a Blefiing was prayed for, for the Sons o( Jofeph? It could not be a created Angel, becaufe it is not lawful to pray to fuch for a Blef iing: Neither could it be a created Angel, becaufe he cqualleth him to God ^ becaufe from him as from God, in the fame Words, he prayeth for the fame Bleffing. Further, he that redeemed Jacob from all Evil, could not be a created Angel, but God : And it is the fame God who is our Redeemer that vfsis Jacob's Redeemer *, for the Church hath but one Redeemer. It was therefore Chrift, the Angel of the Lord, Jehovah^ who redeemed Jacob from all Evil. Which alfo the Apoftie confirmeth, when he faith, iCor. Son of God defended, 2 1 10. 4. That Chri/t was he who accompanied the People in the Defert^ and defended them. Why therefore might it not be he, that was Jacob's Deliverer and Redeemer ? And it is further to be noted, that the Offices which Jacob here attributeth to this Angel, which is to free from Evil and blefs, are both proper to Chrift, who freeth his People from Sin, from Death, from Satan •, and blefTeth, by conferring all Grace and Peace. Wherefore it cannot be doubted by any, (live the Enemies of Truth, but that Jacob knew Chrift that he was the true Jehovah. He rhat appeared to Mofes in a Flame of Fire in a BuHt, who faith of himfelf, Exod, 3. that he is the God q( Abraham^ Jfaac^ and Jacobs who fent Mc[es to deliver the People from Egypt^ who gave the Law, who led the People through the Wiidernefs, and was tempted by the fame People, was Chrift, as may be learned from the Teftimonies of Pad : And if fo, it will appear that Chrift, before he took Flefh, was not an imaginary Son, asMr, ChM fpeaks, but the true Jehovah^ and mod High God. Ftrfi, Itismanifeft from the Words of Mofes, that it was the Angel of the Lord who appeared to him in the Bufh, Exod. 2. 3. And he feeing h\oks turning afde to fee how the Bh[1) burned and was not cenfumed, Elohim, orr God, called from the middle of the Buf}). and faid^ I am the God of Abraham, and of Ifaac, and of Jacob. And it is to be obferved, that there is found no W^ord, not indeed the leaft lota^ by which we fliould be compell'd to make any eflential Difference between the Angel of the Lord who appeared in the Bufh, and between Jehovah or Elohim, who feeth and fpeaketh from the Bufli ^ wherefore Jehovah and Elohim fignify the fame God. So alfo that the Angel of the Lord is the fame Gud as Jehovah and Ehhim, is manifell: from the fame place. That Angel was not there- fore a created Angel, but the Son of the Father ^ the An- gel of the Lord, and th^rdorc Jehovah ^nd Elohim. And it is manifeit, that he that appeared and faid to Mofes, That he was the God of Abraham, Ifaac aud Jacob, was the moft high God ', and we have feen above, that not only the Father, but alfo the Son, was the God of the Pa* triarchs, to wit, the Angel of the Lord, viz.. that Jehovah from whom J^*cob begg'd a Bleffing for the Sons of Jofepl'}, Further, Mofes faith, That he hid his Face, hec^ttfehe feared to look upon God* But who appeared and ofFer'd him^ B ^ felf 22 The Divimty of the ^elf to be feen, unlefs the An^el of Jehovah ? Mofes there- fore teacheth, that that Angel whofe Countenance he durft not behold, was that Jehovah Elohim that fpake to hinn.- Note alfo, this Angel of Jehovah^ and Jehovah Elohim faith. That he had feen the Ajil^iion of his People^ and there- fore was come down (viz., from Heaven) to deliver them from Egypt, and to bring them into a Land flowing with Milk and Honey. But who is tlie Redeemer of God's People, is it not Chrift ? Is it not he who came down from Heaven for our Salvation ? Of whom the Angel faid, He fiall fave his Teople from their Sins ^ who is our Saviour as well as the Saviour of the Jfraelites. Therefore our Lord Jefus Chrift, or the Angel of Jehovah^ is by Nature the mod high God, and not an imaginary Chrift, as the Enemies of Chrift's eternal Deity fay. Hither pertameth alfo that Name of God, I AM^ Exod. 3. 14. And God f aid unto Moks^ I AM THAT I AM, And he faidj thns fjjalt thou fay unto the Children of Ifrael, / AM hath fent me unto you. This Name is efteemed full of Myftery, from whence alfo the Name Jehovah is derived. The Senfe \'i I A M^ i,e. lam the fame always *, I am eternal, becaufe 1 am always the fame, and will be always who I will be. So it neceftarily follows, that this Angel, even Chrift Jefus the Angel of the Cove- nant, is the eternal God, and not an imaginary Son. The Jews were not ignorant of this, who (as the Arians") be- lieved not Chrift to be the true God , who, when Chrift faid. Before Abraham was.^ I AM^ they plainly faw that he afltrted himfelf to be the eternal God :, and therefore took up Stones to caft at him, Joh, 8. 58. It may be, if their Invention could have reach'd the Term, they would have blafphemoufly faid, that he w^as but an imaginary Son of God, as Mr. Qmhh iliith of him, when I aiTerted his Deity and Eferniry (fignified by this Name / AM.) Laftly, Here Mofes fiieweth his Office of Mediator and Redeemer ', that he would take Fleih, that he might ex- piate the Sins of his People, and redeem them from the Servitude of Sin and Deaths of which the Deliverance of the Jfraelites frum Egypt was a Type : And becaufe the Church hath but one Saviour, he that delivered the Church from the Bondage of Egypt^ is the fame who delivereth us from our Sins. He that brought the People by ^/s. Pfal. 130. 8. And he fiall redeem Ifrael from all his Iniquities \ And who is that but Chrift ? here called by the Prcphet, Jehovah^ Ver. 7. Who appeared that he wight redeem m from all Iniquity^ Tit. 2. 14. And Chrift in the Revelation faith the fame thing of himfeif, which her^ 7^/^^^^^ faith, viz. I am thefirfl and I am the lafl^ Rev. 22. n- and 1.8. Ifa.45. 22. Look unto me^ and he ye faved^ all ye Ends of the Earthy for I am God and there is none elfe. Ver. 23. / have fworn by my felf^ and that to me every Knee fijall how. Certainly, if Pa/tl be a true Interpreter of Ifaiah^ this is to be underftood of Chrift •, and therefore Chrift is the true God, and befides him there is none elfe. Rom,^, 11, We pjall all ft and before the Judgment-Seat of Chriji : For m J live ^ faith the Lord^ every Knee to me fijall hovp^ and every Tongue fijall confefs to God, So the Prophet here, Look unto tne and he ye faved^ all the Ends of the Earthy for I am God^ and there is none elfe. So faith Chrift, Come unto me^ all ye that labour and are heavy laden^ and ye fijall find refi : there- fore Chrift is the true God. Ifa. 54. I. Thy Aiahrs are thy Husband (he alludeth to the Plural, Elohim) the Lord of Hofls is his Name ^ and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Ifrael, thi God of the whole Earth fjall he he called. KoC I. 7. Thus faith Jehovah, / will have Mercy upon the Houfe o/Judah, and will fave them by the Lord their God. 1 Jehovah will fave them by Jehovah their God. And feeing it is manifcft, that whofoeverthe Faiher faveth, he faveth by Chrift, it plainly follows, that Chrift is that Je^ hovah by whom or in whom we are faved. Hof 13. 4. I am the Lord thy God from the Land of Egypt, and thou fh alt know no God but me \ for befides mt there IS no S.tviour, HenCe we gather that Jehovah alone is to be acknowledged for a Saviour : But we acknowledge, and are commanded to acknowledge Chrift for our Saviour, therefore Chrift is the Jehovah our God. Micah 5. I. jind thou Bethlehem Ephrata, art net the Uttfi among the thoufands of Judah j /i^r out of the i fijall he 0mt Son of God deferided, jy t3me forth unto me that if to he Ruler in Ifrael, whofe goings forth have been of old from evcrlajiirig. Three Things arc here afTerted of Chrift : (i.) That he fhould be a Man. (2.) That he is the true God, begotten of his Father from Ecerniry. (3.) That he (hould be born in Bethlehem. Thefe aforefaid Scripture- Proofs are but Abridgments drawn from the Writings of that learned Cha'i^pion of Jefus Cbrill againll: the Arians^ Zanchy, I am not alham'd to confefs my Meannefs, and that I have been but as a little Dwarf brandilhing GoUah's Sword : And becaufe my Con- tention with Mr. Chtibb is for Truth, and not for any pcr- fonal Eftimation, I am contented to be accounted as no- thing, To Gud may be glorify 'd, and the eternal Godhead of our Jehovah^ and only Redeemer JePjs Chrift, dilplay'd in a convincing manner before the World. The Meannefs of my Underftanding in the Latin Tongue," and my total Ignoratice of the other Languages that he makes ufe of, is the Caufe that the foregoing Scripture- Proofs of ChriiVs eternal Godhead appear not in Co good a Drefs as they might, if it had been dune by a iearneder Pen. But I hope for fuch Readers as my fclf, they may be ufeful, and be a Bar to the Progrel^ of the Arian Herefy. So humbly praying the Reader to accept ray Endeavours, I ihall on this Foundation thus laid, proceed to the Exami- nation of Mr. Chiibb's Refledions, and intended Juititica- tionof his Herefy. Only I firft lay down this Argument as a Summary of what is above laid *, That Perfon who created all Things, who is the God of Abrahawy ifaac^ and Jacob •, who delivered Ifrael from the Egyptian- Bondage ^ who is the true Jehovah^ and is the only Saviour and Redeemer, who is Eternal and Almighty, he muft: needs be efTentially God, Qj-equal and Gonfub- flantial with the Father : But the Scriptures (as before is feen) attribute all this to Jefu^Chrilt: Therefore Jefus Chri.T: is efTentially God, Go equal and Conlubftantiai with the Father. C 3 My 3§ 7he Dhiniiy of the MY Ohfervatar^ p. i. tells us, that he hath afTertcd, That the Son of God^ our Lord Jefns Chriji, is a Be- ijng inferior and fuhordlnatc to the Father ^ and that the God and Father of our Lard Jeftu Chrijl^ i4 only and alone the Su- preme God. Which exdufjve Particles, Only and Alone^ do difco- vcr his Meaning to be, that Jefus Chrift is not the true God. He'll own him a God, but it is in a lower Senfe, as Pro- phets and Magiftrates are faid to be Gods. I anfwer, I difpute not againft every SupretDacy of the -Father, or Subordination of the Son ^ but only againll fuch a Subordination of the Son, as will exclude him from being true God, the fame in EfTence and Eternity with the Father. All that Subordination that is amongft Men, is amongft Equals in Nature, and is an Inferiority of Order or Office, not of Nature •, which as it is the fanfie in all Men, fo many tim-s itfhmes more in the Inferior than in the Superiors. The Father then being the Fountain of the Trinity and Deity, is therefore firft in Order in all Counfels and Works, the he is not fole and alone in any external Work*, nor in- deed in any, fave the begetting the Son. So that the Father is faid to be firft in Order and Work- ing ^ and fuch a Supremacy I oppofe nut. And therefore the Father is often called God, the true, only true God, '^T i^oy^v^ or by way of Eminency,-as being the Firft iii Order, and in every Counfel and Work. And fo by the Father, oft times the whole Trinity is to be underftood : So the Father is greater than the Son, the Son confider'd as true God and Man \ but it is only in refped of that Office the Father appointed to the Son, and which the Son did freely fubjed himfelf to, viz,, of being a Mediator between ^God and Man, aixi as his Perfon is begotten of the Father. Bat it is not of this Supremacy or Inferiority that Mr. Chnbh difputes, as by thofe exclufive Particles, only and alone., appears : For if he faith, that the Father only and alone is the fupreme God, then he excludes the Son and HoK Ghoft from being the fupreme God, and confequently denies the eternal Deity and Godhead of them both : Whcrda the whole of the Arian Herefy lies, fo far as I know 3 Son of God defended, j g know *, fave that they likewife err as to the Manhoocf J which I efteem to be a Cor.fequent of the former Error. Therefore when Mr. ChM faith, the Father commands, the Son obeys ^ that the Father'sWili is the Rule and C juide of the Son's Adions \ that the Son pray'd to the Father : this is nothing to the purpofe •, for we fee the fatne things done every day among thofe who are equal in Nature, as all Men are. Now Mr. ChM not being able to prove the Son by Na- ture inferior to the Father, hath loft his Caufe : And tho as a Refpondent it did not lie on me to prove the Divinity of the Son, I have foe the Information of fuch who are flagger'd by their infnaring Sophifms, fully prov'd that the Son of God is by Nature, and all elTential Attributes, equalto the Father*, as before is feen. And if Mr. Cimhb hath any thing to fay againft fo plain and pofuive a Proof of the eter- nal Deity of the Son, I (hall, if the Lord pleafeto continue Life and Health, attend it, and return fuch an AiifA'er to him, as tome (hall feem meet. And tho I have faid the facred Perlbns in the Trinity are one in Eflence, as all Men are one in Eflfence^ 1 do not in- tend, that the Unity of EfTence in the Trmity is every way like that Union of ElTence in Men : but I defire to be underftood of the former in the moft excellent way, and abftraded from all Imperfedion. For tho all Men are one, as to their Humanity, yet e- very Perfon is of a diftind EfTence, Will, Power, and in Number : this happens becaufe their Perfons are finite \ and therefore are individua^ted thereby from each other. But this is not fo amongft the Perfons of the Holy Trinity : for the Divine Nature a\id EfTence being raofl fimplc, inrt - nite, and impartible, or indivifible, every Perfon in the Trinity fubfifting in the fame undivided EfTence, have each of them the whole or the fame Nature, and EfTence ^ have the fame Will, Power, Prefence and Eternity, and are e- qually felf exiftent and necefTary. ' But, faith MrX'huhb^ if it be fo, that the Father, SonJ ' and Holy Spirit, have the fame EfTence, and efTential Pro- * perties, then they are the fame Perfons ^ and this is Sa* * belliamfm : and fo what you call the Son will be the true ' Father of God's Son/ 1 anfwer : When I fpeak of the Father, Son, and Ho- ly Spirit, as having all the fame, fingle, and indivifible Ef- Tence, I do not lay down that as a Defcription of their Perfons *, but when I fpeak of them perfonalJyi and dif- C 4 tinftly. '^o The Divinity of the tindly, I intend only their particular Mode of Exiflence in the Divine EfTence : And fo the Perfon of the Father exifts in the Divine EfTence, as a Father begetting the Son i the Son exifts as a Son begc-ttenof the Father^ and the Ho- ly Ghoft as proceeding from the Father and the Son, being the Spirit of them both : (b that the Divine Eflence may be conGdered as agenerical Nature, and the perfonal Proper- ties as individuating Differences. Therefore it is mani* feft, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are not in any EfTences, and in Number Jehovahs^ but only one Jehovah and one EfiTence*, yet becaufe of thofe faid perfonal Pro- perties, Differences, or divers Modes of exifting, they arc three diftind Perfons in number. And becaufe each Perfon cxifteth in the fame divine EfTence, becaufe of thofe Dif- ferences or Modes of exifting, the one is not the other : therefore the Son is not the Father, and therefore is not the Father of God's Son ^ as Mr. Chubb would father upon my Hypothefis : but it v^'as really his own wrangling Mind, that is the Father of that Sophifin. Mr. ChM was not really ignorant of the Trinitarian Hypothelis, but was dif- femblingly ignorant, to obtain a handle to ridicule his Ad- verfaries : I fay his AdverOries', for tho immediately it was intended againfl: me, yet more remotely on the whole Catholick Church, who have maintained a Trinity in Unity in the Divine ElTence. Therefore the Reader may obferve with what Modefty he writes, who blaming me for a perfonal Refledion on him, as that which was rude and bafe, p:ig. 28. of his Supremacy^ dec, ' If any fliali be ' fo rude and bafe, as to (lander us as Blafphemers,* faith he. Hence it appears, that he affirms thefe things of fuch as f^y the j4rlar7s are Blafphemers ^ ?. That they are rude^ 2. Bafe i 3. Slanderers. And this is what is put in place of his Defence, whenas he fliould prove that it is not Blafphe- ray to fay that Chrift: is not the true God, or that be is not the true Efficient in all the Works ot Creation *, or that he is in no better fenfe the Creator of Heaven and Earth, than the Apoftles would have been Removers of Mountains, if fuch a thing had been dot.e at their Word ^ pag, 33 of his bfer V at i 0/7 s. Yet he is fo immodeft as in this Whim of his to charge N on fen fe and Folly upon the whole Catholick Church for 1700 Years together. But this by the by. Next Mr. ChM tells us what he meant by the Word So}7, * I meant, faith he, only that Being which the Scriptures ' call So^ of God defended, a i ^ call the Son, and only-begotten Son of God : which * Being bimfelf call'd God Father*. Truly if it be To, Mr. Chnhb meant wel!, and that is a!l can be faid in his favour. But becaufe he excludes the Perfon of the Son from the Father's EITence, by certain cxclufive Particles, as above \ and in the 6:h Pa^c denies the Son for that reafbn to be the eflTdntial VVifdom and Power of God : And more plainly in his Pret-ce to the Father sSHpremacy\ ' The God and Father of our f.ord ^ Jefus Chrift, {aich he, and he only, exclufive of all other ' Being, Subfiftences, Perfon or Perfons whatfoever, is tMis ' one fupreme God :' So that it's manifeft, that whatever he fays he meant, his Meaning was wholly to exclude the Son from being God, and to range him amongft things that are not God, but Creatures: Therefore I did not utter a Falfhood, when I affirmed he made Chriil only a Crea- ture, as he charges me in his 2d Page. And truly it is his denying the eternal Deity of Chrift is the Herefy charged on him. And tho he drives to hide hjmfelf in equivocal Words, and fo iljuns a fair Try a] ^ yet I fliall endeavour to lay open his Equivocation, and fhew the World, that his pretended Anfwer to ray Book, is nothing but a i^iece of Legerdemain. For inftance. The Words (Jefus Chrifl) comprehending the Eternal Son of God, the Maker of the Univerfe, and God of Jf- raely becaufe he afTumed human Nature into the Unity of his Divine Perfon, and became Man, Mr. ChM calls only the Man-Chrifl •, and affirms, that the human Nature is the whole of the Son of God. And without proving his Hypothefis, viz^, that Chrift had no ^ Divine Nature, he takes only one Part of it, and proves that Chrift was a Man, or the Son of God was a Man :, and affirms, that that was all the Scriptures fpeak of, as the true Son of God. And from this falle Defcription of the Son of God, he raifes abfurd and foolifh Inferences, as the natural Confe- quence of my Notions ^ which Abfurdities arife not from any thing I have faid, but from his obllinate adhering to * when Ijay Mr, Chubb hath not proved that Chrifi hath not A Divine Nature, I wean that all his Attempts to prove Chrtjl not to be God, or that the Word or Logos was not God, are frujirated by my Writings ; and therefore that he hath no true Foundation for -what he fays, -when he affirms the Man Chnji Jefus is the whole^ spd 9nly Hon of God, thofe 42 The Divinity of the thofe Notions as true and foundly proved, which are as far from Truth, as Light from Darkncfs, and which he never fliall prove while the World Hands. And all that Mr. Chuhh hath done in thefe Obfervations, is nothing but raifing a Dull, that in the Darknefs thereof he might e- fcape unfeen. For tho 1 oppofed his Supremacy with fo ma- ny Arguments, which moft People, or many however, did thiuk they merited his Confideration *, yet inftead of en- deavouring to refute me, he only endeavoured without that, to confirm what he had faid before : So that I have no need to inforce my Arguments, or Scriptures brought to con- firm thenv, becaufefor the moft part he hath meddled with neither, being I fuppofe too difficult for him, and 'tis juft for me to fuppofe fo, feeing be is fo t quiefcent to them. So that my Work is now to remove certain new Suggef- tions, by which he endeavours to maintain his Herefy : As in the prefent Inftance, that Chrift's Humanity is the whole of the Son of God. This he affirms he hath proved, /J. II. ' This Man is the true and only-begotten Son of * God, and him alone. Tag, 24. The human Nature, faith * be, is the true and only-begotten Son of God. Tag. 30. * The Man Chrift Jefus is the whole and only-begotten * Son of God. Tag, 32. The human Nature, the Man * Chrifl: Jefus, is the whole and only- begotten Son of * God.^ This he faith he hath proved, pag. 30. This I fay is an Untruth, having not in his whole Book offered any Proof, further than by forae Scriptures that fay Chrift was a Man, which we own in a better fenfe than he : But to prove that that is the whole of the Son of God, I fay he hath not one Syllable of Proof, and appeal to his Book in this cafe. Yet this he always takes as granted, and builds upon as on a fure Foundation ;, which in thisControverfy, whether the Per- fon of Chrift is God, or the fupreme God, is a plain Petltio Frir.cipii^ or begging the Queftion. And therefore when he faith, by Chrift he means only that Being which the Scriptures call the Son ^ he deceives both hirnfelf and his Reader : His Reader, becaufe he in- fmuates that he doth believe that Perfon to be the Son of God, which the Scripture calls fo, when he doth not *, as may i 1 fay (^uiefcenty in allujion to what he faith of the <^iefcence of the Son» be Son of God defended, 48 be feen by that large and confentanecus Proof above given of the Divinity of the Son, which he denies : And he de- ceives himfelf, becaufe he fancies he hath proved that which he hath not once attempted, viz^. That the Humanity of Chrift is the whole intended in the Scriptures by the Name of the Son of God. He faith, ' He did not mean any thing elfe, that Men * may be plealed to call the Son of God, which in reality ' is not fo.' Here is another Shiit of his, where he infi- nuates, that we call that the Son of God, which in reali- ty is not fo. I do not fpeak now of the Proof of Chrift s Deity herein *, but I challenge him to fliow where he hatli ^(i much as attempted to anfwer one of my Arguments in my Book, afferting the Deity of the Son of God. If he hath not, why doth he here conclude, ^ That he is ' not the Son of God, which from the Creation of the ' Univerfe, and divers other Mediums, I proved tobefo ?' 1$ not this then very magilkrial, and an affirming a thing is fo, becaufe he will have it {o ^ and on the contrary, making his own Will that Rule by which he is refolved to meafure things ? For the plainefl Demonftration will not determine him, tho he was willing, but could not offer one rational thing againft it, as 1 Ihali fliew when I come to my Mathematical Argument. Next he faith, ' I profecuted my Defign of confuting his ^ Argumencs in a very unchriftian Manner :' Which he in- flances in Language that he complains of, which I have re- plied to here in ^e firft place. But did I profecute my Defign only by hard Names ? What, Mr. Chubby had I nothing of Argument to prove what I faid ? I wonder how Mr. Cltubb could overlook that ? If I charged Blafphemy, was it not in confeqaence of your denying the Deity of Chrift ? I fpeak of his real Deity, and not a nominal one. Did you go about to convince your Reader that it was not Blafphemy, to fay that Chrift was not God by Na- ture ? Have you any fuch Attempt in all your Book ? If not, you are, by your own Silence, confeftedly guilty ^ and then why 60 you complain ? Is this a way of defending Principles, and anfwering Books, not to take notice of your Adverlary's Arguments, any further than faying this and the other thing is not to the purpofe, and ye?: not daring to recite what you dif- approvs. Let 44 7"^^ Divinity of the I et the Reader but look for a Confutation of my Argu- ments in your Book, and fee if he can find any, for I pro- fefs I cannot. Mr. Chuhb here charges me with Falfhood, which I an- fwer'd in the Beginning. And indeed I wonder that he infifted on thic, when to prove that Chrift is not uncreate is the Sura of all his Endeavours. My. Chubb in the 56th Page of his Supremacy^ fpeaking of the 24th Verfe of the 8th of the Proverbs •, When there were no Depths^ I was brought forth. Vcr. 25. Before the Hills was I brought forth. * From which we obferve, faith ' he, that if ever the Son was brought forth, and if Tims * hath taken place fince he was brought forth, as here it * isfaidit did/ But 'tis falfe to affirm that thofe Texts (ay, that Time hath taken place fmce Wifdom was brought forth. httMv. Chubb try if he can deliver hirafelf from this Falfiiood, as eafily as I refcued my felt from his Charge of FaKhood on me. But it liketh me here to look on his Charge again. Saith Mr. Chubby * He reprefents me in his 14th Page^^s affirming ' Chrift's Divine Nature to be a created Nature, which is a * dired: Falfhood , becaufel never made fueh Affirmation : ' and 1 appeal to my Book.