■frf-
W IL
f .? </^
Division I Ql^
N F W J E i^ 3 V V
EPLY
TrO THE
OBJECTIONS
. O F
Robert Nelfin, Efq;
Aqd of an '' .
Anonymous Author i'
Againft D^ CLARKKs Scri^^ure Doctrine of the Trinity. ^—
Being a COMMENTARY upon Fortj Seled Texts of Scripture.
To which is added,
J?i ANSWER'to the REMARKS
of the Author jof Some Confiderations ^concerning the Trinity, and the Ways of managing that Controverfy.
/— ^
By SAMUEL CLARKE, D. D. Redor or . St James's WJlmhifler, and Chaplain in Ordi- nary to Her Majefty.
Loudoji^ Printed for ya7ne5 Ktupton^ at the Crowti in St PauTs Church-Yard. 17 14. 1
A RET'LY to Mr NdCon. T O
ROBERT NELSONEici;
SIR,
THE Remarks uipon my Scrip- ture-DoBr'me of the Triyiity^ which you publilhed in your Life of the Right Reverend- BiJIjop BitU 5 and the Letter which you prefixed to a Book entitled. The Scripture-DoBrme of the mo ft Holy and Un- divided Trinity vindicated from the Mifn- terpretations ofD^ Clarke , are written v/ith fo much Candour and Civility, with fa much Fairnefs and Temper, that they may wsU become an Example to Clergymen and Others, of writing Controverfy in fuch a manner, as that Truth may by weighing Arguments on both fides be fully fearched after, and our common Chriftlanity fuifer nothing in the mean time through want of Meeknefs and Charity. The Book itfelf alfo is written with fo good a Spirit, and fo very diflFerent from any that have hither- to appeared, that though I think the Noti- ons it contains arc for the moft part unin- A 2 telligible,
WITHDRAWN
A REPLY
telligible, and the Arguments of fmall force, yet, upon account of the good Spirit wherewith it is written, and the particular recommendation you have been pleafed to give it, it has a juft claim to be confidered with all Fairnefs and Calmnefs,
J N your Life of the Right Reverend BiJIjop BitU^ the principal, and indeed the Only Confiderable Objedion you allege againft my Book, is •, that ahncft all my Citations life #/B:'out of that Learned Author are reprefe?ited ^^ ^'^^' in a very different View from That which the Author had certainly in writing thofe Paf- fnges -^ as are alfo the Citations out of the Fathers themfelves^ which Dr Clarke here met withy and hath accommodated to his own p2trpofe^ and That frecfuejitlj without fo ?m4ch as the lea ft Is otic e take?i of the Expli- catiojis and J?ifwers given to them by Bifhop Bull. This Objeftion, you are fenfible, I had indeavoured to prevent -^ by declaring beforehand^ that I cited Modern Authors and Fathers too, not with any intention to (liow what was in the whole the Opinion of thofe Authors :, (for the Qiaeftion was to be determined by Scripture only, and not by Human Authority ;,) but I cited them, only to fliow what hnportant Concejft- ons they were obliged to make •, even fuch ConceJ]wnSy2i.^ of Neceflity and in ftricl:-
nefs
to M^ Nclfon. 5
nefs of Argument inferred my Conchfwn^ whether the Authors themfelves made any fuch Inference or no. And This you do in- deed very juftly and fairly acknowledge. But ftill, notwithft^.nding this reafonable Ac- knowledgment, you contmue to allege,that7> yg. 532. is enough 1 0 have p^ewn what manner of Judg- ment we ought to make of D*" Clarke's Gta- tJons^ for they are generally applied much after the fame Manner and with the fame Views \ and you call it (in a lefs kind man- ner than ufual,) the DoBors ArtfidWay of fag, 7,26, citing Authors and Books ^ and infinuate th-it therefore my Qliotations are not much to be depended upon. That fometimes they are not indeed much to he depended upon ^ for K'. 525. knowing (as you fay) the Opinion or Judg- ment of any Writer -^ is very true, becaufe they were not brought for That Purpofe : But then they are very much to be depe?ided upon for another and far more material rea- fon, vi^. for knowing the Truth itfelf of Things. And in order to This End, they are always fo much the more to be depended itpon^ and the more to be regarded , as the Author, from whom they are cited, was upon the whole more different in his Opini- on, from what thofe particular Citations feem to exprefs. For Writers upon contro- verfial Points, feldom make more Concefli- ons in favour of any opinion different from their own, than the Weight of Truth and A -^ Real on
A REPLY
Reafon neceflarily extorts from them* Wherefore in citing and making Ufe of fuch Conceflions, there is no other Artful- nefs^ than that moft juftifiable one of draw- ing Arguments ftrong and conclufive from fuch Premifes, as even an Adverfary is of neceffity forced to grant. Nor needs it at all to be regarded, that fome of the Wri- ters, from whom fuch Citations are taken, do themfelves indeavour fometimes to draw Conclnfw7is very different. For in all Ar- gumentation whatfoever, it is well known that the Bremifes only are of any Weight ^ and that Conclufwns always (land for no- thing, except the Reader finds himfelf com- pelled to draw them, as well as the Writer. Neverthelefs, though the Truth of the Scriptitre-DoEiriyie does not at all depend upon it, yet, for the fatisfaftion of fuch as are apt to pay a greater deference to Au- thority than is reafonable, I (hall not omit taking this occafion to alFure you, that, as far as I am able to judge from the whole Courfe and Tenour of the Writings of the Antients, AH the pafTages cited in my whole Book from the following Principal Writers, V2Z^. Clemens Romamis^ Ignatius^ Juflin^ Ire- n^iis^ Orjgen^ ]Slovatta7i and Ertfehius^ are not only particular Conceflions, but do ex- prefs what feems moreover to have been ii^ the whole the real Sentiments of the refpe- <Sive Writers themfelves : And in the Firfl
Part
to M^ Nelfon. y
Part o£ 7ny Book^ the Paflages cited but of Other both Antient and Later Writers con- cerning/^/zrr/V///^^;' Texts ^ whatever different Opinions the fame Authors perhaps elfe- where contend for, yet feein always to ex- prefs their real Sentiments, what was in Their Days underftood to be the meaning of thofe particular Texts.
Your next Objedion is as follows : D' Clarke ajferts exprefsly^ that the Scripture^ P-^g- 325. when it mentions God ahfolutely and by way of E??iinence^ means the Perfon of the Fa- ther 5 as likewtfe when it mentioneth the One God, or the^Onlv God: though he coitld not^ after having read the Defenfe of the Nicene Faith, be ignorant that this was contrary to the Mind of the Catholick Fa- thers. Now, how contrary foever This Aflertion had indeed been to the Mind of the Catholick Fathers^ or of Any other Wri- ters whatfoever , yet it would neverthelefs have been moft neceffarily^ and mo ft evident- ly True '^ becaufe it is a Matter of Fad-, that fliows itfelf in full Light to every Mans own Eyes at the hrft Sight , there appearing, in my Collection, Chap, i. Seed. I ayid 2, more than 900 Texts^ wherein either the word [_GOD'] abfolutely, or the title [0?ie God^~] is, in the exprefs words of the Text itfelf, put in coiitradiflinBion^ not to the Creature^ or Falfe Gods^ but to A ^ either
8
Patrem (ohm Jefu Cbrifti cffe Vmm ilium Venm Deum-^ {] de ^itrM prxrogaciva, qua ipfe Solii^ a Seipfo Dew ^erw cfl-, inrei.'igatur j veriffimum cfTe illud fatemur. B.</// De- Zen/. Pro£m. §. 4.