* Now would not any one that knows Mr. ChM^ believe that he did own Chrill not to be created, but eternal ? whereas in that ^6thPage above-mentioned, he pleads a- gainft the Son's Eternity, and faith, ' That if ever the ' Son was brought forth, he was not eternal :' and, as I noted, falfify'd the Text to prove it, by adding to it, That if Time had taken place fince the Son was brought forth, as it is here faid it did, then it will follow that he is not eter- nal : Now whatfoeverisnot eternal in the ftridefl: fenfe of the Word, is a Creature. But, faith Mr. ChM^ ' The ' Son is not eternal in the flrideft fenfe of the Word .,* therefore I am fure it will unavoidably follow, that Chriit is a Creature, on Mr. Chubb's way of reafoning. Where now is the Lye and Falfhood he put upon me ? But this Argument againll the Eternity of the Son, I baffled in anfwer to his firft Argument, whither 1 reter the Reader for Sarisfadion. I have proved by confequence that Mr. Chubb doth hold that the Divine Nature <:f Chrift is a created Nature, and that by juft Inference. * But, faiih he, fuppofing the In- * feun.e to be iufl, yet that makes no Alteration m the !Cafe; Son of God defended. 45 * Cafe *, for I cannot with any colour of Troth be fa id to * affirm that which in Fad is but the Inference of another * Man/ What Sir ! not if the Inference be juft ? It is very {Irange, that a jufl: Inference fliOuld be an unjuft thing, when drawn from juft Premifes. But Mv.ChMv^iW have it fo, and prove it too, (a thin^ he is not often guilty of:) His Words are, ' Suppofe Mr. * Clagget (hould affirm, that God hath fore-ordained every ' thing which conaeth to pafs^ and if 1 fhould infer hence, * that God is or was the Author of Sin, tho my Inference * would be juft.' Wittily indeed ! But I fay your Infe- rence would not be juft, being not contained in the Pro- mifes. And I perceive, were I to difpute Divine Prede- termination, I fhould have a wonderful Adverfary. Mr. Chitbb will not allow that God hath decreed all Good that comes to pafs, for he can fuppofe Man's Will can ad: inde- pendently of God i which when I come to, he Ihall heac more of me. But I wonder, feeing this World, and the Motions and Adions of every Creature, were only pofiible from all Eternity, how they became abfolutely future, without the Divine Will j feeing among all Poffibles this World was no more future than ten thoufand Worlds which never fnall be. Can Mr. Chnhh find any thing that can render that which was only poflible in its own Nature, to give it a certain Futurity, befides the Will of God ? Good Sir, when you write next, fatisfy me in this thing, and do not (lip it oveK as you do other thing?. And if all Creatures were future from Eternity, were not all their Adions alfo future? And did they not obtain a certain Futurity by the fame means that their Perfons became future? Are all Creatures depen- dent, and not aU their Motions ? Did not Mr. Chubb jeft, when he faid, ' Man's Will might be left to ad indepen- ! dently of God ?' You are skilled it feems in what is juft, and can tell what criminal Injufiice is ;, and which is ftrangeft of all to me, You can tell what is Injuflice, and yet is not a ainiinal Injuflice ! You cannot allow infinite Juftice, no not in God wiio is 5'/ but fpeaks of the Fa- ther, y^T i^o-^w^ or by way of Eminency. But 1 beg the Dodor's pardon for faluting him here, occafioned by fome- thing of a Samenefs with my Adverfary. If therefore the Produdion of the Son be an EfTed of the Father's Will, Then it will follow, ly?, That the Son . muft be a Creature. Or, idly^ muft be diftind in EfTence, and consequently another God ^ which are oppofite to each other; for God and a Creature are Oppofites, and a crea- ted God involves a Contradidion. The Reafons I ofFer'd in mv Reply to Mx. Chubb (which he pafTed by in his hafte) feem to me invincible, viz.. That the Father can- not communicate by his Will that which had no depen- dence on his Will for Exiftence, as the Divine EfTence hath not : for the Divine Will cannot be laid to beget itfelf ^ for ^o it would be before it felf, which is a Contradidion. If they fay the Divine EfTence begat another Divine Ef- =*■ / fuppofe I may fay the Fountain of the Trinity, as ivcU as the Touhtain of the Deity. fence, 6© The Divinity of the fence, they afTert two Gods. If they fay the Son is not the true God, they con trad id the whole Current of the Scrip- ture, as before is fhewn. I have (hewed above the Catholick Senfe of the Father's begetting the Son, That God the Father being unbegotten, and underived, communicates his EfTence to the Son, and begets the Son with this perfonal Property of being begot- ten *, therefore the Son nor being the Father, but daftingui- llied as aforefaid, cannot be faid to beget the Father, or be Father of himfi^lf, which is an old baffled Arlan Whim, revived by Mr. Chnhby without any additional Strength. Mr. Chubb goes on ', ' Therefore to make the fame indi- ' vidual Being to be both Father and Son to himfelf, is to * introduce the utmoft Confufion.* But this Confufion being of himfelf, and not from me, I hope the judicious Reader will lay the burden upon the right Back : And therefore the eflential Power and Wif- dom of God, being the felf-exiftent Divine EfTence, being equally the EfTence of both rhe Perfons, are predicated of each Perfbn, without any Confufion. Mr. CWKdth, Pag. 8. ' That St. P^/n of God defended. 6i ther, God in our Nature ^ who alone, as fuch, was able to overcome Sin, Death, and all the Powers of Hell for us ? whereby he became an infinitely meritorious Sacrifice for our Sins', which, had he not been very God, he could not have done. The Scripture affirms of Jehovah^ That he only is our Re- deemer^ Ifa. 43. 10, II, ^c. p. 15. explained. And can a- ny Perfon but he that is Jehovah^ be an allatoning Sacri- fice for the Sins of the World ? What Merit can be in the Sacrifice of a mere Man ? How can a mere Man have power of his own Life ? Or^ how can Jurtice afflid an innocent Creature, according to the eftablilhed Laws of Jujiice ? (which Mr. ChM owns '\i to render to every Man his own.) Bat letting this pafs for theprefent: In Pag. 10. Mr. Chiihh fums up his great Atchievements, which I am willing to take notice of, and make fome Re- fiedions. ' I hive confidered (faith he) the fubfiantial Power and ' Wifdom of God, as they are efTcntial Properties irt * him/ Anfwer, And I have fufficiently demonftrared that he did not underlland what he faid. ' I have no need to take notice of the Parallel he draws * between the Sun and its Light, with the Father and his * imaginary Son.' This is an Abufe, I have not fet up an imaginary Son \ but from theholv Scripture have proved the Deity and E- ternity of the only-begotten Son of God, p.ig, 4 16. Now Mr. Cmbb teiJs the World what he means by the real Son of God. ^ I mean, fliith he, that Divine Perfon, that Man confiding * of Soul and Body \ which Mr. Clagget calls the human * Nature.' If Mr. Chubb by a Divine' Perfon, intend a Saint, or a Man fandify'd, it's not to the purpofe. How a mere Man can be called a divine Perfon, I am yet to learn. A divine Perfon without a divine EfTcnce 1 How any Perfon can be a Man without a human Soul ! are fome of the Riddles of Arianifm. And I have largely (hewed, that a fuper- angelical Spirit, united to a flefhy Part, cannot conftitute a Man : And I again demand a Proof of his Affirmation. ' Which, faith he, was prophefy'd of, and promifed to * the Jewsy upon whom the Holy Ghoft defcended, &c' This 62 The Divinity of the This Son cf God I have, by the concurrent Teftimony of the Old Teftament with the New, proved to be the Moft High God, ])ag, 4 16. And Mr.Cb/l?l? dofeth thus: ' Now if he hath proved * this Son of God to be equal to the Father, and to be the *- fupreme God, then I acknowledge my Arguments con- * futed/ / anfwer^ This 1 have moft certainly done in the Pages now mentioned, viz.. from the^th to the i6th Page. And I leave the Cenfure to the Judgment of the underftandmg Readers •, nothing regarding the Cenfure of the Enemies of ChriiVs D. ity : and from them demand a Refutation, if they are able to give it. ' It is this real Son of God, who in the Days of his * Flelli was Jmmanuel^ God with us ^ pag.iz.' Anfvper, Mr. Chnhb dcn't explain himlelf how this Man, in human Nature only, could be Immanuel^ God with us. If he be not God by Nature, but only as Kings, CJ'c, are faid to be God, how could he be iMd to be God with us in a better fenfe than they could ? See;>^g. 55. cf \\\s Supre- macy Averted: ' As to the Term God, we fay the Pfal- * mift's calling the Son God, can no more make him equal ' to, and co-ordinate with the Father, than his calling the ' Magiftrates and Prophets Gods, doth make them equal to ' the Father.' Is this the Divine Perfon, that Man, that he calls Immanuel^ God with us ^ who is no more a divine Perfon, or God with cs, than Magiflrates and Prophets are? Therefore it followf, as Magiflrates are not Gods by Nature, fo Chrift notwithlianding he faith he hlmannel'^ yet 'm M^. Chiihb's efteem is not God by Nature, or a true God. And as it is written, Thou jhdt have no other^ or ftrange, Gods before me :, fo Chrift with him muft be one of thofe ftrange Gods. And becaufe thofe Idol-Gcds that made not the Heaven and the Earth, (hall perifh from under the Heavens •, fo Mr. Chtfbb's Chrili, a mere Man, who made not the Heavens, is obnoxious to the Prophet's Curfe. In the fame 12th P^gf he faith, ' It is this Son of God, * which was the principal Subjed: of the Promifes, which * he hath made to Mankind, and fo he was Jehovah^ our * Righteoufnefs.' Anfwer, Mr. Chubb denies imputed Righteoufnefs: and how Jehovah can be faid to be our Righteoufnefs, otherwife than So^ of God defended. ^^ than as being God-Man, he who in our Nature by his ac- tive and pafiive Obedience fatisfv'd all the Demands of the Law in our room and ftead, and which by God's gracious Imputation is made ours \ I underfland not. Further, Mr. Chuhh errs here in another refped. Our Difpute is now about the Son of God, as fubfiftina before he affumed our Nature \ it is he I affirmed was God by Nature, and therefore co-equal and co-eternal with the Father ^ but confidered as fucb, he was not the principal Subjed of the Promife?:. He wss the Proraifer ^ but it was his being made Man, ImmanHcl^ God in our Nature, that was the Sul?- jed of all the Promiles. He by affumirg our Nature, and in that Nature redeeming us from Wrath, became our Righteoufrefs by divine Appointment^ by which he was made Sin for us, /. e. a Sacrifice for our Sins, that we might be made the Righteoufnefs of God in him. To be Jehovah^ our Righteoufnefs, implies that the felf- exiltent and eternal God (Ijould become our Righteoufnefs ^ as it is written, Tour Righteoufnefs is of me^ fiirh the Lord : which was effeded by his becoming Man, and fo was God with us, or in our Nature, God and Man in one Perfon, which is the true Chrifl-. He goes on, p.ii. ' When God was going to fulfil his Covenant and Promife which he had made to j^braham^ Jfaac^ and Jacob^ by bringing the Chil- dren of Ifrael out of Efypt into the good Land of Ca- naariy he tells them, Exod, 6. 3. That by the Name Jeho- vah he had not been known to them ^ but now they Ihould know that he was Jehovah^ their God, that is, a God keep- ing Iks Promife made to them :, ver. 7, 8. The Learned fay, thAt Jehovah fignifies effe^ to be ^ and fignifieth that he is eternally the fame, r/;^p;-^^ j^fy^^r^.^j', to-day^ and for ever : or in the Words of the Apoftle, That in him there is no j/'ariablenejs^ or Shjdow of turning. Or as Chrift faith of himfelf, Rev, i. 8. / am Alpha a-nd Omega, the Beginning and the End, which is^ and which was^ and is to come^ the Mmighty : Which Text proves Chrift to be that Self-exiftent and Almighty Jehovah^ who is our Righteoufnefs \ and becaufe he is fuch, therefore he muft needs keep all his Promifes. But who was this God that fpeaks here to Afofes f Exod, 6, 2. Elohim jpake mno Mofcs^ and faid unto htm^ I am Je- hovah, and 1 appeared ^;'2rt * and Promife made to Abraham^ &c.' Well, Mr. Chtthh will grant that it was God that covenanted with Abraham^ let us now fee who this God was*, And J thov^h [aid to Abraham, get thee out of thy Comjtry^ Gen. 12. i. And Ver. 7. Jehovah appeared unto Abraham, and faid^ Vnto thy Seed will I give this Land : and he hmldcd there an Al- tar imto Jehovah that appeared unto him. And was not this Jehovah the Son of God ? Did the Father ever appear to any ? Is it not the unanimous Judgm^nc of all Antiquity^ that the Father never took on him a human Specie, or Form? as we have Dr. Clarke affirming, pag. 114. ' It is *- the unanimous Opinion of all Antiquity, that this Angel, ' who faid, I am the God of thy Fathers^ was Chrift *, AEls 7. * 30, &c.' The like he iaith of iht Angel of the Covenant^ Mai. 3.1. The Arigel of God's Pre fence ^ Ifa. 63.9. In whom the Name of God was^ Exod. 23. 21. Was God's Name in him, and not his Natare ? The Dodor'bGiols, that he fpake in the Perfon of the Father, is of no weight, feeing nothing can be more ex- prefs than that this Angel (who called birafelf the God of Abraham^ &c.) was the very true Jehovah , and as the true God was worlliipped by Abraham^ Ifaac^ and Jacobs with Altars, Sacrifices, and Prayer, as before bath been large- ly fet forth. To fay he fpake m the Perion of the Father, othervVife than as he is one God with the Father, is making 4 over- Son of God defended. 6^ over-bold with the Scriptures , and by fbch GlofTes ingenious Men may make them feem to fay what they pleafe : But this is to handle the Word of God deceitfully. * But, faith Mr.CW/^, /??g. 13. if it fhould be here re- * plied, that tho the Man Ghrilt Jefus is the only begotten * Son of God, and tho his Perfon is called by that Name in * the Scriptures upon the account of, and only with refpect * to his human Nature ' This is not to be granted •, Tor it is no where to be proved in Scripture, that the Man Chrifl: Jefus ( exclufive of ths Logos^ or eternal Word) is any where called the only-be- gotten Son of God. I ftill demand Proof of this ^ and when* ever N4r. Chnhh writes again, if he don't prove this, I here declare that he ads with no Sincerity. The human Nature is a Creature as much as other Crea- tures *, and therefore as fuch cannot be called the Son of God, otherwife than by the Grace of Adoption : as Angels and Saints arc called the Sons of God. But to be the only-begotten Son of God intimates, that he is the Son of God in a peculiar manner, above all Creatures •, and there- fore is the Son of God's Nature, and is the moil high God over all blefTed for ever. Amen. Underftand .me of the haman Nature abftradly confidered : but I know not that the Scrip- tures fpeak of Chrift's human Nature under fuch an Abdrac- tion, but always fpeak of the Man-Chrifi:, as God Man-, and fo the whole Chrifl, God-Man, is truly the Son of God. Having removed this Block out of the way, that the hu- man Nature is not (in fad) the only-begotten Son of Godj as he hath often affirmed, but never prov d \ whatever be pretends to build thereon, will fall to the Ground. And thus be proceeds : * Firfl, I have already obferved, that whatever is eflln- ' tial to, and conftitutes that Being which we call God, or * the Father, that in reality is the very Father. [This is no great Difcoverv.] ' And therefore if the Logos^ or Word, ' is in fad elTential to, and conilitutes that Being which is ' the very fupreme God, then the Logos^ or Word, is in rea- * lity, and in fad, the very Father of God's Son, &€* I anfxver^ The Eternal, Almighty, Divine EfTence, with the perfonal Property of being himfelf unbegotten, and be- getting the Son, is the very Father. The fame Eternal, Almighty, Divine EfTence, with this perfonal Property of being begotten, is what we call, and is indeed the Logos^ or Word, or Son^ And feeing Perlb-» ^ naiir/ 66 The Divinity of the nality is incommunicable, he that is begotten, cannot be be that is unbegotten, notwithftanding the Unity of Eflencc between them both. So that Humanity aflTumed by the be- gotten Son, is not afTumed by the unbegotten Father. All Men, in refpcd of Eflcnce, are one *, but tho they are in Eflence, yet they are not fo, as they are Perfons. As Feter is not Paul^ the Father is not his Son. Now though Tcter and Taul are diftind EfTences in number, becaufe they are finite Beings, and fo their common EfTence is divided into Singulars, and fo make two Men : Yet the Divine Eflence being infinite and indivifiblc, the Divine Perfons exifting, as I have faid, are really diftinft Perfons, tho one God in Eflence : And thofe Perfons, tho diftindt, are never divided \ but for the Infinity of the Ef- fence are in each other, the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father. This Divine Myfl:ery is the Objeft of Faith, and not of Scnfe *, there being nothing in Nature parallel thereto. It is revealed in Scripture, that the eternal Logos is a Perfon, for he hath all perfonal Properties j and that this Perlbn is the Creator of all things, and therefore is true God *, that he calls himfelf Jehovah^ and therefore is the true Jehovah^ being Truth itfelf. That this Logos is not the Father, is alfo manifefl: \ for he made himfelf vifible, but the Father never did ^o. No Man hath ktn the Father, the Father is the Meflenger of none. Thefe therefore muft both be owned to be God. But the Scripture affirming that there is but one God, therefore it is owned by the Church of Chrifl:, that the Father and Son are but one God *, one in Eflence, Power, Will, Eternity, and Work, tho diftind in their Perfbnality. That thus it is, we prove *, tho the Manner we own to be inexplicable, and ineffable. * But, faith Mr.ChHhby whatever Union there may be be- • twixt the fupreme God, and the Man Chriit Jefus (which * is his only- begotten iSon) &c.' 1 anfwer ^ Mr. ChM thrufis in and mingles his own (un- proved) Notions, with whatever from the Scriptures he draws, and fo makes every thing he faith equivocal. He hath left it doubtful what he intends by thofe Words, the fupreme God, whether he means the Father or the Son. And fincc the Union of the divine and human Nature in the Perfon of the Logos^ we cannot fpeak of the Man Chrifl: Jefus as of a Perfon diftind from the eternal Logos^ God the Word ^ for Son of God defended. 67 for the Scripture knows no fuch Perfon, the Catholirk Church never acknowledged any fuch Perfon. Now, Mr. Chubb fi)eaking of a Perfon, which he calls the Man Chritl: Jefus, as a human Perfon, fubfirting in the human Nature only, neither proving his own Hypothefis, nor difproving ours*, I muft defire him in his next to lay by this fallacious way of writing ^ and that he would prove, either from Rea(bn or Scripture, that the Scriptures intend by Jefus Chrijl a mere Man, and how fuch a Being could give Being to the Uni- verfe. ' Yet, faith he, that Union could not be perfonal, {o as ' that thefe being united, conftitute one and the fame Per- * fon •, becaule fuch Union effedually deftroys the Relation * of Father and Son : it being a dired Contradidion to fup- * pofe one individual Perfon to be both Father and Son io ' himfelf/ Anfwer. Mr. Chubb here takes it for granted, that ac- cording to my Hypothefis the Perfons of the Father and the Son have nothing whereby to diftinguiili them one from the other •, and ib erring in the Premifes, draws a falfe Conclu- fion : And fb 1 am forced to repeat what I have faid of- ten before, viz.. That the Son fubfifls as begotten of the Father, the Father fubfids in the fame divine EiTence as unbe- gotten and begetting the Son. Now the Son alTuming hu- man Nature into his own Perfonality, dotii not delkoy the Relation between the Father and Son : But as the Son by ta- king the human Nature becomes God and Man in one Per- fon, it only add Humanity to the Son : That Le that was the Son of God in the Divine Nature before, is no-.v (jnce I that Union, the Son of God in both Natures -, /vhich Son is I our Lord Jefus Chrift : who is the Son of God no otherwifc i than as I have faid. Which fairly anfwers ihis .^ophifm. As to what Mr. CW^ adds, ^ ihat the Relation of Fa- * ther and Son neceflTarily iuppofes two diftind individual } ' Beings i' I anfwer^ This is true in finite Beur^s, but not m the fupreme infinite Being we call God *, and to fuppofe o- I therwife, is not to prove, but to beg the Qaefiion. 1 I have fo plainly folved all the Sophifms of Mr. Chubb in j his 13th Page^ that I need fay nothing to his 14th and 15th Pages. Only whereas he faith, p. 14. ' The diilinguidiing God ' into three imaginary Perfons, makes no alteration in * the Cafe, becaufe it is that Being which is conllituted of ! thefe three, which is the very Father. \ E z This 68 The Divinitj of the This is Mr. 'CjM\ Fidion. None, that I know of, fay, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft conftitute the Perfon of the Father. They that believe in thefe Holy Three, fpeak of each, as of Perfons that are diftinguiflied from each o- ther by the incommunicable Properties of each Perfon, whereby each is really differenced one from another, and therefore whatever is united to one Perlbn, is not, cannot be united to the refr. But if Mr. ChM would not be called a Blafphemer of the Deity ', (for what doth he lefs in this place, than to fay- that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three imaginary Perfons ? which I do declare to be a down right Denial of tht Deity, in his own Senfeas well as ours: for it is to af- firm tnat God the Father is an imaginary Per(bn ^ which I believe he did not mean : but) he muft take care of fuch Ex- preflions, which he can never guard himfelf againft. ' Upon fuppofnion, faith he, p. 15. that the Being which * we call the fupreme God, is truly diftinguilhable into * three diftind individual Perfons, which alike partake of ^ all the Attributes and efTential Properties of that Being ^ ' then It will follow '^, that if the Word was perfonally uni- * teJ to the Man Chrift Jefus, the Father and the Holy Ghoft ' muil: be fo, they being alike omniprefent, filling up the ^ fame Place at the fame time, and being prefent in and with * all Perfons and Things ^ and therefore to what one is uni- ' ted, the others muft bealfo. If the Word was perfonally * united to the Man Chrift Jefus, the Father and Holy Ghofl ^ muil be Co too ^ and confequently the Man Chrifl Jefus *- was perfonally united to the whole of that Being which * we call the fupreme God.' This Objection feems tome not at all to be underflood of the Objedor, for the Confcquences are not to be found in the Premifes. For if the Father is immenfe, and alfo the Son imraenfe, as there cannot be two Immenfes in Number, therefore the Father and Son are but one immenfe God. If it fliould be faid they are two Gods by EiTence, either then the fame * I look net u\on it ps^er to fa<^ the Word was fcrfonally u?iited to the Man Chrifi Jefus \ for it imparts a Vnign of two Perfons in Chrijl : For the Word was not united to a Man^ but to human Nature only, which human Nature was not a Alan, fave as it received Perfona- lit V from the V/ord, ElTence Son of God defended. 6c) EfTence will be the EiTence of both, or each will have a diverfe EfTence from the other. If both have the fame EfTence, then both will be one God, as I have affirmed. But if each have diverfe EfTence, either it will be im- menfe and infinite, or finite ', if finite, they will not be Gods, that is Jehovahs: For God is of immenfe EfTence. Jer. 13.24. He fills Heaven and Earth, If it be faid, borh be of infinite EfTence, that is impoflible, for there can't be many Infinites*, therefore it remains that one infinite Ei^- fence is the EfTence of both. That tho the Being we call the fuprexne God is truly diftinguifhable into three diftind Perfons, which alike par- take of all the efTential Properties of that Being, yet they do not alike partake of all divine Attributes : for Paternity, Filiation, and Proceffion agree not to each Perfon ^ but Paternity agrees only to the Father, and not to the Son \ and Filiation to the Son, and not to the Father, &c. And becaufe Mr. Chubb fuppofes what we do not affirm *, bis Con feqaence cannot afTe(!^u?, but difcovers his Ignorance of the thing he oppofes, or fomewhat worfe than that. But to folve the reft of the Fallacy : He faith, ^ If the Word was perfonally united to the ' Man Chrift Jefus, the Father and Holy Ghoft mull be * fo, they being alike Omniprefent.' I anfwer, Omniprefence is not the reafon of perfonal Union •, for if fo, God the Father raufl be perfonally uni- ted to the whole Creation : and (b all the Creation and God the Father would conf^itute but one Perfon j which is of all Abfurdities moft abfurd. Mr. Chubb feems not to underftand what perfonal Union is ;, for his Suppofition is, that the fupreme God is truly diffinguilh'd into three diftind individual Perfons: And nothing can be more clear than this, that Humanity united to a diJlind: Perfon, when fo united, it will be as diflind as before. If the Perfons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi: be one and the fame in EfTence, and dillind in Subfiftence or Perfonality, as the Objedor fuppofes ', doth it follow, that if the Perfon of the Son was the Angel of Jehovah^ and was feen in a human Specie or Form, that therefore the Perf^jn of the Father was the Angel of the Covenant, and appeared in human Form ? Thefe things being abfurd, it Will follow that Mr. Chnbb's Confequencc is falle alfo •, and E 3 Omni- yo The Divimt:y of the Omniprefence is not a Caufe why their diflinft perfonal Pro- perties Ihould be cleltroy'd. I,et Mr. Chiihh fay whether the human Soul is not one fmgle EfT-nce ? He'll grant it. Let him fay then, whether this one iilTcnce in number is not the EfTence of thofe three Faculties, viz., the Intclkdive, Senfitive, and Vegetative ? If therefore the Soul by the inteiledive Faculty receiveth an Idea from without, fay it be, that the three Angles of a Triangle are equal to twice Radim \ or that equal things taken from equal things, the Remains will be equal : Doth then the fenfitive and vegetative Faculties perceive this ? Nothing lefs : therefore what is prefent to the Soul as intei- ledive, is Bot prefent to it as fenfitive. Becaufe the Eyes in feeing Colours, receive within themfelves divers kinds of Colours from colour'd Objeds, from whence the Soul re- ceives fuitable Senfations *, doth it follow the other Senfes can do the fame, becaufe the Soul is the EfTence of them all ? Therefore neither is it a Confequence, that if there be one EfTence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that the Son being perfonally united to human Nature, therefore the Father and Holy Spirit are perfonally united to the fame Nature. 1 farther obferve, faith he, p. i6. ' That as God is Omni- * prefent, and fo fills ail Place, andfb is prefent in and with * all Perfons and Things in the fame manner, kind and de- * gree ^ fo from hence it will follow, that if he was perfo- * nally united to the Man Chrifl Jefus, he muft be Co to all * other Zvlen, becaufe he is prefent in and with (and confe- ' quently is united to all other Men) in the fame manner, ' kind, and degree as he is to the Man Chrifl Jefus, &c,' It is raanifefl from what Mr. ChM here &ith, that he fuppofes God's Prefence with the Manhood of Chrift was his perfonal Union with it *, which, if I miftake not, was the Error cf Nefiorm ^ for he fuppofed that the Union we call Hypoilatical, was a Union of two Perfons, viz.. God and Man, and that this Union was by Confent of Wills, by Inhabitation, by Love, by Participation cf Heavenly Gifts, &c, which feems to be what Mr, Chuhb intends, when in this i6th Page he faith, ' God may, if he pleafes, exercife or manifefl his Attributes or efTential Properties at fome times and in fome places, when he doth not at other times or in other places : and tho he may exercife or manifefl thefe ih a different manner or degree in, to, by, or upon fome Perfons or Things \ and not in, to, by, or upon f ethers ; Son of God defended. 71 others \ yet as to his EfTence, or efTentia! Properties them- fclves, they are notfubjedto thefe Changes or Alterations, • they being alike prefent in and with, and fo are alike uni- ♦ ted to all Places, Perfons, and Things in the fame manner, * kind, and degree/ This is all Mr. ChM underftands by the perfonal Union of the Logos with hunian Nature, which he abfolutely de- nies, and reafons againfl: in his i6th and 17th Vagei. And in that refped his Error is more grofs than that of Nsflorim^ who did not abfolutely deny a Union between the eternal Logos and the Man Chrift Jefus, but thought it to be a Union of two diftind Perfons i but as to Union it felf, he had much the fame Conception of it, as Mr. Chnhb here (peaks of, vIt^. an exercife of God's Attributes or efTential Properties in, to, by, or upon (bme Perfons or Things, which he calls God*s Union with them : Whence it appears, that he underftands not what is intended by the Hypollati- aJ Union in the Perfon of Chrift. For Divines fay, that the Union between the eternal Logos and human Nature was not a Union by fimple Habitation, neither by Grace, nor by the Holy Spirit, as Nejlorlns thought, becaufe the Word was made Flelh \ and it was never heard or feen or read, that he that fimply inhabiteth in fome Houfe or Temple, was made that Houfe or Temple. Nor was it by Grace or the Spirit, for fo Chrift is united to his Saints here in this World, and in Glory above. Neither is the Hypoftatical Union a Union of Aliiftance, for God is prefent to all things, and filleth all things : For the Word iv,ti made Fie flj^ and not only cleaves to the Flefh or human Nature. Nor fay they, is it an habitual Union, or a Union of Friendlhip, by which two are faid to be one. 'Tis not a Union by participation of heavenly Gifts ^ for (b God dwells in the Saints, and God and Chrift is united to them. The IVord is [aid to be made Flej})^ but where was it ever read that God was made Teter or Tad ? Neither doth this Union confift in the Humanity's receiving from the Word this Dignity, with him to be Saviour and Judge of the World ^ for unlefs this Son of Man is one and the fame Perfon with the Son of God, he cannot be our Saviour, he cannot expiate Sin, redeem, nor fandify the Church. Neither is it a Union by Confent of Will \ for fo all the Saints and good Angels are one with God : But God is not faid to be made an Angel, or Peter ^ or Pad^ as it is faid of Chrift, The Word was made Fleflu E 4 Nor 7 2 The Divinity of the Nor is this Union in this, that God willeth that the hu- man Nature fliould be worfhipp d and ador'd by us, accord- ing to that, He hath given him a Name above every Name^ that at the Name of Jefta every Knee ffj odd bow. Neither doth this Union confift in God's communicating his Name to Humanity *, for neither truly can the Name Jehovah agree toanv, if he be not truly God -^ and indeed, Chrill is called God, Jehovah, the Lord of Glory '^ and John faith of him, This u the true God, and eternal Life, i John 5. 20. but the Union is in the Thing, not in having the Name. Nor laftly, is it fuch a Union as that God (in this affumed Man's Glory) pkafeth hirafelf, and that this Man delights in the Word , but it is another Union which the Evangelift reacheth, when he faith. The Word wm made Flej7j. So that when Mr. ChM faith, that when God manifefls his Attributes or efTential Properties in, to, by, or upon Perfons or Things, and fo is alike united to all Places, Per- fons, or Things *, 1 fay, he conceives of the Hypoftatical Union much like Nefionm, tho more grofly, as conceiving God by exercifing his Attributes in and upon Inanimates is united to them : whereas by all the ways Neflortus conceived God was united, the Objed of Union was a rational Na- ture. And we can better fay what this Union is not, than what it is ^ fave, as we fay, it is a Union of the Divine and Human Nature in one Perfon \ fb that the fame Perfon is truly God and tiuly Man; But as to the Manner how this Union is made, I acknowledge my Ignorance, and believe it is effeded in an infcrutable manner. And what Dangers do Men that blind-fold themfelves run into? Here My, Chubb vjoM \x\kv, that God is united to himfelf, viz., to Mr. Chuhb's own Perfon, in the fame manner, kind, and degree^ vea, to the wickedeft Man in the World, vea to the blackeft Devil in Hell ', as he is to Chrift Jefus, becaufe by his Omniprefence he is prefent to all. If Mr. C^//^^ complains that I fay he blafphemes, let hira fet down the Reafon of it, and all Men will hold me innocent therein. How dare Mr. ChM determine the Mode of Union, whereby the eternal Logos fo united Humanity to himfelf, as toconftitute but one Perfon ? How weak and abfurd arc his Realbnings, that wherever God is, he is perfonally united to it (and confcquently to every thing, becaufe every where prefent) Son of God defended. yj prerent) as he is united to the human Nature in Chrift ? A moft horrid AfTertion ! and abhorrent to a rational Being to think. But let us hear how he explains himfelf, and fee whether that will render it better, and whether he thought as he wrote. ' God, faith he, p, i6. may exercife or manife/l^his At- ' tributes at fome times and in fome places, when he doth * not at other times and in other places \ and tho he may * exercife thefe in, to, by, or upon fome Perfons or Things, * and not in, to, or upon others, &c, I fay, he may do this if ' he pleafes ^ yet as to his EfTence or efTential Properties, * they are not fubjed: to thefe Alterations, they being alike * prefent in and with, and fo are united to all Places, * Perfons, and Things, in the fame manner, kind, and de- ' gree, &cj This is the fame as before, and I can fay nothing to excule it, other than Veter faid the Jews^ I wot that through Igno- rance he did it. Therefore in anfwer I fay. That none that I know of do fay, that God*s being prefent with, or exerci- fing any of his Attributes on, or by any Perfon or Thing, is his perfonal Union with that Perfun or Thing. Mr. Cmtbb, I perceive, is ignorant what a perfonal Union i?. And I muft tell Mr. Omhb^ that Prefence with, or opera- ting upon a Perfon or Thing, is not a perional Union with that Perfon or Thing : For there is no perfonal Union of any two Things, but where the Thing fo united is made one Per- fen with what it was united to. So Mr. Chubb writing is prefent io his Pen and Pap.r, but they are not perfonally united to him, becauie they are not integral Parts of his Perfon. So an Angel or Devil moving a Body, are not therefore vitally united to that Body, be- caufe they are not one Compofjam, E^jcr^j perfonal Union is vital, from whence the Life of the Compofuum flows. If any Credit maybe given to grave and learned xAuihors, we may believe that evil Angels have manifcfted their Prefence either by aduating dead Bodies, orafTumin^^ fome airy Ve- hicle *, yet we do not iay their Perfons were ^o united to thofe Bodies as to condituteone Perfon. That the Demoniach in the Gofpel were not vitally united to the evil Spirits that tormented them, appears, becaufe the Peribns lived when the evil Spirits were caft out. A perfonal Union conflitutes one Perfon from twodiflind Natures *, as in our felves, wio can te'i what that Bond is, that 74 Tf^^ Divmity of the that unites our immaterial Spirits to Matter ? It is foraething more than the Prefence of a Spirit in and with the Body, as I inftanced in thofe pofTefs'd. Is it not then very raftj in Mr. Chuhb to determine that God being prefent to all, is therefore perfonally united to ail ? Which, as I faid, would make God and the whole Univerle but one Perfon. Nor is it God's exercifing his Attri- butes and efllutial Properties on Perfons or Things, that conftituces a per Tonal Union, for that is altogether as bad as the other \ for God always doth that, moving every Crea- ture to ad agreeably to their own Natures *, as fome to ad: neceirc.rily, and others freely : Therefore the Perfon of the Logos aflum'ipg human Nature into the Unity of his Perfon, it is not by fuch a mar.ner, kind, and degree as he is united to other Men ^ but fuch a Union whereby the Son of God is truly Man, and the Man truly God ^ as my Body may be faid to be rational by mv Soul that is one Perfon with it. But if you ask me bow thefe Natures are united into one Perfon, I freely profefs my Ignorance *, and it had been bet- ter Mr. Chubb had done fo too, than to write fo wildly as he hath here done. But iho we cannot difcover how two diftind Nafures are united into one Perfon, as to the pofuive Nature of it^ yet we can fay what it is not, which alfo is agreeable to the Reafon of Mankind : Therefore Divines fay, the Natures in Chrift are not blended together, fo as thereby to make a thirds as Medicines by Phyficians are mingled and blended together, to make a third of different Virtue from either of its conftitutive Parts. And this anfwers to what Mr. Chubb here faith, viz.. that God's Effence or effential Properties are lubjed to no Changes or Alterations. For by faying the Son of God took our human Nature into the Unity of his own Perfon, we don't mean that the Divinity and Humanity are blended together to conftitute a third, that is neither God nor Man, but partaking of both ^ but that each Nature and all their refpedive effential Pro- perties are kept intire, yet are (b united as to conftitute but one Perfon. Now Mr. ChiM will have a fling at a learned Gentleman, that wrote of the Quiefcence of the Divinity in the Perfon of Chrift during his Miniftry until his Refurredion *, and I hupe he will pardon me for intermeddling in a Caufe that more immediately concerns him. But the old Proverb is. Fools will be meddling. And the truth is, we are neither of us Son of God defended, 7 5 us over-ftock'd with Wit. But it lying thus in my way, I am willing to examine what ray Antagonifl: (aith. * Secondly, faith he, p. 17. It will follow that Quiefcence, or the Non-exercife or Manifeftation (I fuppofe he means Non-manifeftationJ of God's Attributes or eflential Pro- perties in, to, by, or upon any Being, deftroys God's perfonal Union with that Being, or at leafl: falls fliort of it *, for, (aith he, if per(bnal Union is founded in God s exercifing or manifefting his Attributes or efiTential Pro- perties as aforefaid, then it will follow that Quiefcence, or Non-exercife of thefe falls (liort of that Union, &c* It's a ufual faying, Grant one Ahfurdity a hundred will follow. Mv,ChM not under (landing what perfonal Union meant, as I before (hew'd, raifes a Strudure on a very fandy Foundation. Indeed he faid, if perfonal Union is fo founded, it will fo and fo follow ; So I may fay, If the Sky fall we may catch Larks, Therefore fetting afide the Confequence, as a Confequence only of a fuppofed Preraifes, and reduce his hypothetical into a categorical Syllogifm ^ there is not one Word of Truth in all that he here faith. For he affirmed, that God's Prefence or Exercife of his eflential Attributes was his perfonal Union to that Perfon or Thing, whereon or about which they are exercifed : But the Folly and Ungodlinefs of this I have fhewed in fome part above, and therefore need not doit again. But tho his Inference is from no due Premifes, and fo unjufl:, I may yet argue againft it. The Quiefcence of the Deity in Chrift's Humanity, argues not a Difunion of the divine and human Natures : The Rea- fon of that Union, in a humble Submidion to the Learned, was not that the Humanity fhould fhine in the Glory of the Divinity, during his Miniftry till his Death ^ for that would have prevented his dying, and the End for which he was made Man, even the Redemption of the World : Tho fome that had Faith could fay. They faro his Glory, a^ the Glory of the only-begotten Son of God. But the Deity was united to the Humanity, to add Merit and Excellency to all he did j and therefore his Blood is called the Blood of God : and from thence his Blood was of Merit to expiate our Sins, and from that Union flows the Power of his Media- tion. Chrift did not difplay his Divinity to all. And indeed it was neceflary for him fo to ad and adminifter his Office, that n6 The Divinity of the that be raigbt attain the End for which he came into the World. He came into the World, to the end that by dying for us, being made a Curfe for us, he nfiight redeem iis, and that we might be made the Righteoufnef^ of God in him. And after his Refarredion he faid, Ongljt ^or Chriji fo to fiiffer md eriter into his Glory ? or Words to that e.Ted. I don't know whether that learned Divine, who writes of the Quiefcence of the Word, doth mean it was wholly quiefcenf, tho I have heard that it is his Opinion, that it was, and that he was only under the Gondud of the Holy Ghoft, becaufe he is faid to he filled with the Spirit^ &c. Which, if we confider the Order of the Divine Peribns working, that the Father works by the Son, and both by the Spirit, which is the Spirit of them both \ fo the Gui- dance of Chrift's Humanity by the Spirit doth not, I humbly conceive, exclude the Operation of the Son in the liuraan Nature. But whatever Men's Opinions are, this we underftand by the Gofptls, that he was believed in as God. as the Son of God, or Angel of the Covenant, and as that Perfon who was God with its. Thoit art the Son of Gody faid that Jfraelite indeed, thou art the King of Ifrael. Chrift was indeed a Stumbling' Block to the generality of the Jerviflj Nation, and it was not his plealure to make him- felf known to them, but to others he did, when he taught them that he was the Bread of Life that came down from Heaven, My Father^ faith Chrifl, doth the lV ^^^« cometh to the Father btt hy him, Joh. 14. 6. as he was a Sacrifice for our Sins, aid a Mediator for us, by believing in whom, we are ac- cepted with God ;, as the Scripture faith, He hath made lus accepted in the Beloved. He is called the Truth^ becaufe he is the Subflance of all Types and Shadows, which agreeth to the very Perfoti of Chrift. And he is called the Life^ (as I conceive) not as Mr. Chuhb faith, becaufe he llieweth the W'ay to Life, as Prophets, Apoftles, and Miniders of Chrift do^ but becaufe he is the very Fountain of all Life., Natural, Spiritual, or Meta- phorical, a!l Life conies from him : For as the Father hr.th Life in h.mfelf, fo hath he given to the Son to have Life in hi7v[eif : And the Apoftle faith. He is our Life^ i. e. All our Life flows from the Father thro him. Thefe are the Exceptions I take agaiofl: what he faith in bis iprh Page ^ and fay, that a Doftrinal Way or Truth is not there intended, but fomething higher, to wit, the very Perfon of Chril^, who himfelf is the IVay^ the Truths and the Life^ by v\ horn alone Men cm come to the Father. Next, Mr. Chubb fpeaking of the Words of the Apoflle Johyj, in his fir it Chapter, The Word was made Flejh^ he fkith, p. 20. ' Ir muft fignify that the Word was tranfub- ' (hntiated or changed into Flelh, or the Word was united ^ to a whole Man \ or the Word was united to a human ' Body or fi^-Oiy Part, and fo became a human Soul to that ' Body ^ or the Word was made Flclh, i. e. was a Man.' Mr. Chubb is for the third of thele Senfes, vi^, that the Word was united to a human Body or flelhy Part, and fo became a h'jman Soul to that Body. Againlt which Senfe I diiputcd by variety of Arguments in ray Ariamfm Anato- mizSd, which Mr. Chnhb hath not thought fit fo much as to endeavour a Confutation of, and therefore tacitly yields up all to rae. F 4 ' But 88 The Divinity of the ^ But, faitb Mr. ChM^ which of the aforefaid Senfes is the true Senfe.' As it remains a Queftion, fo I think e- very Man ought to efleem that to be the true Senfe, which appears moft rational. So that whether by the Logos I underhand the true God united to human Nature ^ or, whether the Perfon faid to be made Flefh, was tranfubftantiated into Flefli (and then would be as lifelefs as the tranfubftantiated Wafer or, whether the Word was united to a human Body, or fleftiy Part, and fo became a human Soul to that Body, &c. it feems now to be but as a Chip in Pottage to Mr. Chitbh : tho before he troubled the World with his Supremacy of the Father Jfferted^ and fcem'd very zealous in denying the true Deity of the Son of God '^ yet now in cool Blood he faith here, ' As it remains a Queftion, fo every Man rauft •^ pitch upon that to be the true Senfe, which to him feems * rooft rational, and likely to be fo, when compared with the reft of Divine Revelation. And for as much as we ^ are all fallible, and poffibly may err, this ought to make us modeft with refped to our own Determinations, and [ charitable with refped to the Determinations of other ' Men.' Here therefore I think it not amifs to conHder what Mr. ChM hath added as an Appendix to his firft Enqui- ry about Juftification, p. 24. entitled, ' An Enquiry con- cerning the Son, if he be equal to the Father, and is the fupreme God ^ whether all that believe him to be infe- riour and fubordinate to the Father, are in a damna- ble State ^ becaufe they reft for Juftification and Sal- vation as upon a Creature, and exercifej their Faith and Hope in him as fuch.' I hope the Reader can by this fee, that Mr. Chuhh is for a drawn Battel. He feems to defpair of maintaining his Grouiid ^ and now begins to cry what Harm to tru ft and hope in a Creature for Salvation : and inftitutes a Qfiery, whether fuch as do fo, are in a damnable State ', becaufe they reft for Juftification, and Salvation, as upon a Creature, and exercife their Faith and Hope in him as fuch. Before I enter upon the Examination of what he there faith, it is fit the Reader (hcuid know my Concern therein, which is as follows: In my Anfwer to Mi.Chnbh's Book, entitled. The Supremacy of the Father Afferted^ I charged Arians with Idolatry and Blafpherov, becaufe they denied the Divinity of Chrift : For which Mr. Chnhh in his Obler- yation§ Son of God defended. 89 vations on my faid Book, charges me with proftcuting my Difign in a very unbecoming and unchriftian manner, p. r. and that with bafc Infinuations, Faiihood, and Slander, p. 5. charges me with Falfhood, /). 2. becaufe I Hi^d MrXlmbb affirmed ChrilVs Nature to be a created Nature, which I have replied to in the beginning of this '*^. Now becaufe of my Charge of Herefy and Idolatry upon them, to meliorate a little what he is not able to defend, he in this Appendix en- deavours toperfuade that there is not fo much Danger in A riariifm^ as I affirmed : at leaft he would not have it elleemed damnable to reft for Juftification and Salvation upon a Crea- ture, and to exercife their Faith and Hope in him as fuch. Firft, he telJs us by the Word is implied an intelligent rational Being*, and he obferves that thefe Words, viz. The Word was madeFlefi^ muft be underftood one of thofe ways above-noted, and feems to allow it to be a thing of no great moment in which of thofe Senfes the Words be interpreted \ which Interpretation comprehends the whole of our prefent Controverfy. Not to fay any thing of his firfl: Expofition, the Word s being tranfubftantiated into Flefh, fave chat it is very abfurd to fuppofe the Word, which he owns to be an intelligent, rational Being, to be turned, or tranfubftantiated into Flefli: This I hope may gain him Favour with the Papifts ^ for if he can fuppofe it a thing of fo fmall moment, whether he or another believe it or no, he muft needs I think allow fuch a thing poffible. So that whether the Word be God, as the Scripture af- firms, or a fuper-angelical Nature, as he affirms, on which fide the Tranfubftantiation lies, metbinks he reckons it of no great moment i fo it ben't damnable, as he hopes, to truft in a Creature, as fuch, for Juftification and Salvation: fo the Perfon, upon comparing this Senfe with other Revela- tion, is perfuaded that this Senfe is moft reafonable. 1 would now ask Mr. Chubb whether this (I w^as going to fay, unreafonable Charity and Coudefcenfion) was not fixed on, to alleviate Mens Minds a little, and to take off the Heinoufnefs of the Crime, in denying jefui Chrift to be true God •, and confequently owning hira for a Creature ! faying. We are all fallible, and poftibly may err ^ bethinks * Here he has fiated the (^lijeftion in the Words he accufed ms of, Faljliood for^ yiz, for affirming he faid Chriji was a Creature* + it go The Divinity of the it proper that we be modeft with refped to our own Deter- minations, and charitable with refped to the Determina* tions of other Men. So that all th.- Buftle Mr. Clmhh hath made in the World by the moft indefatigable Endeavours to dethrone the Son of God, and fet up an Antichrift in his room \ crying out that the Church wants Reformation : That what he attempted to perform, was but to vindicate and reftore the firft great Article of the Primitive Chrin:ian Faith, viz.. That there is butone fupreme God, the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift ^ snd that he only, exclufive of all other Beings, Subfiflences, Perfon, or Perfons wbatfoever, is this one fupreme God : To maintain this, he thought it then necefiTary to exert h s Btmol]: Z»:al. But in p. 20. of his Obfei v.itions, we fee his great Zeal become lukewarm, and he feems to be glad if he can Ci:^{\\t off with a whole Skm : aiid if his Opinion that the Son is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father is not dam- nable, he feems to hope well. To folve this Doubt, he obferves firfi:,that if the Name Crea- ture be properly apply'd when applied to every derived Being, then in that fcnie the Son is confciTedly a Creature. But what if the Name Creature be not properly applied to everv derived Being, then I hope it will pa(s thai Chriil is no Creature. And lure to create and to beget, are Words of a different Signi6cation ', for Men don't create the Children they beget : nor was it ever known, that the Word, or Verb, to beget, did ever fignity to create. Mr. Chnhh laith, ' If the Name Creature be applicable ' only to fuch things as are produced after a certain man- ^ ner, then the Son in that fenfc may very well be conceived * not to be a Creature.' Truly, Mr. Chubby the Name Crea- ture is applicable only to fuch things as are produced after a certain manner, vi^. out of nothing, or whofe firft Mat- ter was nothing : therefore the Son, according to Mr. Chubby may very well be conceived not to be a Creature*, and therefore muft needs be the true God, according to what Mr, ChM faith in this Place. How Mr. ChuhbloviS to get into the Dark ! Can any Mor- tal tell what Mr. ChM mea;:s, when he faith, ^ If the Name ^ Creature be applicable to inch things as are produced af- ' ter a certain manner ' Why doth not Mr. ChM fpeak plain, and fay with all the World, that they are Creatures, whoii firftMatter was produced out of nothing •, and fo the h'ea* I vens, Sen of God defended, gt ^'ens, Earth, and all the Inhabitants will be named Creatures •, and whatever was not fo created out of nothing, is God. Doth Mr. Chubb ruQ^in that the certain Manner of Produc- tion he rpeaks of, is to be begotten? why then all Men and Women that ever were fince j^dam and Eve^ are not Crea- tures. Who can reafon with fuch as invert Words from their known and general received Senfe ? Mr. Chubb is loft in a Mill: ^ and I cannot conceive what he intends other than fo to flate things, that if he be too hard prels'd, he may find an unthouiiht of Hole to flip out of : for now he hath not faid whether Chrift is a Creature, or nor. ' Secondly, I obferve, faith he, that whatever different ' Apprthenfions we may have of the Son of God, thofe i\p- ' prehenfions make no Alteration in him : From which it will * follow, faith he, that if he is the Father's Equal and the fu- ' premeGod, whoever trufts in him, trufts in the Father's E- ' qual, and fupreme God : and not elfe ^ for our Faith is ac- ' Cording to what we conceive the Objed to be, and not what * is in his own Nature.' I will give now an Inftance that all Mr. Chithh's Sophiftry fhall be too little for : You know that while Ahfes {laid in the Mount to receive the Tables of the Covenant, becaufe he ftaid longer than they expeded, they (aid to Aaron ^ ZJp^ make m Cods to go before m \ for as for this Mofes, we wot not w)hat is become of him, Aaron made them a Calf, Exod. 32. 4. And they J'aid^ thcfe be thyGods^ O Ursid^ which brought thee itp out of the Land 0/ Egvpt. Ver. 5. Aa- ron built an Altar before it^ and proclaimed a Holiday to the Lord 7 and they rofe up early ^ and offered up Burnt -Offerings^ &c. We will fuppofe that the Ifraelites did fay as Mr. Chdh here, ' Whatever different Apprehenfions we may have (f ' God, thefe Apprehenfions make no Alteration in him, but ^ he ftill continues to be what really he is ;, and tho we wor- * Ihip him by a Medium of our own Invention, that hinders ' not but we trufl in him, and believe in him, and therefore ' (liall be accepted of him.' But God tells Mofes^ the Peo- ple had corrupted themfelves •, the Apoftle faith, they com- mitted Idolatry •, Mofes faith, they lacrificed to Devils, and not to God. And it is not the y^^/<2;2.f calling that Idol and Antichrifi:, they fet up, the Son of God, and layujg to it, Save us, for thou art a God, tho not the Molt High God :, this will not prove they trull in the true Chrift, no more than the If- raelites cailing their Calf the God that brought them out cf 92 The Divinity of the of the Land of Egypt ^ did juftify them to be Worfliippers of the true God, or skreen them from that Wrath that fell im- mediately on them. Mr. Chubb goes on thus: * All that can be faid in this * Cafe, is only this \ whoever thinks him to be what he * really is not, or that thinks him not to be what really he is, * when they make him the Objed of their Faith and Truft, * have only a miftaken Notion concerning him, their Faith ' and Truft is the (ame, whatever he is/ j4rtfwer. What Mr. Chubb here faith, is deftrudive of all Religion : It is in cffed to fay. Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion. If Miftakes about the great Objed of Wor- fl]ip be of no moment, and can be put off with faying, we had only a miftaken Notion ^ then a Mahometan is as bleflfed as a Chriftian, an idolatrous Papift as the moft zealous Proteftant : Nay, it will equally juftify the Heathens in their Idolatries as him in his. The Ipraelites no doubt thought the Calf endirined, that Elohim^ or the Gods that brought them out of the Land of Egypt \ and I doubt not but Mofes had acquainted them with the Myftery of the Trinity, which the very Notation of the Word would acquaint them with ^ becaufe they well under- flood the Language in which he wrote and fpake to them : conformably they fay, Iheje be thy Gods which bronght ihee out of the Land of Egypt, arid Aaron proclaimed a Holiday to Jehovah. So that they intended right, and to worfhip the true God of Jjrael-^^n^ tho they lacrificed to that Calf, alas ! it was but fach a miftaken Notion as Mr. Chubb fpeaks of: they intended to worOiip the true God, and to place their Hope and Truft in him as the ^• riam do in a Creature v^ho they confefs is not God, and I have demonftrated to the World is not a true Man, and fo not the true Chrift, but a Chrift of their own fetting up, like this Calf we have been treatmg of. But did the good Intention of the Ifraelites fave them ? no, no, the Wrath of God fell on them : It is faid, the Lord plagued the People be- caufe of the Calf which u4aron made. Might not the Jem have (aid, We truft in the Meftiah s, and it this be the Meftiah, which we don't believe, yet our Unbelief can make no Alteration in him, he remains the fame, whatever we think of him: as if they had faid, our Un- belief cannot make the Promife of God of none effed. This is juft as Mr. Chnbh faith here^ yet for their Unbelief the whole Nation perifhed. The Son of God defended. ^j The like may be faid of Jeroboams Calves, and the Apo- ftacy of the ten Ttibes, who, for their Idolatry, which was but one of Mr. ChM's miftaken Notions, were car- ried captive by the JJfynan Monarch ^ (6 that I think the Chriftian World knows not where to find them. Con- fid er, O you AnanSy the heavy Judgments, and that Weight of Wrath that fell upon the J^n?//?; Nation, for crucifying the Lord of Glory *, they were oft about to ftone him for making himfelf God, and for faying he was the Son of God, which was one part of his Accufation for which they at laft crucified him. But Wrath fell upon tbem, fo that no Nation under Heaven, fo rich, fo populous, and (b war- like as they, bath it been done to as it was done to them j their Cities burned, eleven hundred thopfand of them (lain, the reft fcatter'd over the Face of the Earth, and all this for a miftaken Notion : for they hoped and trufted in the Meftiah, and tho they miftook the Perfon, and look'd for one to come *, yet becaufe of this miftaken Notion, their whole Nation almoft perifhed, and the Remainder are made aCurCc and a Reproach to this day. The Samaritans direded their Worfliip to the God of Jfrael ^ yet our Saviour tells them they worftiipped they knew not what, and that Salvation was of the Jews : ta- citly implying they could not be (aved in their way. The Papifts w^orlhip their Wafer-Cake, and affirm it to be Chrift, and that the Bread is tranfubftantiated inta the very Body of Chrift, and bring, as they think, the very Words of Chrift to prove it \ which is more than all the Arians in the World can do to prove the Being of a fuper- angelical Nature, which is not the true God, and exifting before the World : Both miftaken Notions, and both alike Idolaters, placing their Hope and Truft for Juftification and Salvation in that which is not God. The Arians fay, that Chrift is not the true God, that he is now a Man *, and they hope and truft for Salvation from this Man. Doth not this bring them under that Curfe of the Prophet? Jer. ii. 5. Cnrjed is the Man that tmfieth in Marty and maketh Flepj his Arm^ whofe Heart departeth from the Lord, Here the miftaken Notion will not bring them off, feeing what they truft in is but Flelh, in the bell Senfe can be put on their Notion. Whofoever preacheth Salvation, and Deliverance from Sin and Wrath by any Perfbn, whom they will not own to be true God, and true Man, fuch preach another Chrift, &c, bring 9 4- The Divinity of the bring another Gofpel than what the Holy Scriptures re- veal, and therefore are under the Curfe, (7^/. 1.8. which Mr, Chubb knows I charged on him :, yet thought not fit to reply thereto. Mr. C/j«^^ muft juftify that that very PerPm that he calls Chrift, is that very Perfon the Scriptures declare to be Chrift *, or it it appear not fb, he will be an Idolater. And if he faith that Chrift is not the true God^ that he did not as a principal Efficient make the Univerfe, then he is a Biaf- phemer. It is not enough to fay, I ufe him unchriftianly ^ be muft prove I do {o^ if he will deliver himfelf from the Charge. And how vain is it to think that if he do not believe in the true Chrift, bat in another that is not the Chrift, that it is but a raiftaken Notion, and will not hurt him. What think you that this Excufe of a miftaken Notion will excufe from trufting in a falfe Chrift ? Thofe Jews who received an Impoftor, that ftiled himfelf the Firft-born of God, Sabatal-Sevlj the Melliah, and Saviour of Ifraelj and fej^eral other falfe Chrifts that have deceived that Peo- ple ^ are thofe deceived People excufed, becaufe they be- lieved thofe Impoftors to be the very Chrift, and rejeded the true one ? No, no : And be it known unto you, O ye A- rians^ who rejed: the Son of God, who made the World, and exped Salvation from (bmething that is not God, you are under a dangerous Delufion, and fo much the greater, in that you fliut your Eyes againft the Truth. Mr. Cmbb thus reafons : *■ If the Chriftian Covenant hath * made Faith in the Son of God, as the Father's Equal, and ' as the fupreme God, necefTary to our Juftification and * Salvation \ then whoever thinks otherwife of the Son, is ex- * eluded from that Covenant-Mercy.' Aafwer, Thofe Words (the Father's Equal) and thofe (the fuprerae God) are but vain and empty Words in this Argument-, for if the Son of God be really God, he is^he fuprcmc God, and the Father's Equal : (b that thofe Words do but deceive them ^ for there is but one God, the Maker of all things. For the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, into whufe Name we are baptized, is this one God : And whofo- ever denies the Son, the fame hath not the Father, however they may flatter themfelves. Mr. Chnhb undertakes to prove, ' That Faith in the Son, * as the Father's Equal, is not made neceflary to Juftifica- * tion and Salvation, from fuch Scriptures that call Chrift ' the Son of God defended, 9$ ' the Son of the living God, as Mat. 16. 15, 18. And. ' Jef^J faid^ I am the Refurrcclion avd the Lije^ he that be- * lieveth in me^ tho he were dead^ yet /ball he live. And, * Lord^ I believe that thou art Chrifi the Son of God -^ John II. 25, 27, &:c.' Janjwer^ All that can be concluded hence, is. That we are bound to believe in that very Perlon whom they called the Son of God with (uch a Faith as they believed v^ith •, for what is it to believe in the Son of God, but to believe bira to be the true God, and to truft in him as fuch ? for when they confefTed him to be the Son of God, they thereby- owned him to be that Mefliah, or Jehovah^ that was to come into the World ^ for the Jews were then in great Es- pedation of the coming of the promifed Mefiiah. Mai. 3. i. Jehovah, whom ye feek^ JJmll fuddenly come t9 his Temple, Even that Jehovah was expeded, who is the God of A- hraham^ Jfaac^ and Jacoh :, in believing in whom, Abraham was juftify'd ', and by believing in whom, we alfo are to be juftify'd. For Abraham was not juftified by one kind of Faith, and we by another ; All the Patriarchs and Prophets had the fame Objed of Faith as we. Therefore I conclude, That Faith in Chrift, as the true Son of God, is necefTary to Salvation. So thtjews who be- lieved, embraced hiin. So Nathaniel \ Thopt art the Son of God, thou art the King of Ifrael. And if the Arians in ex- plaining this Article, exprefly deny him to be the true Son of God, and very God, the mighty God,d^c. as the Scriptures de- clare him to be ', then they fet up another Chrift, even one they have devifed in their own Heart, and thereby blafpheme that worthy Name whereby we are called. For them to talk of the Son of God, and deny him to be the true God, isjuft as much Senfe as to call one the Son of Man, and at the fame time to deny him to be a true Man. To deny Jefus Chrift onr Saviour to be true God, what is it but to de- ny the true God to be our Saviour, and to rejed Chrift as fiich ? and is as much as to fay, this God- Man fhall not be our Saviour, and we will not have this Man, who is alfo God, to rule over us. But what faith our Lord ? As for tho fe Men who Will not that I Jhould reign over them^ bring them hither^ and flay them before me. Mr. Chnhh will compbin, it's like, that I charge them with Blafphemy *, but if I miiiake nor, himfelf infinuates as much againft all that do affirm Chritt to be the true Son of God. It is in the ipch Page of his Supremacy Afferted ^ ' Chriit g6 The Divinity of the ' Chrift had faid he was the Son of God, for which the * Jews charge him with Blafphemy, and take up Stones to * caft at him : Jeft4^ anfwered^ many good Works have I * fijewed you from my Father^ for which of thefe Works do yon * ft one me f The Jews anfwered him. For a good Work we * fione thee not^ hut for Blafphemy:, and for that thou being a * Man^ mahji thy felf God. Here we fee, that when Chrift * called himfelf the Son of God, they did account that he * made himfelf equal with God. Then he repeats our * Lord's Anfwer, Is it not written in your Law^ I faid ye * are Gods? And then adds, // he called them Gods to whom * the Word of God came^ and the Scriptures cannot he broken"^ * fay ye of him^ whom the Father hath fanBified and fent into * the Worldj thou hlafphemeji^ hecanfe I faid J am the Son of * God r ' In this Reply, faith Mr. Cmhh, our Lord doth not * deny, that the making himfelf God (in the Jews Senfe) ' had been Blafphemy. Sop. 17. he faith, Blafphemy was * a juft Confequence of ChriiVs making himfelf equal with ' God.' In which Words, Mr. ChM infinuates, that it is Blaf- phemy to affirm that Chrift is the moft High God. And indeed Mr. ChM don't only infinuate this againft us who believe Chrift's Deity, but his Charge of Blafphemy reaches the Son of God himfelf, if when he faid I am the Son of God, he intended to teach, that he had the fame Divine Nature and EfTence with the Father ^ as is eafy to prove he did, from thofe glorious Appellations which are given him in Scripture. Now I leave this Digreflion. Mr. ChM endeavour'd to make it but as a Chip in Pot- tage, in which of tho(e four Senfes f he laid down) we underftood thufe Words, The Word woi made Fleflj, * And faith,p.2i. As to the fecond Senk^The Wcrdwasmade * Fleflj^ or united to a ^ whole Mar, Soul and Body \ this, * faith he, fuppofes the Exiftence of the Word antecedent * to its Union : (o the Perfon of Chrift upon this Principle, * muft be conftitutcd of two individual rational Spirits, uni- ' ted to one human Body, and thefe three in their united * If Mr, Chubb mean by a 'whole Man, a Perfon difiinH from the Eternal Logos, we own no fmh Man to be Chrifi. We affirm the Word to he united^ not to the Perfon of any, but to human Nature on* ly ; fo that in Chrifi is a Union of Naturts cnly^ and ?20t of two Pfrfons^ one divine, and the other human* ? State Son of God defended, nj * State muft conftitute the Perfon of Jefus Chrifl:, which * he faith makes it unlikely to be true, bccaufe the Perfoa ' thus conftituted would not be a Man.' Whether Mr. Chubby thro Ignorance or Craftinefs, doth here mifreprefent our Principle, I dare not fay ^ but it's fomewhat ftrange, that he, that fo long hath oppofed us, fhould not thoroughly acquaint hinifelf with the things he was to oppofe : For this reafon I cannot impute it to Igno- rance \ but if it (liould be a Subtilty to make a Handle to accufe us of Abfurdities, that muft needs be great Wicked- nefs : and fo I leave others to pafs the Judgment. ' The Perfon of Chrift, faith he, on this Principle mud ' be conftituted of two individual rational Spirits united *' to one human Body.' Which Abfurdity is the refult of his own Ignorance or Sophifcry, in confounding the divine and human Nature to conftitute a Man •, whereas the whole Chrifcian Church deny (iich Confufion, and always confider the two Natures in Chrift diftind, who tho in their united State conftitute one Chrift, yet never any did fay the Legos and human Soul did make one Man. I muft needs fay, Mr. Cbnbb difturbs all things he handles, that are of difference between us. Chriftians don't fay, whatever fome Hereticks have thought, that the Divinity- was blended arid mixt with the Humanity, fo as fuch a Mixture (hould be a Man. And fpeaking of one believing in Chrifc as God and Man in one Perfon, in his 22d Pag, he faith, ' That the reaion of ' advancing this unfcriptural Dodrine he takes to be this^ ' Some Men having unjuftly infer'd from (bme Texts of ' Scripture, that Jefus Chrift, or the Son of God, is hira- ' felf the fupreme God, therefore to remove the DiSiculcy ' they themfelves have made, imagine two Natures in the ' Perfon of Chrift : And then,when Chrift faith, A therefore all thofe Arguments from increated Power only being able to create, he that did not create the World is not our Chrift. If you have a Chrift that did not create the World, keep him to your felf : he is not that Chrift that the Apoftle propofeth as theObjed of our Faith, Hope and Love^ therefore your Argument is overthrown : for your Argument faith that he was the Father's Agent in thofe things which are afcribed to him. But the Creation of the Heaven and the Earth, and theSuftentation and Upholding of all things, are afcri- bed by the Apoftle to the true Chrift. And if that Being you call Chrift, hath not this increated and omnipotent Power, then he is not the true Chrift. Therefore upon the Suppofition that your Chrift was not the Father's Agent in creating the World, your Argument is quite overthrown, and my Gonclufion is firm, that fuch a Perfon is not the true Chrift, * * But, Son of God defended. i ii * But, fay you, p. 31. if this Evidence proves defeAive, * yet I have produced other Evidence to prove my Point, in * which Chiift v^'as the Father's Agent, &c: J anfwer^ Your Words were. That the Son is the Father's Agent in thofe Ads which are afcribed unto him. Now this indefinite Propoficion of yours is equal to a univerfal one, and is as much as to fay, that he is the Father's Agent in all thofe Ads afcribed to him*, for if he is not the Father's Agent in creating the World, and creating the World is afcribed to him, as it is by the Apoftle, then be is not the Father's Ag:nt in thofe things afcribed to him. And now I appeal to any Man of Senfe among your fclves, whether your Argument is not fairlv overthrown. I would not have you grieve at it, for you have liberty you know to mend it when you write next : But at prefent, on your Suppofition that Chrill, I mean yours, was not the Father's Agent in creating the World, I am fure you are put to a Ne p!^ ultra, ' But, faith Mr. Clmhh^ he was the Father's Agent in pub- ' lilliing his Father's Will.' . I arijwer^ That helps not the Matter in the leaf! : You may be God's Agent in fome things, but I do not believe you have any Commiilion from him, in this your Work of dif- honouringhim •, for he that honoureth not the Son, honou- reth not the Father. Befides, it is further obfervable that Mr. ChM quoted Heh. I. 2. By whom alfo he made the Worlds j and EpyJ. 3- 9. IVho created all things by Jefm Chrifl. ' In both thefe Texts, hithh^^ (Siipremacy JSferted, p. 22.) ' the Son is exprefly dedar'd to be the Father's Agent in ' creating the World. And, faith he, this muft be in his * higheft Nature :, becaufe he was employ 'd by the Father ' to produce the Matter of which his human Body was com- ' pofed.' But upon my reafoning, that nothing butincreatcd Power could efi'ed this, and therefore the Being that did this, could not be a Creature, and (b not inferior to the Father •, in the Words above repeated, he yields up all 1 could de- mand. If it be faid, that he doth but fuppofe, that Chrift: was not the Father^s Agent in creating the World ^ I anfwer, I acknowledge it : But then my Arguments fland unanfwered, cir.d 1 believe mull do fo for Niv.Cmtb'j '-^ and he knows both his Liberty and Ability, and may do it as foon as he pkafe. He 1 1 2 The Divinity of the He faith, ^.32. *^ Perhaps I will turn it upon him, and fay * that he was an Agent in his human Nature only/ / anfwer^ I can bear this Jear well enough j only I tell Mr. Chubb I am of Age to fpeak for myfelf : And indeed I cannot tell to v^hat end he feigns me to fay fo, except he imagines that he hath difarmed me of all my Weapons, and now would put a ridiculous one into my Hand to be laught at. I confeis we are both but a couple of Ignoramus's, and for my part I pretend to no more than a little common Senfe, but 1 have not fo little, as not to fee when I am plaid upon. And I can (notwithftanding what Mr. Chubb may think) allow the true Chrift to be the Father's Agent (in an impro- per Senfe) in creating the World, and that he did it by an inherent Power that was uncreated, and necelTarily and eter- nally communicated to him by the Father •, and that there- fore I conclude this Son of God to be the moft high God. And becaufethe higheft Nature of Mt.ChM's Cbriil is de- ficient in this, I conclude him not to be the true Chrift, but an Antichrift : So that in this Mr. ChM hath fet up a Man of Clouts, I never faid Chrift was an .^gent in the human Na- ture only ^ thats only a Flight of Mr. ChM's Fancy. And Mr. Chubb having, as before is feen, allowed my Ar- guments to be unanfwerable againft his Chrift's Ability to create the World, as not daring to fay he had uncreated Power, or was receptibleof it, or could ufe it, or that lefs than that could create ^ now in his 3 2d Page he comes to confider what I have to fay, with refpeA to his afTerting that his Chrift created the World. j^rif, I thought he had had enough Blows already, and that he had yielded •, but however I fhall attend him, and endeavour his Satisfadion all I can. He faith, p. 32. ' He ihall not need to go into all the Turn- * ings and Windings of my Argument.' I fuppofe he means he needs not mddle with them at all, or is afraid of being loll: in them. It is iufficient to his purpofe to obferve, that when he a- fcribed creating Power to the Son •, he did it in no other ihik than he did afcribe miraculous Power to the Apoftle : but how then wiil he make his Chrift the Father's Agent in creating the World ? And raethinks he imagines that the /ipoiiles might be as able to create another Univerfc in that fuppoied Vacuma without this Univerfe ^ or might fay to the Globe of this Earth, Stand further, and leave your Poles Son of God defended^ iij Poles to another, I intend to fit in this place. Mr. CMbt try if yoii can do it : For true Faith is as powerful in one as another. Bur to let alone trifling with a trifling Argument. I do- deny the Apoftles had any inherent Power of working Mi- racles : I deny they exerted the Omnipotent Power of God, or were any way a phyfical Inftrument therein^ and it is neediels for me to attempt the Proof o{ this, becaafe I have faid To much on this Head in my firfl: Anfwer, to which I refer my Reader *, and they are fome of thofe Turnings and Windings I fuppofe Mr. Chuhb is afraid of being loft in. Surely what Mr. Chuhb faith, doth not mend his Argu- ment one bit •, for v;hen the Apodle fpeaketh of Chrift's creating the World, he intimates a phyfical Efficiency , for that isimply'd in every Ad we do : And when the Apoitie faid to Chrifl:, And thon^ Lord^ hafi laid the Foundation of the Earthy and the Heavens are the Work of thy Hands ', he declares that the true Chrill had an Efficiency. And if Mr. Chubb's Chrifl, who he faith is a Gcd, did not by his own proper Efficiency make the Heavens, he muft perjlh from under the Heavens, and indeed Co will all they that truft in him for Salvation, becaufe they forfake the true Chrifl, the Fountain of living Water^ and hew out for themfelves broken Ciftcrns that can hold no [Vater. But I hope Gcd will yet give Repentance to many of thefe deluded and feduced Men. Any one may perceive that Mr. Chubb could not tell how to defend himfelf againfl my Anfwer to his fifth Argument, becaufe he fo coldly afferts Chrift's Agency in making the World, that a Man can't fuppofe he thought he had any in it. And fhall we think God would employ an Agent about a Work that was above his Agent's Strength and Wifdom, as to produce a Univerfe out of nothing ? Truly, Mr. Chubby to fpeak properly, God's Agents are God's Doers, not fuch as do nothing. In the 44th Page of my Anfwer, I told you, that the task lay on you to prove by- convincing Arguments, that any Creature by any received Power can work a Miracle *, and I having by' fuch variety of Arguments fhewed that no Creature can create, you fliould in honour have anfwer'd, or honeflly have confefs'd you could not tell what to fay : but to reply nothing, and yet boaft you have anfwer'd every thing, is not very be^ Coming an honeft Man. H * Wc 114 ^^^ Divinity of the * Wc read in Ephefians the 3d, Ver, 9. That God created ' all things by J efm Chrifi^ (faith he,]?. 33.) and by Creation * I underftood the Creation of this World ^ and I thought, ' faith he, that the rational and fpiritual Part of our Saviour ' had aded the (ame part in this Creation, as the Apoftles * did in removing a Mountain, if fuch a Remove had at any ' time took place : And I thought that I might fay on the fame * grounds, that Chrift had Power to create the World, or ' that he did create ir, and yet not afcribe Omnipotency to * him : And I thought I might jufiiy fay he was God's ' Agent in this Work/ ^«/ir. Mr. ChiM was angry and out of humour, becaufe he thought I dealt hardly with him ^ but now he feems to be coming into a plealanter Mood, and tells his Reader, I thought, (faith he) I thought, I thought ^ and truly 'twas all but a Dream. But he iliould have anfwer'd my Argu- ments, which if he had done, his Thoughts might have been more rational. I hope Mr. Chnhb will not be angry if I divert my felf a little with the Weaknefs of his Oppo- fition-, for I have been a great while untying the Knots be had made, and being tired with that, I hope I may be al- iow'da little Refrefhment now and then. Mr. ChM tells me, ^ That tho I am pleas'd to take it for ' granted, that creating Pov^er was incom.municable, yet it ' did not determine his Judgment in that Point.' But Sir, that creating Power was incommunicable, I did not abfolutely affirm ^ for I own the Father did communicate it to his Son, together with his own EfTencc j and that there- fore the Son of God is true God. Nor did I crave any Tofldatum^ that creating Power could not be communicated to a Creature i but I proved it by feveral Arguments, and you ought to have repl\ 'd to them, and (liow'd the Caufe of your DifTent : but if you won't, I guefs at the reafon. He tells me, with reference to him, my Time and Pains were fpent in vain*, which tho I am forry for, yet 1 am not difappointed, and God may blefs my Labours to others, tho not to him. He faith, p. 33. Mt feems a bold Limitation of God's Power, * to affirm that creating Power is incommunicable.' Mr. Chubb knows or might have known, with what reafon I fupported that Propofition, and what he faith is but a poor Reply. ^ Let any one read my ^lilPagey and he will fee how I reafon'd from Creation's being the fole EfFed of God's Om- nipotent Will i which Will being hijEfl^nce willing, cannot be Son of God defended. 1 1 5 be communicated to a Creature, no more than Self-Ex- iftence, Infinity, or Eternity. And I fav again, God can- not make a Creature of infinite Power, becaufe it implies a Contradidion, for fuch a Creature muffc be both finite and infinite, which is impofTible. Let any one confider, why God is faid to be of infinite Power, Wifdom, Knowledge, Eternity, &c. Is it not from the Works of Creation, in which his eternal Power and Godhead is clearly feen? Mud not he be Eternal and Seif- Exiftent, that gave Being to the Creation ? Of what force would the Scripture be to convince a rational Mind that there was a God, if the Works of Creation and Providence were not regarded ? The Holy Ghoft therefore begins at the Creation, and from thence teacheth us, that Elohitn^ who created this World, is a God clothed with infinite Power and Perfedion, and that there is but one fuch. And when God difplays his Power, doth he not infifl: on the W^orks that he hath made ? For how could God be the Ma- ker and Governour of the Univerfe, if he were not efTen- tially prefent with every part of it ? Therefore he faith. Do not ifill Heaven and Earth f And can God make a Creature therefore to be able to create a World ? Iffo, then that Creature muftbeof infinite Power ard Prefence, God and a Creature both, which is a Conrradidion. I contend with Mr. Chuhh with Rcafbn, not with bare Affirmations, or Suppofitions, or I thought, &c. By what Power can a finite Being work any EfFed at a diftance from himfelf? And for ought, it feem?, that Mr. Chubb can fee to the contrary, God can as eafily communi- cate creating Power as generating Power, or any other Power whatfoever. They fay there is none fo blind as them that will not fee. Mic.Chiihb thinks it as eafy for God to create an infinite independent Pov^rer (for fuch a Power only can create) as for him to create a poor weak, finite, depen- dent Man, and give him a Power, which, with the Concourfe of his own infinite Arm, can produce or generate his like : And I fay God can as eafily make an infinite Being, as to make a Man with generating. Power, or any Power inde- I pendent of himfelf-, for Finuude and Dependence is mix'd with every created EfTence. ' We are informed, faidi he, by Experience as well as Revelation, that one M an begets another Man, why may i- g^ ' not then a Creature havj; power to create another Crea- ture H z 1 1 6 The Divinity of the I anfwer, God hath fo framed Man, that there is an Apti- tude in the Matter by his Concourfe to beget a Man •, but Creation being a Produdion of fomething out of nothing, this Nothing is fo deep an Abyfs, that nothing but an infinite Arm can reach an Effence or Being out of it. Mr. Chuhh faith, p. 34. where are we alTured from Scrip- ture, that this Earth was created out of nothing, when it was produced into that Form it now is in ? But who faith it was produced out of nothing at that time when it was pro- duced into the Form it now is ? Mr. Chuhh is a captious Queftioner, and doth but lay Snares. This I fay, the whole Chaos was created out of nothing, out of which all things were formed and put into that beautiful Order we fee ^ otherwife it was God, for every Being but God was made out of nothing. * But (faith he) we do not read the Earth was nothing, * antecedent to its Creation, and therefore Chrift might * create the World, and yet not create it out of nothing.' Pray Mr. Chuhh tell me, if the Earth was in Being, and not formed out of nothing, how did Chrift make all that was made? In another place, you except Chrift himfelf out of that Creation, Gen, i. 1. and now you endeavour to ex- cept the Earth, and fay, we do not read it was nothing an- tecedent to its Creation,;?. 34. Truly, Mr. Chubby I am utterly ignorant what the Earth was before its Creation ^ and I entreat you to give me, or if you like not to pleafe me, favour the World fo far as to inform them of this won- drous thing ^ for I believe none ever heard before, that any thing was before it was, or that a Creature was before its Creation. That xMr. Chuhh might difturb all things, he will change the life of Words. I know not that the Word create doth properly (ignify any other thing than a producing ibmething out of nothing. But to put an end to this, Mr. Chuhb's Chrift is faid to create Angels : tell me in your next, whether you think they were created out of nothing or not ? If not, then acquaint me with their firft Matter, and how immortal immaterial Spirits can be produced out of Matter. Next tell me, whether it is not as eafy to produce the Heavens and Earth out of nothing, as to produce Angels out of no- thing ? Next tell me, how Chrift upholds all things, if not by hisPrelence and Power with them i for Suftentation is but a continued Aft of Creation. Now Son of God defended. 117 Now as I have with a great deal of patience anfwer'd all your Demands, I pray you be fo kind as to refolve the aforefaid Queftions for me \ and no doubt but then wc (hall agree about this important Point in hand *, as whether any Power, fave increated Power, can produce (bmething out of nothing. Mr. Chitbh is very dogmatical in this, viz.. As Adam's Body was produced from the Duft of the Ground, fo the producing it into that Species was properly a creating it, ac- cording to the ufe of that Expreflion in the Language of the Scriptures. This is like all the reft. Mr. Chnhb expects to be believed on his bare Word *, for he gives not one inftance of the life of that Word in any other Sen(e than a producing a Being out of nothing. Whg^ thinks Mr. Chubb ? When Ad.im% Body was formed of the Duft of the Ground, was his Soul then created out of nothing or not ? If it were, then if Man ftiouid be any where faid to be created, it is in thefe two rcfpeds ^ (i.J With refped to the more noble part, the Soul. (2.) With refped of the Body's being formed of that Matter that was produced out of nothing. The Text Gen, 2.7. Jehovah Elohim formed Man, that is, falhioned his Body of the Duft of the Ground. But in Gen. i. 27. where God is faid to create Man, refped: is had either to the Produdion of the Soul out of nothing, which raoft pro- perly is Man, and is Man when feparated from the Body ^ as God is faid to be the God of Abraham^ Ifaac, and Jacob, who when our Saviour fpake were unbodied Souls •, or if Man be underftood of Soul and Body, the Body, tho formed of the Duft of the Ground, may be faid to be created out of nothing, becaule the Matter out of which it was formed was created out of nothing. Mr. Chubb faith, ' He will not enter into (6 nice a Philo- ' fophical Enquiry as to examine, whether there be any *■ fuch thing as created Power properly fo called.' Now the Reader muft note, that properly {0 called, among fuch Philo- fophers as Mr. ChM and I, is of great ufe ', efpecially when we don't our felves underftand what we would be at. And I profefs I am not learned enough to know what Mr. ChM means, when he fpeaks of created Power properly fo called, and makes a doubt of it, whether there be any fuch thing. I know a Man hath a power of Will properly fo called, yea, a power of Free-Will properly fo called ^ he hath .i power to walk, eat, drink, think, work, yea, and write H 3 Nq^- 1 1 8 The Divinity of the Nonfenfe as well as Senfe *, and the(e Powers I think are pro- perly fo called. I don't know that there is any Trope or Figure in them, for they are our own proper Powers, pro- perly fo called, as I think •, and why Mr, ChM ftiould call that a nice Philofophical Enquiry, I cannot innagine. If Mr. Cktbb had faid, he would not enter into fo nice a Philofophical Enquiry, as to examine whether there was any fuch thing as an independent created Power, it may be we muft have had recourfe to the Schoolmen ^ and there we Ihould have had fome affirming, that God can make a Crea- ture, that can by a received Power ad: independently of his Maker i others as ftiffly denying : But I fuppofe Mr. Chnhb would have took part with the former, becaufe he faith, j7. 35. * Gcd may fo far leave the Exercife of his Power to * the Will of Free-Creatures, as that they may exercife it * independent of his Will, ^ as Durandm will have it/ But then the Dom'wka'fU will fay, that if a Creature can ad one Moment independent of God's Will, it may do it ten *, if ten, then ten thoufand, and fo multiply 'd to Eter- ^>. nity : and in my poor Opinion, they have reafon of their ^^-- fide V for if a Creature can ad independent on God, then he muft exift independent of God, and then he muft be God \ for nothing can be independent but God. But if this cannot be aiTerted, then every Creature muft be moved to his own Adion by the firft Mover \ and Mr. Chubb will prefently cry out, the Will is not free, and we fhall, he is fure, make God the Author of Sin. But we will let this alone a little while ; No doubt but we Philofophers (hall in time come to a pitch'd Field, for we have a light Skirmifh every now and then about it. I doubt I have run too faft, for Mr. Chubb in his 35th Tage faith, * God cannot communicate to any Being a Power in- * dependent of himfelf.' This is very true, 1 have nothing againft it. But when he faith, ' God may fo far leave the * Exercife of his Power to the Free- Will of his Creatures, as * that they may exercife it independent of bis Will \ this is a Contradidion to the former : and if Mr. Chubb will * God rr}ay fo far have the Exercife of his Power ; zvhofe Power .(lle cleared himfelffrom all imputation of Infin- cerity, 2 Cor. 2. 17. For we are not a6 many which corrupt the Word of God^ but ai of Sinctrity \ but as of God in the Sight of God we fpeak in Chrifi, It would be for Adr. ChM's Honour if he foliow'd this holy Ex^^mple, and not rack his Wits, and put them upon the ftretch to bring Scriptures to ferve his turn : As here he hath endeavour'd to draw the firft of Heb. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 rerfes to prove, thac Chrift obtained a better Name than Angels, which he faith was that of a Son, urging the Son and Angels to be one Species of Being*, and would have Chrift's Sonfhip founded not in Nature, but Favour and Grace : and tho he fubtily avoids ufing thofe Words, yet they are necefTarily imply'd :, for there is no other Sonfhip but that of Nature and that ot Grace ^ and feeing he denies it of the former, it muft be in the latter, if at all : And To he goes on, perverting the Word of God. So Page 47. fpeaking of the Words of the Pfdmifiy he faith, the Ffalmifi adds a Reafon of the Son's Exaltation, becaufe he was an obedient Son that loved Right eoufnefs^ as tho the Angels were not obedient Sons, that Joved Righ- teoufnefs. And I defire it may be obferved, that he was fpeaking before of what he calls the Divine Nature of the Son^ makes him to be of the fame Species as Angels ^ tells us the Difparity the Apoftle makes between them, was not founded upon their having Natures of a different Species *, and now cites the Pfalmifi's Words fpoken of the human Nature of Chrifi and its Exaltation as a Reward of his Obedience, as a Reafon why the only-begotten Son of God exifting before the World, which the Apoltle treats of in this firft of Heb, i, Crc. is faid tobe exalted : which, is roanifefl, was, becaufe he was the Son uf God's Nature, and confubflantial with him ^ as the whole Scope of the Apoflle in that Chapter manifeils, tho the Exaltation is of the human Nature united to the Divmity. And fuppofing he had obtain'd his Point, he here from that falfe Foundation draws his Conclufion, p. 47. Seeing then the Oirpririty bctwnxr Cbriu and the Angcis is not founded in Nature; but Relation, &c. '-:^:rc I raiUl again accule Mr.Chnbb of Blafphcmy, for fay ng the Dilparity betwixt Chriil and the Angels is not fou Jdcd in Nature •, which is a bialpheiuing the eternal Word 142 The Divimty of the Word and only-begotten Son of God ^ of which I pray God to give him Repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth, that he may be faved. And tho Mr. Chuhh denies Chrift and Angels to be of different Species, yet this fame Apoftle, Heh, 2. 16. exprefly CJeclareth, That he took not hold of the Nature of Angels: which argues ftrongly that he was of a fuperior Nature to them, and therefore is God by Nature, a Son by Nature*, and fo his Name of the Son of God is by Inheritance, and not of Favour, as he urges. I would pray Mr. ChM ferioufly to lay to heart the Words of our Lord, viz. He that denleth me before Men^ him will I deny before my Father and his Holy Angels. Heb. 2. 17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be wade like unto his Brethren^ 8cc, ^ I think, faith he, p, 48. * with fubraifllon, this Text hath no relation toChrift's being ' made like unto his Brethren with refpeft to his becoming * Man, becaufe he is cpnfider'd as fuch by the Apoftle in * his Realbnings about him.' Anfw, How plaufible foever Mr. Chnhb's Glofs is at fifft fight, yet if his following Difcourfe be confider'd, we ILall eafily perceive the evil Defign thereof. Therefore let us look back a little to the Context, where we ftiall fee, tliat after the Apoftle had fpoken many things of Chrill, and particularly of his Sufferings, Ver. 10. for it became him, for whom are all things^ and by whom are all things^ in bringing many Sons to glory ^ to make the Captain of their Salvation perfeEi thro Sufferings : and tells us of the Union between Chrifl and his Church, and that Chrift owns them as Brethren. But how doth it appear that the Saints are one with Chrift, and his Brethren? To this the Apoftle anfwers in the 14th Ver. For as much as the Children (viz. whom he was to bring to Glory, or the Eleft) were partakers of FleJ}) and Bloody he alfo took part of the fame *, which re- fpeds his human Nature which he affumed, to the end he might be capable of dying for his People, and thereby dc- flroy the Works of the Devil, and comfort his People, as may be gather'd from the 14th and 15th Ferfes, And that the fmgujar Love of God to the Eled, or thofe Sons that were to be brought to Glory, might be manifefted, the Apoftle tells us. That Chrifi took not hold of Angels to fave them^ but took hold of the Nature of Men^ took on him the Seed of Abraham. And wherefore did Chrift take on birti Son of God defended. 14 j the Seed of Abraham ? The Anfwer is in the Text con- tended about : Bccnvfe in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his Brethren^ (that is, tO be made Man in all things, to wit, in Soul and Body, or elfe h is not in all things) that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priefi in things pertaining to God^ {For every High Pricfi^ the Apoftle faith, is taken from ojnong Men^ therefore it was necefTary that our High Prieft fhould be a Manj to make reconciliation for the Sins of the People-, which was by offering himfelf a Sacrifice for their Sins : As it is written. The Lord laid on him the Iniquity of m all. And whereas Mr. Chubh faith, it behoved tnis Man, this Brother of Man- kind, to be made like unto his Brethren, not like unto them in that which conflitutes the Relation of a Brother : But this is a manifeft Corruption of the Text •, becaufe the Apoftle treated of him as God in the former Chapter^ calling him God the Obje£l of the Angels Worfhip, fit- ting upon an eternal Throne •, and begins this Chap, with the Illative, Therefore bee aufe he is fuch a glorious Beings we ought to give the more diligent heed to the things we have heardj viz. to the glorious things fpoken of the Son of God. He tells us what was the End of his coming, viz. To bring many Stns to glory *, and that it was by his Suf- ferings he was to do if, and tells us, that therefore be- caufe the Children were Men, he muflbe a Man alfo, and made like unto his Brethren in all things, to t\\Q end he might bear their Sins, and reconcile them to God. And for Mr. Chubb to fay, he was not made like unto his Brethren, in that which conftitutes the Relation of a Brother, (yiz.?)^ a Man pofTe fling human Nature, even as all other Men, is a Sign that he is fenhble, that he can- not prove this Chrift to be a true Man •, as in the 49th Page, where he faith, That there can be no conclulive Argument drawn from hence, to prove that the rational Spirit in our Saviour is, with refped to its Nature, upom a Level with the rational Spirits of all other Men. So;?. 47. ' Seeing then the Difparity betwixt Chrift and Angels * is not founded in Nature, but Relation, there can be no ' conclufive Argument drawn from hence, to prove that * Chrift hath two rational Natures in his Perfon, the one * fuperior to Angels, the other upon a Level with the ' Souls of Men,^c.' And to what End doth he deny, that it is a Confequence of the Apoftle's Words, (when he faith, that it behoved him in all things to be mcM like unto I his 144 "ff^^ Dwinity of the his Brethren^ &:c.) that the rational Spirit in our Saviour is, with refpe^l to its Nature, upon a Level with the ratio-' nal Spirits of all other Men, if not to afTert it truly to be fo, which is the Scope of his 47th, 48th, 49th Pages ? and in his 52d and 53d Pages, charges Socinianifni on me for urging this very thing : therefore it is Mr. Chub's de- clar'd Judgment, That the rational Spirit in our Saviour is not on a level with the rational Spirits of all other Men, and that in rerpe£l of its Nature. This is a plain Confeffion, that the Chrift he fpeaks of is not truly a Man, as I have before by many Arguments prov'd, and he now at laft confefTes ^ therefore I conclude that MrXhubh's Chrift is not the true Chrift. Whoever hath not a rational Spirit, with refpeft to its Nature, upon a level with the rational Spirits of all other Men, is not a true Man: the reafon of the Confequence is, becaufe he hath not the true conftitutive Parts of a Man. But the Chrift Mr. Chubb fets forth, by his own Confel- fion, hath not his rational Spirit, with refpe^ft to its Na- ture, upon a level with the rational Spirits of all other Men. Therefore the Chrift Mr. Chubb fets forth, by his own Confeffion, cannot be a true Man. He that hath not his rational Spirit of the fame Na- ture, with all other Men, he hath not human Nature, and confequently is no Man. But this is true of Mr. Chubb^sC\ix\{\:^ by his own Con- feffion ^ ergoj xMr. Chubb's Chrift is not a Man. And therefore is not the Chrift which Paul preach'd, and the Scriptures every where fet forth. Which was a thing I contended for in a great part of my Anfwer, and did fully prove, as I have in this Reply: which after fo much Struggle, and racking of his Wits to oppofe, he hath now given up. And from his Words I thus reafon : That rational Spirit, whofe Nature is not upon a level with the rational Spirits of all other Men, hath fome- thing in its Nature which difFerenceth it from the Species of human Souls ^ and confequently muft conftitute hirUi a different Being from Mankind. But this is the very Cafe of what Mr. Chubb calls Chrift^ ergo^ Ux.Chubb'% Chrift is a different Being from Mankind. The Son of God defended. 145 The Confequence of the major Propofition is gathered from the 39th Page of Mr. Chubh's Obfervations, wht^re he faith, there is fomething peculiar to each fort of things, which is made the Standard of that Species *, therefore the Nature of Mr. ChMs Chrift not being upon the level with the rational Spirits of all other Men, mufl: have the Peculiarity that he fpeaksof, which will render it a diffe- rent Species from Men. Now Mr.Chubb's Chrifl not being a Man, nor yet an An- gel, nor yet God, muft needs be of that Order of Beings that Men, as he faith, for their IJfe or Vanity have made, p. 38. and cannot be called a pofnive Ens, but is a mere Phantom and Figment of Man's vain Mind. As to what Mx. Chubb faith, p. 50. of the lOth, nth, and 1 2th Verfes of the ilt Chapter of the Hebrews-, it can be of no force, thofe Verfes being fo manifeil an Application ofthe Words of the Pfalmift (by the Apoftle himfelf) to Chrifl, that none but the Enemies of Chrift, who pervert every tiling as much as they can, that is a Proof of his Deity and Godhead, can deny it. Mr. Chubb pretends, that the Apoftle's referring to the Pfalmift's W'ords, was a Digreilion from his Argument of proving Chrift's Sonfhip, and the Subje^lion ofthe Angels to him *, makes a Digreilion to prove the Certainty of the forego- ing Prophecies from the Eternity and Unchangeablenefs of God, and would make the Vv^ords of the Pfalmift to be fpoken to God the Father, when they are manifeftly ac- commodated to God the Son, as appears by the whole Co- herence of that Chapter. And I think the Spirit of Chrift in an Apoftle, is the beft Interpreter ofthe Words of the Pfalmift. And truly nothing can be more evident than this In vsr. 8. as fpoken of Chrift : But unto the Son he faith^Thy Throne^ O God J is for ever and ever^ a Scepter 0} Right eoufnefs is the Scepter of thy Kingdom^ thou hajf loved Right eoujriefs^ &c. therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the Oil of Gladnefs above thy Fellows. Which is manifeftly fpoken of God the Son. To the fame Son, he continues his Speech in the Words of the Pfalmift : And thou, Lcrdj in the beginning haft laid the Foundation of the Earth', the Heavens are the Work of thy Hands, &c. Agreeable to what the fame Apoftle faith of him, i Col. 16. Tmt by him all things were created, that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, vifibU and invifible, K This 146 The Divinity of the This Scripture therefore is a full Proof of the eternal Deity of Chrift :, and truly, feeing the Order of Difpu- tation did not lead Mr. Chubb to this Digrefljon, but de- nying two Natures in Chrift, the divine and human, the Glory of Chriil's eternal Deity fhone fo full in his Face from this Text, that he endeavour'd by ufual Arts to draw a Veil over it to eclipfe it. He {hlthjp. 51. he will add a few more Words to that Digrefllon, with relation to the 8th Verfe, But umo the Scft be falth^ Thy Throne^ O God^ is for ever and cver^ &c which is an Accommodation of the 6th and 7th Verfes of the 45th Pfalm to Chrift. This Verfe, tho it is applied to Jefus Ghrift by the Apoftle, in order to prove, iaith he, his Relation of Soniliip to God ^ yet is fuppofed by fome not to belong to the Man Chi id Jefus, but to that very God himfelf which is his Father, which they imagine to be perfonally united to him, which they call his divine Nature. I anfwcr^ It is falfe ^ there are none but the Patri-p^iffians^ that affirm thePerfon of the Father perfonally united to the human Nature. But Mr. Cmbb cares not what he af- fixes upon his Adverlliries, who he knows do fay, th^t only the Perfon of the Son affumed human Nature into the Unity of his Perfon *, and that w^e always diftinguifh the Father from the Son by their own incommunicable, be*- caufe perfonal Properties. And for him here to take it for granted, that we acknowledge the Perfon of the Father fo united, proceeds from fomething worfe than Igno- rance. And I fay, that I have faid nothing to give Mr. Chubb a juft occafion to fix lYitPatri-pajjian Herefy on me *, and if My, Chubb hath a mind to difpute with fuch a one, he may go look him: Buz My. Chubb is willing to fet up a Man of Straw, to ihew his Abilities on. My. Chubb tQlls^ p. 52. w^hat great things he hath done in flating the Species of Mankind ^ to which I have faid e- nough before. ' And, faith he, however this Matter (land * with refpeft to him, ^viz.. whether or no Chrift is a Man ' according to his Defcription of him, or not, yet he c faith the Perfon of Chrift cannot be a Man on my t Principles ^ and fo is now about to recriminate. ~ ^ And forafmuch, faith he, as the Perfon of Chrifl, on * MY.Clagget's Principles, wasconflitutedof twodiftinft, ' intelligent, rational Spirits, united to one human Body ^ * it Son of God defended. 147 « it will follow that the Perfon thus conftituted cannot be * a Man.' This fame thing he fLiggeds in his 21ft Page, and is an- fwered in mv ^zd Page. The Chiiftian Verity teacheth, That the Manhood of Chrift never had a Perfonality of his own, didin^t from the Perfonality of tht eternal Logos, The AflTumption of human Nature was the uniting human Nature, viz., a Soul and Body, to his own Perfon ^ fo that the Union in Chrift is not of 4:wo Perfons, but of two Natures in one Perfon ^ the Natures not blended, but remaining diftin6l : there- fore, fmce Chrift's Incarnation, by the Term Chrilt is to underftood a Perfon that is both God and Man : And this is confonant to my Principles. And that two Natures may be in one Perfon, w^e may fee in our felves, who are a fpiritual and animal Nature united into one Perfon ;, and the Perfonality chiefly is pro- per to tht Soul, and not to the Body, which never had Exiftence diftinA from the Soul. So that 1 do not fay the Perfon of Chrift was conftitu- ted of twodiftinft, intelligent, rational Spirits :i and ei- ther My. Chubb hath miftook me, or wilfully abufes me : I cannot think him fo ignorant of our Hypothefis, as that I may rationally fuppofe the former, tho I perfuade my felf his Thoughts have been fo exercifed on this old Herefy, that he hath not fufficiently weighed what his Adverfaries fay in their defence. * To conclude this Point, faith he, p. 53. if what Mr, * C//igg^? foearneflly contends for, be Truth, viz. that the * rational Spirit in our Saviour, which he calls his human ' Soul, is infadl of the fame Species (confidered as a ra- ' tional Spirit) and ftands on a level with the rational * Spirits of all other Men, then it will follow by unavoi- * dable Confequence, that the real Son of God, our Lord ' Jefus Chrift, is, with refped to his Nature, a Man, and ' but a Man, which he faith is jphvaly Soci?jiarn'pnJ I anfw. It is fufficiently known to my Obfervator, that I affirm two Natures in Chrift*, one as he is the only-begot- ten Son of God, and is true God, Creator of a41 things \ the other Nature human, which is the fame as in all other Men : That this human Nature was taken into the Unity of the Perfon of the Son : That the Natures are diftind, and fo remain for ever •, fo Jthat Jefus Chrift fmce his Incarnation i% true God and true Man in one Perfon. And therefore K z tho 1 48 The Divimty of the tho I fay Chrift's human Nature ftands upon the Level WMth human Nature in all other Men *, yet becaufe that his human Nature never had Exiftence out of the Perfon of the Son, or divine Nature ^ therefore tho he is a true Man, and that perfonally, yet he is perfonally alfo God : and this is not SQclnianiJm. I come now to Mr.Chubh's Defence of his 6th Argument, Pag. 54. which was this : 'Tis the Son's exprefs Declara- tion in this matter, viz.. That h^ is inferior and fubordi- nate to the Father, &c. He faith, that my Anfwer is, That the Son with refpeft to his yf/.^;;/jW, is inferior : Which (he faith) is all that his Argument was defigned to prove. I anfwer. That Mr. Chubh's Words here are full of E- quivocation. The whole Defign of the Book I anfwered, was to oppofe the Deity of Ctiriil:. He affirmed a Super- angelical Spirit, who, he faith, was not the moft High God, was the Father's Agent in creating the World *, Ar- gument the 5th. To prove this Spirit was not God, but inferior to him, is the endeavour of his whole Book. A- gainft this I oppofed my Arguments, That this Spirit ei- ther was not the true Chrift, or Son of God •, or if he was to be allowed the Son of God, he was not a Crea- ture, but of the fame EiTence with, and was God equal with the Father. Mr. C/^?z^[^^ afferts, that this Super-angelical Spirit, united to a human Body, was the true Chrift, and became a hu- man Soul to that Body *, and calls this compofed Being not only Chrift, but a /^^?/, and the whole of the only-begot- ten Son of God. I oppofing this, affirm of the true Chrift, that he is true God, and true Man, in one Perfon. Mr. Chubb faith, that Chrift declares that he is inferior to the Father. My An- fwer was agreeable to my own Hypothefis, That in his human Nature he was inferior to the Father^ not there- by granting that his whole Perfon was in all refpefts infe* rior, but in that refpe£l. This he runs away with as a Concefiion, That the true Chrift was granted by me to be inferior to the Father, when I granted an Inferiority in one refpe^c only, not in all \ and might have granted a farther Inferiority as Mediator^ G'{ that Super-angelical Nature, that thofe Super-angelical Perfections were laid a- fide and defh'oyed, in becoming a human Soul. But whereas he faith of thofe Words of Chrifl, pit for becaufe he is the Son of God's Nature, he is equally necef- fary, equally powerful, and equally the Creator of all things: for the Father made all things by his Son, who is a coeffi- cient with the Father. For fo our Lord faith, Whatfoever things the Father doth, the fame doth the Son\ for the Father is in the Son^ and the Son in the Father : and therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but one God *, as our Lore! faith, My Father and I are one j one in EfTence and Na- ture. As to what he urgeth from i Cor* 15. 24. That then Chrifi JJjall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father \ it fpeaks only of Chrift's mediatory Kingdom, when all the Eled: are brought to Glory, then the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft will as one God be adored, and magnify'd for ever. Stc more of this afterwards. Thus we fee a glorious Harmony in the Scriptures, in de- claring the eternal Deity of Chrift. This Scripture "^ Mr. Chubb objeds againft himfelf, is treated of before, f 29. only what Mr. ChM faith is to be confidered. Firft, he faith, ' That he in his firft Argument proved the * Father to be the Free-Caafe of the Son's Being :' but this is refuted in ray Anfwer to that Argument. Secondly, p.57. he faith, ^ The Sum of that Text is, That ' the Son had his Being with the Father before this vifible * ProY. 8. 22— -30. I World 158 "the Divinity of the * World had a Being ', but faith, it proveth not his Coeter- * nity and Coequality with the Father, becaufe he was ' brought forth, and confeqaently was not eternal.' But this is nothing of a Rcaion *, for if the Son was begot- ten eternally of the Father, then he had an erernal Subfif- tence : and the Text is plain that he had this Subfiftence be- fore the World •, but before the Creation there was nothing but God, except you fuppofe a Creation before the Alofakl^ which is to fuppofe, not to prove. Befides, the 23d V^erfe puts that out of doubt ^ / was fet up from Everlaftlng^ which is an Eternity a parte ante^ as the Schools fpeak \ which proves Chrift's abfolute Eternity, and confequently bis Deity : for being an eternal, natural, and necefTary Pro- inanation from the Father, he is as eternal as the Fa* tber. / fuw the Lord fitting upan his Throne^ 3cc. And he (aid, Co a-nd tell this People^ hear ye indeed^ bnt Hnderfirnd not^ &c. Ifn, 6, I, 9, 10, That this Jehovah was the Son of God, fee proved before, j?. 32. where Sl'Johnii.^i. interprets it of Chrift. As to what Mr. Cmhh faith, That the great God w^as rc- preiented to Jfaiah as fitting on a Throne, is nothing againfl us, who fay. This great God was Chriit, as John witnefTes, that Jfaiah faw Chrift's Glory, and fpake of him. And Mr. Chnhh faying, p. 59. ^ We conceive this may be fpoken of * the great God the Father :' He may conceive what he will \ but feeing we have an Apoftle againft his Conceptions, we ihali not much regard them. Mr. Chnbb indeed would fuborn the Apoftle, and faith, * That the things were fpoken by Jfaiah^ when he faw and ' fpake of his Glory •,' but the Text is, IVhen he faw his Glory^ and fpake of him. Whofe Glory was it Ifaiah faw, but the Lord Jehovah's Glory, whofe Train filled the Tem- ple ? This therefore is a manifeft Proof that Chrift was that Jehovah^ whole Glory Jfaiah fiw\ As to what he faith of Jfa, %i,i. it is a manifell Prophe- cy of Chrilt ^ Who hath believed onr Report? And when the Apoftle refers to that Prophecy, he renders the Words thus \ Lord^ who hath believed our Report ? and the Words of Sr. Johi^ in the 41ft Verfe, refer to all that he had quo- ted from Jfaiah : and therefore when he fpake, Lord^ who hath believed our Report^ this hoxd^ot Jehovah^ is to be in- terpreted of Chriii, whofe Glory the Apoltlc witnefTeth Jfaiah Soft of God defended. i co Jfiiah faw. And indeed it was Chrift rfiat (poke to the Pro- phets, if we will take the Apoilles to be Incerpreiers. Sanctify the Lord of Hojis Wnnfelf^ and Ut^ ^C. I (a. 8. 15, 14. See this Scripture applied to thrift, p- 33. where this Lord of Hofis is faid to be a Stumbling- Block, expounded of Chrift by Vtter^ i Vet. 2. 8. Mr. Chiibh\ Glofs is, that thofc Words, Behold I lay in Sion a chief Corner-flonc \ which Corner- {lone, and Rock of Offence, Mr. ChM owns to be Chrift. But Jfaiah faith, It is the Lord of Hojis ^ vohom we are commanded to fvithify^ thatj Jfaiah fa.hhy is this Stone of StnmlUng^ and Rock of Offence : therefore Chrift is there called the Lord of Ho/is^ the Apo- illes themfelves being Judges. Who is it, I pray, that is a Sanduary to us, but Chrift ? or who was a Stone of ftumbling, and Rock of offence to both the Houfes of Iprael^ but Chrift ? And who was it that laici this Stumbling- Block before Ifrael., but God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who ft ill fpake by the Prophets ? And what if it n.ould be read with that Supplement of St. P^///, Be- hold I the Lord of Hojis command ye to fanctify fny Son^ ivhd is the Lord of Hojis ^ &c, and he jjjall be for aSanBnary^ dec. For that Chnft is the Lord of Holis, we read JJa, 54. i. Thy Maker is thy Hmband^ the Lord of Hojis is his Name *, but who is the Husband of the Church, but Chrift ? Vnto us a Child is born, &c. Ifa, g.6 See this explain'd, p. 28. Firit, Mr. ChM obferves, that thefe high Titles were gi- ven to the fame Being which is here called a Child, and faid to be born, and faid to be a Son •, we acknowledge it, and therefore we fay, that Jefus Chrift is that Mighty God. How, I pray ! as a Man, no, but as God and Man ; for in no fenfe can a mere Man be the Mighty God : it was there- fore as he was Immanuel^ God in our Nature, in whom dwelt the Fulnefs of the Godhead bodily. And the Apoftle fcruples not to fay that Jefus Chrift created all things, vifible and invi^ fible-. Col. I. 16. Mr. C^/^Haith, ' Thefe high Titles were not "^ given to ' the Divinity, confidered as feparate from, and antecedent ' to his being a Man.' I grant this alfo, that the Prophecy is of God incarnate, the Word made Fleih -, but this don't prove that Chrift was not God by Nature, but confirms ir. 5 Jhcj an not in this Place fo given^ and fo I would be underjlood. i6o The Divinity of the . I pafs by what Mr. Chnhh faith of the Reafon of his Names, for that maketh nothing to the proving Chrift not to be God by Nature ; and {o I omit all till he comes to the Title, the mighty God, which he reads, a mighty Gud : and that is enough for us, for there is but one mighty God ^ and if Chriftbe a mighty God, let him be adored as fuch. Here he runs to his old Refuge, that Princes arc called Gods •, but that won't do here, becaufe Princes arc never called mighty Gods, nor have Eternity afcrihed to them ; but this Child is an everlafting Father, not only of future Ages, but all part: Ages, he alwavs vsrasa Father to his People. ' But if, faith Mr. ChM^ he be a mighty God, he is fojas * he hath received his Being, his Godhead, his Mightinefs, * his All from the Father.* This we grant alfo, every Son receives his Being from his Father, and Chrift receiv'd his AH from his Father \ but this we fay was from Necedity of Nature, it could not be otherwife, and was not from Free- dom of Will. We do not fay he is the only mighty God, or above the Father, thefe are things feigned by Mi:. Chubb'-, but we fay he is one with the Father in Nature and EfTence, and there- fore one God. ' But, faith Mr.Chiibbj if he be one God in conjuncflion * with the Father, this maketh the Father to be but a Part of ' God, &c.* But *tis anfwered, That the Divine Eflence of both is the fame EfTence, and the Father communicated his whole EfTence to the Son, with the perfonal Property of be- ing begotten, and the Father begat the Son in himfelf *, fo that the Son, tho he be another Perfon from the Father, is not another God from the Father, they are but one God in Nature and EfTence. ' Secondly, faith he, it maketh the fupreme God a com- * pound Being, capable of Separation and Divifion.' But this is not a Confequence of our Dodrine, but of Mr. ChM's grofs Conceptions, who meafures the Divine Being by ienfible grofs Matter. Mr. ChM's Soul is both intelled:ive and fenfitive, is it therefore divifible ? May not there be Diverfity, where there is not Divifibility ? The Ray can't be divided from the Sun, yet is a diverfe thing in our Confideration ^ therefore here Mr. Chtibb's Philofophy failed him. Thirdly, faith he, ' It is plain that this Title is notafcri- * bed to the Son, as in conjun(!ilion with the Father, but as * be was made Man/ Arjfxver Son of God defended, l6t Anfxoer, The Son is never divided from the Father ^ as he faith, the Father and he are one, one God, the two diftind Perfons. Nor was the Son, when he alTumed human Nature into his own Perfonality, divided from the Father \ yet the Manhood was united to the Perfon of the Son, not to the Pcrfon of the Father. My Soul, as intelleAive, is in a fore united to the Truths I apprehend *, but my Soul, as fenfible, is not united to the fame Object. * Then as to the Title of everlafting Father, faith Mr. * Chubby we conceive the Title of Father can be no other- * wife applied to the Son, than on the account of thofe Crea- * tures7 where he hath been by the Father's Appointment the * Agent or Inftrument of their Creation, &c,' What Mr. Chitbh underftood by the Agency of the Son, he hath now declared in his Obfervat ions, p. 33. thatis no more than the Apoftks were in working Miracles, whicn indeed is none at all, as before was fhewed i and this is not worth a further Refutation. But as for Chrift, the true Son of God, we fhewed from Col, 1. 16. and Heb, i. 10. that he is the true Creator of all things, and therefore is the true God. Mv.ChM faith, p. 64. ' Chrift did not create the World * by any independent Ability he had originally in himfelf, * but by an Ability he received from his own Father.' But this is nothing \ we own that Chrift is the true Son of God's Nature, and is therefore true God, the God- head being derived to him wholly from the Father, and therefore with the Father by one omnipotent Will created all things: therefore Chrift's being the true God is fully proved from this Text, as alfo his Co-eternity with the Father, be* caufe before the World, he exifted with the Father, and made all that was made ^ John i. i, 2, 3. ' But, faith he, if the word Everlafting fhould be ap- * plied to the Time paft, n can extend no farther than the * Beginning of the Creation.' / anfwery If God the Father is an everlafting Father a par- te ante, is it not from this, that from Everlafting he begat his own Son ? And nothing Mr. ChM hath urged can wea- ken the Argument from this Text, in proving the true Deity of the Son of God, or that he is not the mighty Godi Jer. 23.5,6. where Chrift is called, Jehovah, Onr Righteoufnefs : And therefore we fay that Chrift is the true Gcd, becaufe he is the true Jehovah^ which is a Name pe- culiar to the moft High, or true God \ as may be feen a- bove, p. 13* ^ . 1 62 The Divinity of the As to what Mr. Chuhh offers from Gen, 19. Jehovah rained down Fire from Jehovah *, whereby he faith, it appears there arc two Jehovahs: I anfwer, I deny not that the Father is Jehovah ^ but I fay alfo that the Son is Jehovah^ as is abun- dantly proved above from the Old Teftament : yet are there not tviojehovahs^ hut one Jehovah^ or Deity. For Chrift is faid to be Jehovah^ as he is one God with the Father. So Zech.z.Syg. Jehovah^ or the Lord of Hofts, fpeaketh of himfelf as aMeflenger fent by the Lord of Hofts. The Name Jehovah is taken for the whole Divine EiTence, and cannot be reftrained to one of the Divine Perfons only. And Zanchy on that Text, Deut. 6. 4. Hear^ O Ifrael, tU Jjrrd our God is one Lord^ faith, that it is in t\xt Hebrew Je^ hovah Elohemi^ Jehovah our Gods *, Jehovah is one, that Plu- ral, Eiohemi, noting the Perfons of the Godhead, viz. Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are only one Jehovah, Therefore it is nothing which Mr. Chubb faith of the An- ge! of the Lord being called Jehovah *, for it is at large pro- ved above, that the Angel of the Lord was Chrift the Son of God, to whom the Name Jehovah agrees, and is one Ef- fence with the Father. * But, faith Mr. ChM^ if this Angel was our Lord Chriil, * this clearly proves that he is not thefupreme God, becaufe ' the Name and Office of an Angel is not applicable to the * fupreme God/ / anfwer^ We fee in Zech. 2. 8. the Lord of Hofts is fpeak- ing, and in the 9th Verfc the fame Perfon faith, Jnd ye fljall know that the Lord of Hofis hath fent me *, and Chrifl: is cal- led. The Angel of the Lord : And there is nothing hinders but that of two Perfons equal in Nature, as is a Father and his Son, the one may fend, and the other be fent. Now Chrift, as Mediator, is fent of the Father j which tho it notes a Superiority of Order, or Office, yet not of Nature, as above hath been largely (hewed : So that tho Chrift is the Angel of Jehovah^ and his MefTenger, it nothing hinders but that he is the true Jehovah^ and tnj\e God j and as fuch he was known to the Antients, Patriarchs, and as fuch was worftiipped with Altars, Sacrifices andPjiy^, as I have be- fore demonft rated. ' But, faith Mr. ChMy the Name, or Title of God, in * his firft and ftrideft Senfe, is applicable to the fupreme Be- ' ing only : Thus, Ifa. 44. 6. / am the firjiy and I am the * lafi^ and befides me there is no God,* I anfwer^ In the ssth Page above I have proved that it is Chrift that here fpeaketh. And Son of God defended. l6j And when he faith that the Name Jehovah is in a lower Senfe applied to another Being than the true God, as he of- fers no Proof of it, ^o it is to be rejected as a prooflefs Af- (ertion. If he fpeak of things inanimate, as the Ark, the Temple, Jernfalem^ or Altars, &c. it is only fpoken in a fi- gurative Senfe*, and it only fignifies either i\\^i Jehovah d'A'tW^ there, as in the Ark, Temple, &c. or that it was fet up as a Token of Jehovah's Help and Deliverance ^ to which end fome Altars were fet up and called Jehovah, G'fw. 33. 20. Judg. 6. 24. But none will be fo foolifh hence to gather, that either the Citv of Jemfalem^ or any of thofe Altars were the true Jehovah^ becaufe the Circumftances of each Place declare the contrary. And the Adverfary may as well fay that Je- fus is not properly called Chrift, becaufe the Church is cal- led Chrift by the Apoftle, i Cor. 12. 12. as to fay that Chrift is not properly called Jehovah, becaufe Jemfalem, the Ark, Temple, and Altars were called fo. But as Mr. ChM in- fiftsnot on this thing here, therefore it isneedlefs for me to fay more of it. ' Zech. 13,7. Awake, O Sword, againfi my Shepherd, a- * ga'wji the Man that is my Fellow, faith the Lord of Hojis. ' Here, faith he, becaufe the Man Chrift is called the Fa- * ther's Fellow, hence they infer that he is equal to the Fa- ' ther. And here he obferves, that the Being that is here ' called God's Fellow, is the fame Being which was fmitten, ' fuffered, and died in Sinners behalf : And further obferves, ' that if the divine and human Natures were fo feparate and * diftind in the Perfon of Chrift, as that they aded in a fepa- ' rate and diftind Capacity one from another, then it was ' his Humanity alone that is here faid to be God's Fellow.' / anf. That notwithftanding the divine and human Na- tures aded diftind in the Perfon of Chrift, yet what was done by either Nature, is applicable to the Perfon that did it : fo what was fuffered by the human Nature, is attributed to the Perfon to whom that Nature is united. What my Body fuffers, is attributed truly to my Perfon', tho my Perfon truly ftands compofed of Sou! and Body : So the Blood of Chrift in AB;s 20. is called the Blood of God, becaufe it was the Blood of that Perfon who is the true God^ who fuf- fered in his human Nature. So Chrift is faid here to be the Man that is God's Fellow, becaufe united to the true and ve- ry Son of God, who is God's Equal and Fellow *, for that very Perfon, who is God by Nature, and fo co-equal with L z the 164 The Divinity of the the Father, that is the very Perfon that was fmitten, fuffe- red, and died for Si'uiers. As to what he faith from the 45th Pfalm,^' That the Son ' of God is no more God's Equal, than thofe Beings fpoken * of in that Pfalm are the Son's Equals:' I anj\ The Son of God, as Map, was Partaker with the Children of the fan>e Nature with them, and was as true a Man as any of them •, and as God, he was true God, and God's Fellow, and conltquently Mr. ChM here hath oppofed in vain, ^e- fm feeing their Faith ^ faith to the Sick of the Palfy^ Son^ be of good eheer^ thy Sins are forgiven thee -That ye may know that the Son of Man hath Power on Earth to forgive Sins \ Mat. 9 2, 6. The Jews certainly were in the right, in affirming, that rone could forgive Sins but God \ and when they charged Chrift with Blafphemy for fo faying, he doth not deny that he properly forgave Sins, or affirm that he did it minifte- t ially i but confirms what he had before faid by a Miracle, whereby the Mouths of his Adverfaries the Jews were flop- ped, tho it will not flop the Mouths of his Adverfaries the jlriatis, * But, faith Mr. Cmhh-, Chrifl pray'd for his Murderers/ The Anfwer is eafy \ Chrifl was Mediator, and as fuch, he praved for his Eled *, which, tho it prove him in thatre- fped inferiour to the Father, yet it proves him not by Na- ture inferiour, or that as God he could not forgive Sins. Go ye therefore^ and teach all Nations^ baptizing them in the Name of the Father^ and of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghoji \ Mat. 28. 19. From hence it is manifeft, that the Father, Son, and Holv Ghoil, are but one God, into whofe Name we are baptized \ becauie we may not be baptized into the Name of a Creature : for by Baptifm we are bound to the Wor- ftiip of thofe Perfons, into whofe Name equally we are bap- tized. And from the undivided Unity of the Adion in Baptifm, we conclude the Unity of the God, m, v^hofe Name we are b.nptizcd. Becaufe as well the Son and Holy Spirit, equally as the Father, receive us into Favour, and altogether re- generate u«, which is fignify'd by our Baptifm, we conclude that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God : And fo Chrilt taught us that he is equal to the Father, to wit, by Nature *, and therefore is one with the Father in every Adion, heciiule xvhaifoever the Father worktth^ the fame alfo worketh (he Son j John 5. 19. Mr. SofJ of God defended, I ({5 Mr. Chnhh faith, ' That the baptizing in their Names * muft fignify either the Authority of the Baptizer, or the * Duty of the Baptized ;, if the firft, then we fay, faith he, * that tho they {viz.. the Baptizers) received Authority * from them all, yet the Father alone is the Fountain of that ' Authority.' Anf. We acknowledge that the Father is the Fountain of the Trinity, and confequently of all Authority Hovving thence y the Son is begotten of the Father \ and the Holy Ghoft is the Spirit of them both *, and thefe three are one Jehova'j, It is enough for us, as Mr. ChM faith of the Baptizer, that he receives his Authority from them all •, which is but one Authority, becaufe it is but one God, into whofe Name we are baptized. And the Authority of God, and of a Creature, is not one Authority, tho the fame thing is commanded by both', for when an Apoiile, or Minifter^ commands a Duty, they do it as by the Appointment of God, and io declare thcmfelves : but the Authority by which we are baptized, is equally from all the three Perfons j and there is not one word of Difference in the Commiftion, five that of the Order of their Subfiftence, the Son from the Father, the Holy Ghoft from both, which are the £/o/;/w, or our God, and but ont Jehovah : And thefe are that one God, to whofe Worlhip and Service we are dedicated by Baptifm. What Mr. Chubb faith from i Tim. 5. 21. / charge thee before God^ and the Lord Jefm Chrifl^ and the elect Angels^ is not from an equal Authority of the Angels, nor did the Angels autho- rize him to fay fo ^ but the Authority of the Perfons in the facred Trinity is equal in this Commiffion to the ApoiUes to baptize : And therefore the Persons are equal, and therefore Chrift is the true God. Befides, the Words of the Apofile are exprelJive of his ov/n ApofloLick Authority •, tho God, Chrift, and Angels, are Witneffes of his Command and Charge to Timoihy. It is great Prefamption in Man to make a difference where the Scriptures make none, and to affirm the Son here not to be equal with the Father, merely to maintain an old exploded Herefy. If any Authority is in this Commillion, it is equal- ly from thofe three-into Ahofe Name we are equally baptized. And I challenge all the Enemies of the Son of God to Ihew any thing in this Commiriion, that renders the Authority of the Son lefs than that of the Father, •" In the hegiiiiing was the iVord^ and the Word was with \ God J and the Word was God \ the fame was in the beginaing L 3 with 1 66 The Divimty of the * with God. All things were made by him^ and without him * wai not any thing tnade that was made *, John I. I, 2, 3. In * this Text the Son is called the Word and God, and is ' faid to be in the beginning with God, and to make all * things that were made ^ and hence it is inferred that, he is * made of none, and confeqaently that he-is equal to the Fa- ' then' This is that which Mr. Chuhh objeds againft him- felf, which how he oppofes we (hall fee. Saith he, p. 71, 72. * John in this Text refers to the fir ft * Day's Creation, mention'd by Mofes^ and affirms that we ' have no other Beginning antecedent to the Beginning of * the Mofaick Creation that the Scripture hath given an Ac- ' count of: Therefore (faith he) there can be no other Be- * ginning antecedent to that which the Scripture can ra- * tionally be fuppofed to refer to.* I anfwer, If the Beginning mention'd by Mofes and St. John is that Beginning the Scripture fpeaks of, then Chrift muft needs be eternal \ for if no other Beginning can rea- fonably be fuppofed, then he is unreafonable in denying the Son's Eternity, in the moft abfolute Senfe, and out of his own Mouth is condemned j for he that is before all begin- ning, muft be eternal. For every Agent muft be prior to his Work. If Chrift was the Father's Agent in making the World, then he muft be in exiftence before the Mofaick Creation *, and if there be no Beginning before that, then Chrift was before all Begin- ning mention'd in Scripture, and therefore is eternal and from everlafting, and confequently. muft be that one felf- exiftentGcd who created all things, which was to be proved. How MvXhM will deliver himfelf here, I know nor. If he feek a Beginning wherein that Being he calls Chrift was made, and that be antecedent to the Beginning that Mofes and St. John refer to ^ fuch a Beginning, by his own Con- feftion, the Scripture hath given no account of: and if fuch a thing ftiould be by him affirmed, I ftiould require a Proof ^ and from the Scriptures he tells us, it is not reafonable to ex- pedit, nor am I able to divine whence he will fetch it. So that for Mr. Chuhh to talk of a Creature-Agent in making all things, will be to imagine a Creature before all Creation *, which is impoffible, becaufe it involves a Contra- didion, viz., to be a Creature, and not to be created. I proceed with him, And the Word was with Godj in which Words he allows the diftind: Perfonality of the Son is aflcrted againft the SabelUan Error, In this we agree, but we So^ of God defended, 167 we do not ufe to agree very long together : for prefently he afTerts, that the Words plainly imply that the Son was a diftind Being from the Father. Before he only fpakeof the Perfonality of the Son, which is allowed to be diltind from the Perfonality of the Father : but now he faith the Son is a diftind Being or EfiTence from the Father \ which all Tri- nitarians will deny, as he very well knows \ all allowing three diftind Perfons in that one undivided felf-exifting Ef- fence we call God : the manner of whofe Exigence in the divine ElTence, we all own to be an inexplicable Myftery in this our imperfed: State \ but we believe it to be trae, becaufe there are three that the Scriptures attribute perfonal Pro- perties to, and have each of them all the incommunicable Attributes, Names, Works, and Perfections of Deity afcri- bed to them \ and yet we are taught from God himfelf, that he is but one Jehovah. Therefore when St. John faith. The Word w.ts with God., it is to be underilood that the Perfon of the Son did exift in the Beginning with the Father. Saith Mr. ChM^ ' We can by no means think that St. ' John makes him to be the fame Being which in the Words ' before he faid he was with.' To this I fay, that St. John fpeaks of the divine Perfons, and not of the EfTence com- mon to them both *, whence it appears, that there is no In- confiilency in St. John's Words, when he faith, Jn the Be^ ginning wa^ the Word., and the Word wm with God, But faith Mr. Chiihh^ when he faid he was God^ it muft fignify he was a God, (as fome of the Learned think it ought to be rendered here.) But may not I fuppofe that others as learned think otherwife ? But, faith he, to prevent our thinking otherwife, he repeatethhis two former AfTertions ia the next Words, faying, The fame was in the Beginning with God. But this is nothing but what he faid before, which I (hewed had no impropriety in it. ' The Sum of the AiTertion (faith Mr. Chuhy) we take to * be this, viz.. That the Word is a Being of great Excel- * lency and Perfection, namely, that he is a God, or God * the Word/ On the other hand, I take it to be, that the Word is a Perfon to whom the Holy Ghoft afcribes all the incommu- nicable Excellencies of the moll: High God ^ and that there- fore he is very God of very God, begotten of the Subftance of the Father from all Eternity, Whofe Out-goings were of old from everlafting^ Mic. 5. 2. Prov.8. 23. L 4 And l68 The Divinity of the And 1 think further, (becaufc Mr. Chuhh and I arc upon thinking) that the Holy Ghoft (had not the Son of God, or Worc^ been the trae and living God) would never have fet hino forth to us as the Creator of all things, as the Upholder of all things, and as the End for whom all things were tnade. For in Chrift all things are faid to confift, i Col. i6, &c. He upholds all thirrgs by the Word of his Power ^ as the Holy Ghoft fpeaketh, He comma-nded^ and they were created ^ the fame eternal Word that put all things into Beings that called them out of nothings that called thofe things that were not as thoHgh they were^ the fame Word now upholds all things \ and feeing the Holy Ghoft witnefTetb, that he that made all things is God J who made all things for himfelf (not only as Mr. Chnhb coldly enough exprefles it, for him to rule over, but) for his Glory and Praife : And I can never think that Jehovah the Spirit would make Chrift the Objed of our Faith, Hope, Love, and of all our Praifes and Thankfgiving, if he were not the true, living, and moft High God. Nor can I think that the bleftcd Spirit, who leads his People into all Truth^ and that takes of Chrift and Jheweth it unto m^ would give the moft glorious, exalted, and majeftick Names of God, Jehovah^ 1 A M^ Sec. to the Perfc^n of the Son, the Angel of God's Prefence, who led his People thro the Wildernefs of old, and is frequently called the God of Jfrael, and Lord of Hofts, were he not eftentially God, the God of the whole Earth. To think otherwile, what would it be but to charge the Holy Ghoft with Collufion, and a de- fign inevitably to draw us into ruin, for worfliipping as the true God that which by Nature was no God ? Far be it from any Chriftian to have fuch blafphemous Thoughts of our blcfled Guide, who^ to be fure, leadeth into all TrHth-^ and takes of Chrtji and Jheweth to hs ^ and therefore whatever be faith of Chrift, we believe to be moft true. And Mr. Chnhb would do well to confider, before it be too late, that he is but kicking againfi the Pricks^ and rulhing upon the thick Boft'v^s of his Buckler, who will be fure to overcome when he is judged. He may confider that he is fighting againft God, contending againft his Maker, endea- vouring to draw the Nation to Idolatry, and to forfake the Fountain oj living Waters^ and make to themfelves broken af- ter ns that can hold no Watsr, And what will be the End thereof? Cannot So^ of God defended. 169 Cannot Mr, Chubb yet fee that he endeavours to place Men's Hopes upon an Arm of Fle(h, a brittle fading weak Creature ii weak, I fay, as to the bearing the Burden he lays on him r for the Chrift he preaches being but a Creature lately (in comparifon of Eternity) drawn out of nothing, a Compound of Being and Nothingnefi i^ that as a Creature can merit nothing, becaufe the Obedience of every Creature is a due Debt ^ who, becaufe he had not Power of his own Right, could make no Free- Will Offering : This is the Cifc of every Creature in Heaven and Earth, they are, as fim- ply confider'd in their own Nature, finite, weak, and pe- rilljing : For whatever was drawn out of nothing would return to its priftinc Nothing, if not upheld by that Al- mighty Power that gave them Being. God only hath Im- mortality necefifarily and of himfelf. Bur now our Lord Chrift is the true God, he is called God in this Text*, He is the Almighty^ Rev. i. 8. He is the Conqueror of that mighty Tyrant Sin, which he did by ta- lcing our Nature into Union with his Godhead, and in that Nature dying for us, in our ftead and place \ being a Sacri- fice for oar Sin ^ being made Sin for hs^ that we might be m.tde the Rtghteonfnefs of God in him. This Condefcenfion of the blefTed Son of God, is the Admiration of Angels, and fills all the Saints with Exultations and Joy. But I return to fpeak with Mr. Chubb again, where I left him. ' The Sura of the whole (faith he, P.73.J we take to be ' this, That the Word, or Son, is a God, which was with ' the Father before and at the beginning of the World's * Creation. But it will in no wile follow, faith he, that * becaufe he is a God, and was wirh God at the World's ' Creation, that therefore he is Co-eternal with the Father/ Anfvp. Mr. C/c7//^^ preaches another God than that which made the Heavens, and therefore muft perilh from under thefe Heavens. Indeed Mr. Chitbb in his Defcription of this Being be calls a God,'~^w World out of nothing, as is the moil: excellent and exalted Creature that ever was made j and my Reaf:»n is, becaufe there is as infinite a Diftance be- tween the mod polfible exalted Creature and infinite Power, as there is between the fmallefl Infed and infinite Powers for the diftance between the moft polBble powerful Creature, and the fmalleft Knat, is of no confideration, when both compared with Omnipotency : and feeing the latter only- can Soft of God defended. int can produce a Creature out of nothing, all inferior Powers in this thing are of no price. Now feeing both Arians and Unitarians have but the fanne Bad?, a finite Creature, to build their Hypothefis on \ they muft not feign, but prove that a Creature can poiFibly be an Indrument in the Hand of the Almighty to create : and they rejeding the antient Creeds of the Church, on pretence that they are unreafonable, I hope all Men will think it reafonable that their own Hypothefii ought to be free from thofe Difficulties they ftunfible at in others : and that it is not reafonable they Ihould defire to be believed, when they offer what is more difficult to underftand, than what for its difficulty they rekd. The next Scripture Mr. Chitbh objeds againfl himfelf, is 'John 3. 31. He that cometh from above ^ is above all. Ad:s 10. 36. He IS Lord of all. Rom. 9. 5. Who is over all^ God blef- fed for ever. Here becaufe Chrift is faid to be Lord of all, and over all, and God above all, and the like, from hence it Js inferred that he is equal to the Father. Here, faith Mr. Chnbb^ this is fpoken of Chrift exclufive of the Father : that it is underftood of all created Beings 9 which is granted : but when Mr. Chnbb faith, this doth not equalize him with the Father, who gave him Being, and fee him over all, and made him God and Lord over all ^ I fay, that he hath not proved. And further : I anfwer, Mr. Chubb fpeaks of thefe things as the Gifts of the Father's Free- Will, which he cannot prove, and which we affirm Chrift bath by Nature : And hath by Nature ob- tained thefe Excellencies, being the only-begotten Son of God. John 5. 23. That all Men JJjodd hononr the Son as they honour the Father, From hence, faith Mr. Chuhh^ it may be argu'd, that fee- ing divine Honour and Worftiip is due, and to be paid to the fupreme God only *, and feeing the Son is to be honour'd or worftiipp'd with the fame Honour or WorOjip that the Father is, therefore the Son muft be worfhip'd with Divine Worfliip, and confequently is the fupreme God. Mr. ChM hath oppofed nothing rational againft this \ what he faith, is upon the fame bottom with the laft, fup- pofmg that he hath thofe divine Excellencies that are attri- buted to him as the free Gift of God the Father, which he is really inverted with, as he is the Son of God's Nature: and therefore 'tis but a begging the Queftion. What tj6 The Divinity of the What Mr. Chubh here faith, proves Chrift's Deity : For if the Father hath committed all Judgment to the Son, the Son muft be the true God \ for no created Being cat) know the Hearts of all *, and if not, is not capable of being Judge of all : therefore the Jews muft thence needs know that fie was the true God, in whom the Fuinefs of the Godhead dwelt, and therefore as God, even as God his Father, he was to be worfhip'd. Acftsy 9. A^idthey ftoned Stephen, calling upon God^ and faying^ Lord Jefm receive my Spirit. His reply is, that (God) is not in the Original, But doth Mr. ChM think he invocated any but God in that Hour of Temptation ? If he do, I fuppofe none befides Arians do fo. ^ But, faith he, we think that Stephen % praying to Chrift, * is not an Argument fufficient to prove him to be equal to * the fuprerae God : Prayer is an Ad of a dependent Being *• direded to a Being that hath Power to confer the good * thing prayed for.' And he faith, ' Chrift being the Father's ' Agent in creating, governing, and judging the World, * be may be pray'd to, &c' But upon luppofition that Chrift is not God by Nature, all is folly and nonfenfe he here faith ^ for a Being who is not the true God, cannot create, govern, and judge the Wcrld. And becaufe the true Chrift did create, doth now up- bold and govern, and will hereafter judge the World, there- fore he is the true God, The next Text Mr. Chnhh o\>)tdi% againft himfelf, is Phil, 2. 10. That at the Name of Jefos every Knee fl)ould how j anci Heb. i. 6. Let all the AngeU of Godworfljip him. All that bAtXhM faith, doth not come near the Ob- jedion. As to the Text in the Hebrews^ Chrift, as a Son, is the Objed of Angels Worfiiip, as being the God and Maker of Angels. See before, f 26. on Heb, i. 5. As to that, Phil. 2. 10. That at the Name of Jefus every Knee fmild borv \ fo St. Pad faith, Rom. 4. 1 1. \Vefl?all all Jiand before the Jitdgment-Seat of Chrift : For as I live^ faith the Lord., every Knee to me fhall bowy &c. It is taken Irooi I fa. 45 22, 23. LookHntome^ and be ye faved all the Ends of the Earth \ for I am God^ and there is none elfe : I have fworn by my fflf^ that to me every Knee fhall bow. So that if Pad be a true Interpreter of the Prophet Ifaioiy Chrift is that God who hath fworn, that to him every Knee ftiall bow J Son of God defended, ijj bow -^ and therefore it matters not what Evafions Mr. Chnbh makes, when we have fo infallible an Interpreter as the Apoille Pahly who avers Chrift to be that Jehovah who fware by himfelf, That to him every Knee JJjould bow, John 10. 30. I and my Father are One ', he refers to his fixth Argument. I anfwer, Mx. Chubb objeds this ^ohn 10. 50. againfthim* felf ^ the Words are, / and my Father are One^ and he refers tohisfixth Argument for Explication, p. 15. His Words are, Jandmy Father are one^ not numerically (iaith he) but One in the, Care and Prefervation of the Church : As the Son exercifetb the Power of the Father, fo they may well be faid to be One*, the Father and He are (aid to be One in the Exercife of it. I anfwer, Mr. ChM is very peremptory \ that when Chrift faith, / and my Father are one^ he dare fay that they are not One numerically. Can he be fure he doth not here give the Lye to his Maker ? What Foundation has he in Scripture to fay, that the Father and Chrift are not one God in Number ? Doth not the Scriptures call Chrift God ? Joh. I. God over all^ blejfed for ever-, Rom. 9. 5. That he Tva^ in the Form of God., Phil. 2. 6. That all things were created by him.. Col, i. 16. That he is the true God and eternal Life., I Joh. 5. 20. That he is the Alpha and Omega, the Firft and the Laji., the j4lmighty., Rev. i. 8. And in this Joh. 10. 30. he faith, I and my Father are One *, that is, one Thing, as the Learned fay it is in the Greek. So i Joh. 5. 7. Thefe Three are sV one thing,, vi^^. one God. And feeing the Scriptures give fo full a Teftimony of the Deity of Chrift, and alfo fully declare that there is but one God, cannot the Son of God himfelf be believed, when he fo plainly declares, that himfelf and the Father are one Thing, which muft be underftood one God ? But God is true, and Men are Lyars^ and Chrift will overcome when he is judged, Rom, 3. 4. We have feen that Mr. Chnhb dares to affirm Chrift and the Father are not One numerically : How then will he al- low them to be one ? He tells us they are One in the Care and Prefervation of the Church. But what a Onenefs is this? Were not the Prophets and Apoftles, and are not all faithful Minifters of the Gofpel one with the Father and Son in the Care and Prefervation of the Church ? Can it enter into the Thoughts of any unbials'd Chnftians, that Chrift intended this when he faid, I and ray Father are one Thing ? But faith Mr. Chnhh^ as Chrift exercifcth the Power of M the 1*7 8 The Divinity of the the Father, tliey may well be faid to be One. But how, ac- cording fo Mr. Chitbb\ Hypothefis, doth Chrift exercife th'c Power of the Father ? Indeed that's too hard a Qiieftion for Mr. Clmhh to anlvver, if fpoken of a Phyfical Powers for he cannot tell how a Creature can exercife infinite Power, but is as mute as a Fifli before all the Arguments I brought againft it in my Arianifm AnattmiTLtd^ p, 31, 32, &c. In the 33d Page of his Ob ferv at ions he tells you, that he thought that the rational and fpiritual Part of our Saviour had ad-cd the fume Part in the Creation, as the Apoftles did in removing of a Mountain, if fuch a Remove at any time took place. And I thought! might truly fay (faith he) upon the fame grounds, th.-u Chrill had Power to create the World, or that he did create it, or that God created it by^ him> and yet not afcribeOmnipotency to him *, and I thought I might juAly fay, that he was God's Agent in this Work *, but now I am told otherwife. Thus Mr. Chnhh, Behold how Mr. Chtibb thought Chrifiexercifed the Power- of the Father ! So far as I can perceive, be thought the Ipiritua! Part of Chrilt did believe that God would create the World : What a pretty Thought of ?n Agency Mr. Cbnhb had ? Here's an Agency without doing any thing. The like we mufl: fay here of the Son's exercifing the Power of the Father in Governing and Defending his Church. I can refolve it into nothing, but a believing that ibe Father would do it ^ and this* Mr. ChM will have an exercifing of the Father's Power. Obferve, Reader, what an Interpreter Mr. ChM is of Chrifl:, when he faid, I and my Father are one thing! They were One, becauTe Chriil believed the Father to be Al- mighty : but fuch an Gnenels the Devils have, for they all believe the Father to be Almighty *, yea, and tremble at it. And I am fure if Mr. Chnbb doth not, he ought to tremble at this hi, oppofing the true Deity of Chrid, and aiRrming, that .when cur Lord faid, I and my Father are one things in cppofition to the Son of God, he dares lay they are not numencaiiy One. Bar had Mr. Chnhb known the true Chrid, he would have cunklTed, that he was One with the Father in Power, Prcfence, and Eternity \ and that all things that the Father dcth, the lame doth the Son : fb that the Father and Son are One, one God •, and fo the Son may truly be faid to exer- cife the Power of the Father, having it wholly in himfelf, as being one God with the Father , which is the dear and ob- vious, Set fe of this Scripture. 2 Cor. Son of God defended. 1 70 2 Cor. 12. 14. The Grace of our Lord Jefus Chrifi^ and the Love of Gody and the Communion of the Holy Ghofi he rvith yoHall J j4mcrj. Seeing that a Blefiing is pray'd for from the Son and Holy Ghoft equally as from the Father, it argues they were one God. But faith Mr. ChM^ ' If St. Tad had added the Guar- * diandnp of the Eled Angels, it had been a good and * proper Willi of the Apoflle.' I anlwer, it was not a bare Wifii of the Apoitle, bur an Application of his Soul to the blefled Trinity for their Grace and Favour \ and had the Apoftle apply'd himfelf {^^ to theEkd: Angels for Protedion, it WQuld have been Idolatry, and a putting them in the place of God. As to that of Timothy^ it is nothing to the pur- pofe. Phil. 2. 6. Who being in the Form of God^ thought it no robbery to be equal with God. From this place we gather that Chrift is God by Nature, even as the taking on him the Form of a Servant, is to put on the true Nature of Man. No Creature, or high created Spirit can be fa id to be in the Form of God, which confilteth not in the plenitude of created Gifts and Power, but in the very natural Glory and Splendor of the Divinity •, therefore Chriit is called, Ths Brightnefs of the Father's Glory^ and exprefs Image of his Perfon, who upholdeth all things by the Word of ha Power, Heb. 1.3. So thatChrift being in the Form of God, is as ex- preffive of the Divine Nature, as his taking on him the Form of a Servant is expreflive of his Aflumption of hu- man Nature, and becoming true Man. Mr. Chitbb excepts againft this thus *, ' That hence the * Son cannot be faid to be equal with the Father, becaufe he ' is faid to exercife fuch Humiliation and Debaferaent as ' the fupreme God is not capable of, and of receiving fuch * Exaltation as a Reward of his Humiliation, which a Being * that is at the Height of Perfection could not receive,' What is this Humiliation then, that the Son of God was not capable of ? The Text tells us, his Humiliation was the taking on him the Form of a Servant, or becoming Man j for in that refped he took on him the Form of a Servant. Indeed to have alTumed the Nature of tny Creature, had been to have took on him the Form of a Servant, And let the Adverfaries fay, what Creature is, or poflibly can be made, that is not a Servant to his Creator ? But Chrift-^ when bf was in the Form of God, was not in the Form ih a Servant i and therefore roott, as the Texc laith, be equal M z ^'ith 1 8o The Divinitj of the with God *, becaufe bad he been any thing lefs than the true God, the Creator of all things, be had then been in the Form of a Servant. There is here an Antithefu between the Form of God, and the Forni of a Servant. To prove the Deity of the Son of God, I offer this Syl- logifm) drawn from this Text : Every Creature is in the Form of a Servant ; Chrift before the AfTuraption of human Nature was not in the Form of a Servant : Ergo^ Chrift before the AfTumption of human Nature, was not a Creature, and therefore was God. My minor Propoficion is imply 'd in the Words of the Text, He took on him the Form of a Servant ^ therefore he was not in the Form of a Servant, antecedent to the taking on him the Form of a Servant. My Major carries felf evidence in it : It is impoffible any Creature ftiould otherwife exift fave in the Form of a Ser- vant *, for every finite dependent Being muft be a Servant, and at the difpofe of God the infinite and independent Beingi and therefore every Creature muft be in the Form of a Servant. And therefore Chrift before the AfTumption of human Nature was not a Creature, and confequently was the moft High God, which was to be proved. If the Adverfary fay, the Words (the Form of a Servant) in this Text fignify a Man *, I anfwer, it is true. But the reafon of Man's being a Servant, is, becaufe he is a Creature \ and I prefume no reafon can be offer 'd, why Man (hould be called a Servant, but will be as conclufive of every Creature's being a Servant. If the Enemy urge, this Text fignifies only an accidental Form, as that Chrift appeared in the World in a low and ©ean Condition : I anfwer, the Antithefu m the Text will not bcar:fuch an Interpretation : For being in the Form of God is oppofed to being in the Form of a Creature ^ but being in the Form of a Creature, don't fignify to be in a poor, low, and mean Condition ^ for fo the bieffed Angels, Kings, and great Men, who have no Superior on Earth, would be exempted from being in the Form of Servants. Therefore py Argument is conclufive i That Chrift before he Son of God defended. l8i be aflTumed the Form of a Servant was not a Creature, and therefore was the true and moft High God. But to be a Creature of what fort foever, imagine a Being as High as you will, \et ft ill fuch a Creature is in the Form of a Servant ', but Chrift was not in the Form of a Servant antecedent to his taking it on him, therefore he muft be in the Form of God, and (o true God equal with the Father. But faith Mr. ChM^ ' He is faid to exercife fuch Humilia- * tion and Debafemcnt as the fupreme God is not capable of.* Now that we may fee whether this be true or not, let us confider what this Humiliation was, (as for the word De- bafement, I do not find it ufed in Scripture concerning Chrili, and have fooke my Mind thereof in my Anfwer to the Eighth Argument.; Now Chrift's Humiliation confifted not in emptying himfelf of any of the Perfeftions of the Deity, which was impoffible^ but it was in becoming what he was not before, to wit, a Man, by afTuming human Nature into the Unity of his Per(bn, and in that Humanity appearing in the World, which Humanity hid his Divinity from the World \ fo that he was with the World of no Reputation. Thus Chrift took on him the Form of a Servant, and ferved with our Sins in obedience to his Father's Will ^ bore our Sins, was a Man of Sorrows, was made a Curfe by dyiog for us miferable Sinners: Thus the Son of God humbled him- felf ^ when he was rich with all the Riches of the Deity, yet for our fakes became poor \ that is, became Man, and humbled himfelf : for this Caufe, for this Humiliation and Suffering of Death, God hath highly exalted this Man, this human Nature, and given him a Name above every Name. So that here is no Humiliation or Exaltation that the Son of God Twho is God equal with the Father) was not capable of-, wnichis a fufficient Anfwer to everything Mr. ChM hath offer'd againft our Senfe of the Text, whether it be read as in our common Tranflation or otherwifc : For I did not infift upon thofe Words (^ylnd thonght it no robbery to be eqmL with God) becaufe his being faid to be in the Form of God, is fufficient to exempt him from being a Creature; and not being a Creature, he muft be true God, and equal with God. And thence that reading (^And thought it no robbery to be equal with God) may be juftify'd as the Senfe of the Apoftle in this place. Col. 2. 9. For in him dwelleth the Fulnefs of the Godhead bodily. Here, faith he, becaufe all the Fulnels of the God- head dwelt bodily in Chrift, from hence it is inferr'd, that M 3 he iS2 J he Divinity of the be is eqnal to the Father. It is manifefl: that the Apoft^e here teacbeth, that Chrilt is true God equal with the Fa- ther, becaufe ivi that Hutnanitv the Fulnefs of the Deity dw^lt :, not a Fulnefs of divine Gifts, as Wifdom, Power, Goocineis, but the Deity it felf dwelt bodily in Chrift, /. e, was One with that Body ^ the very Deity dwelt in that Body was not inChrift's Humanity for a Time, but dwelt always and perpetually in him : which fignifieth that eternal Union that is between the Son of God and human Nature ^ fo that God asid Man are one Perion. Now the Fulnefs of Deity is r i^predive of the Divine Nature, and not of Divine Gifts, as Mr. Chuhh would have it f, who, p. 92. faith, That Chrift IS (:iid to be the Image of the Invifibie God, not in Nature but in Office. As tho he that was nor Gcd by Na- ture, could govern and judge the World ! than which to imagine, nothing can be more abfuid ^ for if a Fulnefs of Deity dwelt in Chrift, then Deity it kif mud dwell in him, which washy the i-iypoftatical Union. In the gd Verfe of this Chapter the Apoflle tells us. That in Chriji are hid all the Treafurcs of W^fdom and Knowledge : Which mufl: cer- tainly refer to his Deity, for all Treafures of Wifdora and Knowledge are only in the Deity, and are faid to be hid in Chriil:, becauie the Deity was veiled by the Humanity. In Chrilt dwelt all the Fulnefs of the Godhead bodily, *tls not a part but all ^ 'tis not ^ Meafure, but the Fulnefs', 'tis not of a ihort Continuance, but dwells there *, 'tis not a Fidion, but real and (ubftantial , and the word Corpo- ral! v or Bodily, fignifies an efTcntial Union : he faith not t^e Divinity dwelt in hini, as if he were a divine Man, but Deiry, the Godhead it felf j and therefore he is the moll Hi^h God. fiat faith Mr, ChiM^ In the former Chapter, he is faid to te the Image of the invifibie God, which muft intend his Office- \ca, the Ofike of Creatwg all things that are\n Heaven and Earthy vifiblc and invifibie^ whether they be Throfies or Dominions^ or PrifJcipaUties or Powers^ all things Wire created by him arul for hun^ as in the very next l^erfe, Ttt ail the World judge whaher this Work of Creation fpeaks him God by Nature or not. As to what Mr. Chubb faith (^f his being the Father's Agent, it is come now to ju(l nothing;. Seep. 33. of his Ohje/vatjons. The Reader hence may fee how lutilous his Conclufion is, when he laitb, ' That it is evident, (viz..') from what he * had laid, that the Puincfs of the Guclheadj which is l:iid to ' dwell Son of God defended. 1 8 j * dwell bodily in Chrill:, was that fjvereign Authoricv * which was lodged in him by the Father for the iluling and * Governing the wh.le Creation.' It is true, the Fulnefs of the Godhead implies a Fulncfs of VVifdom and Knowledge, and of Authority of G^v.-rniii; the World \ but it implies alfo an execnrive Power to enable toadminiller all things that pertai!^ to Providence, which is a Weight of Glory too great for any mere Creature to bear *, and implies infinite Knowledge, inlinite Prefcnce, in- finite Power and Wifdom, which can agree to none but to him in whom the Fulnefs of the Godhead dwelt bodily, and therefore was the true God. Mr. ChM cannot underhand that there is any true God fave God the Father^ and in reading this zd of Col. in the 2d Verfe, the Apoftle fpeaks of the Saints coming to a full afTurance of underftanding of the Acknowledgment of the Myftery of God, and of the Fi^ther, and of Chriil. It is worthy of Confideration, whether the words God, and F--.thcr, and Chriil:, be not three diftind Perfons ^ and if God fignify not here fome Perfon who is diiiinc!^ iVom the \Father and Chrift, who is alfo God. Bar this by the Bye. I Job. I. I, 2. That which voa.s from the Beginniyig^ rvhlchiV!^ h.tve heard andjeen with optr Eyes^ and our Hands have handled of the Word of Life : For the Life wjj manifcjled^ and we have jeenit^ and bear witnefs^ and f/jeiv unto yon that Eternal Life which vcm with the father^ and wru manifcfied unto Here Chrift is called Eternal Life, and is a Perfon th^t was^ with the Father, and is Life m the abilrad for that reafon ^ and confequently if he is Eternal Life, he mutl needs be an Erernal Peif)n, and confequently God. And we h-.ive pi-oved before the Eternity of Chriil: from Aticah 5.2. WfC'ofc Gvin^s forth were f, cm cv^ri^Jiing. Prov. 8. 2?, / w^J^ fet up from evc/i.jjiiug^ faith li^jdom there in the Perfon of Chriir. Rev, x. 8. / am Alpha and Omega, the Bcgifinirig and the End^ jaiih the Lord^ or Jirhovali •, which zSy wh'ch waSj and is to come. So here Ctinit is called Life, [w^cl eternal Life, which is fp ken of his Perfon, and r.niit iignify an eternal Perfon, wlio is L fe it ielf : For as the Fa- trjerhaih Life in himfelf^ fo he hith ['jvtu to the Son to have Life in himftlf. But ho/v hath ihe l^cirher Life in himlelf, but as an eternal uuderived Fountain? lo Chriil hath etcrn^J Life in hiiuklf. iV! 4 Mr. 1S4 Th^ Divinity of the Mr. Chuhh urges againft this Senfe, ' That by eternal * Life is not intended the Per(bn of our Lord, but the * Dodrine of eternal Life which he publiflied/ I anfwer, This feems not the Meaning of the Apoflle \ for how their Eyes had feen, and their Hands had handled the Word of Life, is not intelligible if referred to a Dodrine apd not to the Perfon, who is the very Word of God and internal Life *, who is our Life, as the Apoftle, fpeaking of the Perfon of Chrift, faith, When Chrifl^ who is our Life^ JJjall appear. And why Mr. Chubh (hould fly to a Trope, when the literal Conftruftion is confentaneous to the whole Current of the Scripture, I know not, except it be a Refol- ▼ednefs to the uttermoft of his power to oppofe Chrift. Mr. Chubh quotes divers Scriptures where he faith, ' Chrifl ' is frequently called Life, yea, eternal Life, not upon the * account of the Duration of his Being, but as he is the t Way to eternal Life.' j4nfw. Chrift's Perfon is called eternal Life, and his E- ternity is imply'd therein. John i. 4. In him was Life^ and the Ltfe was the Light of Men ^ is fpoken of the Perfon, not the Dodrine of Chrift. John 11. 25,26. / am the Rejltr- reEtion and the Life^ is fpoken of the Perfon of Chrift. And where Chrift is called eternal Life, when his Perfon is intended, as in the Text under confideration, there the E- ternity of the Perfon is imply 'd. As for other Quotations of Mr. Chubby where the words Life, and eternal Life, point not out a Perfon, but the Dodrine of Life ^ I only fay, that it oppofes not this Text, and they are nothing to the purpofe. But faith Mr. Cmhh^ whatever is eternal muft be felf- cxiftent. I anfwer. The EiTence and Deity of the Son is fo. There is but one Divine ElTencc to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, each of thefe Perlbns fubfifts in the felf-fatne felf-exiftent Eftence, tho in a different Mode, diftinguifti'd by their own diftind perfonal Properties. I John 5.7. There are three that bear record in Heaven^ the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghojl ^ and thefe three are One, * Here, faith he, becaufe the Father, Word, and Holy * Ghoft are (aid to be One, from hence it is inferred that * they are three co-ordinate Beings.' I confefs I do not like the terra Coordinate, thol frequently meet with it in Mr. Chhbby Writings, as apply'd to the higheft Beings my reaibn is, becaufe whatever is ordained or appointed to (bme Soft of God defended. 185 fome End or Work, rauft be appointed and ordained by fomc Superior, who hath Power to conftitute foroe things to be Caufes : but there is no Being above the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, that can fettle them as co-ordinate Caufes, and therefore I chule rather to call thofe Co-efficients in every thing they do. But I am not a Mafter of Languages or Arts ; and now I have (hewed my Diilike, let every one judge as feems meet to him. Firft, Mr. Chnhh feeras to make a doubt whether the Text be genuine, becaufe it is held to have little or no real Foundation in Antiquity, or even in theprefent Greek Manu- fcripts themfelves : I can only fay this, that if he difallovv the Teftimony, I have not fpoken with any that have fearched all the Greek Copies, that could inform me of this thing. But this I fay, had it not been found in fome Greek Copies, I fuppofe we had not had it in our Tranflation. And feeing the ArianVitxt^^ appeared fo early in the World, I am nut able to lay from how many Greek Copies they might ex- punge this Verfe, which is fo harmonious with the Context, that it feems to break the Coherence of the Chapter, if it be left out *, for the Scope of the Apoflle is to prove that Jefus Chrift is he on whom only our Faith ought to red, as the true Son of God, and Saviour, on whom our whole Salva- tion and Vidory over the World dependeth. That Jefus Chrift is this Son of God, the Apoftle undertakes to prove by two kinds of WitnefTes*, one from Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. The Heavenly WitnefTes to prove this are the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft : The Father witnefiTeth this from Heaven, buth at Chrift's Baptifm and Transfiguration, faying, This is my Beloved So?i. The Son hirafelf perpetually inculcateth that he is th? true Son of God. The Holy Ghoft, both before and after the Death of Chrift, hath many ways witnefTed the fame thing ^ as at his Baptifm, by his Defcent on him in Form of a Dove ^ after his Afcenfion, according to the Promife of Chrift, he defcended on his Apoftles. All which are a heavenly Tefti- mony that Jefus Chrift is the true Son of God, on whom we ought to depend : to fay nothing now of the other V/itnefs, who teftifies the fame on Earth. Novo^ faith the Apoftle, ifrvc receive the Witnefs of Men^ the Wiinejs of God is greater j for this is the Witnefs of God which he hath tcflified of his Son^ ver. 9. Where I obferve this Teftimony: of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, is called the Teftimony of God, and 'tis faid that they are one, viz., one God, exadly agreeing l86 The Divimty of the agreeing to our Hypothcfis, that the Father, Son and Ho- ly Spirit, are one God, or one Jehovah^ tho three Perfons. If any objed, that thenChrift tellifieth of himfdf ; it is no more than that he faith, I am one that bearethWitnefs of my fdj, and the Father which fent me beareth Witriefs of me. So then here we have the Teftimony of three frona Heaven, that Jefus is the Son of God, and thefe three are one God, called by the Apoftle the Teftimony of God. Now I will lock upon Mr. Chubh's Oppofition. HereMr. C^«^^ notes, ' That by the Term God, the A- * poftle means God the Father only, becaufe the Son is con- "^ ftdered as diilind: from God, and God is faid to beai* ^ Witnefs concerning him : For, faith he, this is the Wit- ' nefs that God hath teftified of his Son ^ and the joining * theie three together in the Evidence, cannot make thera ' three co-ordmate Beings/ - J arifwer. The Text faith, Thcfc three are one^ and fums up the Tertimony as the Testimony of God, therefore thefe three are one God. ' But, faith he, thefe three are one in Tedimony :* True *, but we have proved by multitude of Scriptures, that they areaUo one God, which is called here the Teftimony of God. ' But, faith Mr, Chiibhy by God here is intended the Fa- * ther, becaufe the Son is confidered as diiiind from God.' J anfwer^ Chriftians always confider him as diflmd, but not as divided •, had he been divided, he had not been one with the Father. But the Divine Perfons in the Deity are not divided, tho diftinguifhed by their perfonal Properties : And if Mr. Chubb wi!) have the Words, vi.z.. the Witnels of God, to be the Witnefs of the Father, our Hypothefis will admit it, -z/Zsl. the Father is called God y^^r lt,o')^v^ by way of Eminency, (as the Fonncaui and Origin ot the Son and Holy Ghoft ) who, as I faid, are all but one God. And for Mr. Chubb to infiil, that* the three that bear Re- cord in Heave-fi^ are not oi^e in r.umber, is but to bi^g the Queftion ^ and he is not one Iota nearer the Mark than he Was when he entied on the Qaeilion : for that three diiiind Perfons in number cannot be one in EiKnce and Deity, he hath not proved to beimpoAible, or that it is not a Truth. The Soul is diltinguiOiable into the inteliedive, f-nfitive, and vegetative Faculties •, thefe truly diilinguijliabie from eaj:h o- ther, that the one is not the other, yet but one Soul in Ef- fence uncompounded and indivihbie. And doth Mr. ChM cany Son of God defended, 187 carry a Trinity in Unity in himfclf, made after God's Image, and yet deny it of God, as impoffible? There isth-Sun, its Beam, and Heat *, three things plainly dillinguifliable in the Sun, yet but one Sun. Why then do Men oppofe a Trini;y ui the Deity, when To plainly revealed in the Scriptures, when yrc they muft allow a Trinity in Unitv m their very Seals, and in things obvious to their Senfes ? It is not the Arians deny- ing or cavilling about the Senfeof Scripture, that will main, tain their Hypothefis, or hurt ours •, but it muft be folid Proofs that are to be depended on, of which I have found Mr. ChM very fparing. I John 5. 20. This 16 the true God^ and etcrtial Life. Here manifeftly the Apoftle calls Chnll: the true God, and eternal Life, even as he did in the firft Chapter ift and 2d Verfes of this Epiftle. Read the Words p. 183. Mr. Ckthh's Anfwer is, ' That it may be proper to .^p- ' ply them to the Father \ yet if they arc apphed to the Son, ' they cannot fignify the fame as thatTerm, The o?ily true * God^ becaufe our Lord makes that to be applicable t(^ the ' Father only : John 17. 3. This is Life eternal^ rhn they 771 ly ' know thee the only true Gody and J ejus Chriji whom thoa ' M fent: I anfwer as before, The Father is often called the only- true God by way of Eminency^ as the Fountain of the Tri- nity, not exclufive of the Son and Holy Gholl, but inclu- five of them. It is enough for us that the Apoftle calls the Son the true God •, and it cannot rationally be fuppofed to be fpokcn of the Father: for why with fo great Care and Diligence fljould the Apoirle afTcrt the Father to be the true God, fee- ing there was never any Advetfary denied the Father to be true God ? IVeayCj faith the Apoflle, in him that is true '^ this is the true Gcd^ and} eterr'al Life : But who is eternal Life to the Saints? the fdme is the true God : Therefore JefusChrifl; is the true God. For the Son is often called eternal Life by St. Jo'rn^ us in I John I. I, 2*^ [See p. 185.] For he that hath the Son J hath Life :, but he that'h.ith not the Son^ hath not Life. Chrift therefore is the true God, and therefore God by Na- ture, and not God by Favour or Office, but the true God, in oppofition to all falfeG^ds, and nominal Gods only. If any grant that this cughc to be underftood of Chrift, yet fay that it cannot b- concluded b^nce that Chrift is G^d by Nature, becaufe he « r.ot eternal Life from himfeU, but i88 The Divinity of the but bath it from the Father, as himfelf witne/Tes, John 5. 26. Vor as the Father hath Life in him, fo hath he given to the Son to have Life in himfelf. So ai(b he hath not Deity from himfelf, but from the Father. Anf But can this hinder him from being God by Nature ? Do not our Children receive human Nature from their Pa- rents, and have it not from themfelvcs ? Are they not therefore iVlen by Nature ? Therefore to be from another, cannot al- ways be the Caufe why a Porfon is not of the fame Nature with him from whom he i«. * We conceive, faith Mr, Chuhh, p. lou if this was ap- * plied by the Apoftle to Chrifl: ■! (See how tremblingly he is brought to own it to be applicable to Chrift, that he is the true God :) ' If it be fo, why then he called him the ' true God, in oppofition to thole falfe Gods that had ap- * pear'd in the World :i' of which Mr. C^//^^'s created, non- felf-exiftent Dtity is one. This Chrifl:, the only-begotten Son of God, is the true God, and eternal Life. Rev. i^ 1 1, 17. / am Alpha and Omega, the Firfi and the Laji / am the Firfi and the Lafi. I will add to ihis Tef- timony of Chrift's Deity the 8th Verfe, which Mr. Chnbb o- verlooked as that which would not admit .^his Evafions ^ Jam Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending^ faith the Lord, or Jehovahy which is^ and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty, See p. 35- on Jfa. 44. 6. I note that thofe Words, which is, which was, and is to come, is the fame with / am, and is expreflive of the time part, prefent, and to come, and fo fignifies an eternal I am that 1 am, whereby the Eternity and Omnipotency of Chrift is fignify'd. But Mr. Chnhh would evade this fliining Teftimony of Chrift's Divinity, by faying, ' That Chrifl: being the firfl: ' and the lafl:, mufl[ be underflood exclufive of the Father, * for otberwife the Son would be before the Father, and all ' things would end ultimately in the Glory of the Son.* / anfwer. That the Father and Son are not two Gods, or Beings, as Mr. Chubb feigns ', but being eflentially one God, in that refpect to be the Alpha and Omega, the Firfi and the lafi, is predicated of each o«f them, not exclufive of the o- ther, but inciufively, they both being but one Deity, tho two Perfons. But Son of God defended, 189 Bat Mr. Chnhh faith to this effed, ' How can Chrift be * the End of all things, feeing when the End comes he will * deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father ? and * wh'in all things (hall be fubdued to him, then fliall the * Son alfo be fubjed to him that put all things under him, * that God may be all in all ^ i Cor. 15. 24/ / anfwer^ The Kingdom of Chrift is eternal. Lnh i. 33. j4nd he Jhall reign over the Honfc of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there fh all be no end, Dan. 7. 14. And there was given him Dominion, and Glory, and a Kingdom ^ that all Peo- ple, Nations, and Languages, Jhonld ferve him. His Domi- tJion is an everlajiing Dominion, which f})all not pafs away, and his Kingdom that which Jhall not be de/froy'd. ^ Now the Kingdom of Chriffc, which the Apoftie fpeaks of, that (hall be delivered up when the End comes, is Chrift's Mediatory Kingdom, to which an End will be put when he bath brought all the Eledto Glory. Then God fhall be all in all i then the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one true and eternal God, (hall reign to all Eternity. If the Arian faith, it (liould^feem that Chrift no more will reign when he delivereth up the Kingdom to the Father; I anfwcr. True, he will not reign as now, as Mediator, but he will reign as God with the Father, as Daniel and Lnke witnefTeth, for ever *, and his Kingdom is that which fhall not be deftroy'd. For to fay Chrifl: will no more reign, becaufe he delivereth up the Kingdom to the Father, is as true as if one fhould fay the Father doth not now reign,^ becaufe he hath delivered the Kingdom to Chrifl: j when, notwithftanding, it is faid, Jehovah Jhall reign over them in Momt Sion, from henceforth even for ever \ Mic. 4. 7. If Jehovah there is underftood of the Father, then, notwith- fiandingthat it isChrift's Kingdom, the Father will reign for ever and ever. If it be underftood of the Son, which I rather incline to, then Chrift is the true Jehovah. If there- fore this Kingdom, which the Father delivereth to Chrift his Son, is called, and is the Kingdom of the Father ; fo the Kingdom Chrift delivereth to the Father, he fo delivereth that he retaineth it himfelf \ becaufe the Father reigneth not without the Son, neither doth the Son reign without the Fa- ther : Therefore the Father and the Son, as one God, are that one Jehovah^ who is the Alpha and Omega, the Begin- ning and the Ending, the Almighty •, therefore the Son is co- eqaal and co cITentiaj wi(h the F'V,; ^^,