y^ REPLY
either f/;^ S^^^, or the Spirit of God, or Both. And This, the Author himfelf of the Defenfe of the Nicene Faith, who (you expected) (hould h^ve convinced me of the contrary, does mod exprefsly acknowledge. That the Father of Jefits Chrift (fays he) is Alone the One True God -^ if it be im- derflood of That Prehem^- nence oft\\t Father, by which He Alone is of Himfelf \_by Selfexifte?ice~] the True God 5 we eonfefs that This Jjfertiofi is moft true. And agqin : We readily gra?it, that for this Caiife the Father \the Father Alone^ fo he expreffes it in the be- ginning of the very fame Sentence,^ is mofl nfiially filled properly [ox peculiarly'^ the True God, both i?i the Hely Scriptures, and in the Wrifmgs of the Antients ^ efpecially where the Divine Perfo?is are men- tioned Together. And again : The Ante-Nice?ie Writers com- monly call God the Father, by way of difUriFtion, foine- ti?nes GOD abfolutely, fotne- times The One God, fome- times The God and Father of All, (according to the Texts, I Cor. 8, 4 ; -Eph. 4,
6 ;
Atque eadem de causa ap- pfl'anorem Veri Dei, P A T R I fAp^ils turn in Sacris Lireris, mm in Vcterum Scriptis,pr2C- fercim qaocics Divi?.x Pcr- fons (Imul ncminancur, pro- prie tribui. Defenf. Se^K 2. cap. 3, §.10.
Scripcoribus Ante-Nicrtnis folennc eft, Veum Par rem JicDceiTixJof appellare nunc Veum abfolure, nunc Vnum ilium Dcum, nunc De^m (^ Fatrem omnium, (juxta 5crip- tura?5 I Cor. 8, 4 ; Eph. 4, 6 ; fob. I 7, 3 •,) quia fcilicec Solu^ Pater a /> Dei4i ejl, fi'i- U5 auccm Deus de Deo, De- fenj. SctL 4, cip. 1, § 2.
to Mr Nelfon. ^
6 *, Joh. 17, 5 5) Namely^ becanfe the Fa- ther Alone is God of Himfelf, \ly Self-ex- iflence Q but the Son^ is only God of God. This is very plainly the Doftrine of Scrip- ture^ whatever had been the Opinion of the CathoUck Fathers. But neither, in Truth, is This AfTertion at all contrary Q\s you conceive it to be) to the Mind of the CathoUck Fathers *, much lefs, from the Defe?ife of the Nicene Faith doth it appear (as you fuppofe,) to be contrary to the Mind ofthofe Fathers. For however the Fathers after the Council of l>^ice exprefs them- felves at other times, and whatever opini- ons they profefs 5 yet in This Point, even They^ (as well as the Antienter Writers who fpake more uniformly,) generally con- firm my AfTertion in the fulled and cleareft Terms that are podible to be ufed. As you may find in above 50 palfages cited in my Second Part^ §. 9 and 1 1 -^ And as the Au- thor himfelf of the Defenfe of the Nicene Faith fully acknowledges, both in the Place I juft now cited, and in many other paf- fages : As, where he fays
that the AntientS^ hecai-ife the Veceres Deum Fatrem, ea
rarnerw roeujigm^ i.anje, ^tor, & Fons Fiiii ilc, Vn>'m
.Author and Fountain of the ii^^m (2^ Solum Dcam appcl-
Son ' made no Scruple to caU '/^re ^on funt verici. Sic cnim
TIT- vT-1 /A 1 r\ \ ip'i I acres AV<£«/cKordiL<nrLir
tlim Ihe One and Only luum Symbolum ^ Credmius
God 1 For thus even the Ni- '" '^"^'" ^T> ^fT^'""
"^ T7 1 1 r 1 1 nipotentem. Detcni. Sect 4,
cene tat hers t be mj elves be- cap i, §. 6.
to A REPLY
gin their Creed j I believe in One God, the
Father Almighty, &c. And
CsaSkm, Audorcm Fiiii ; tp- thcrs after the Council of
foniq; ftfca Parrem, Vnum JsJice, make 710 fcrupk tO
^ J. y?//^ r^^ r ather r^<? Origin^
the Caufe^ the Author of the Son • nay to call the Father therefore The One God. The Evidence of This whole matter is fo exceedingly clear, that there is no poffifaility of evading it otherwife, than
ftH^^^' fay fuppofing (as your '^ Anonymous Friend does upon the Authority of Tertullian^^ that the Son is included in the word [Fa- ther^ as well as in the word [God -^ and that, when in our Prayers we (ay Our Father^ we by thofe words make applica- tion to the Son^ as well as to the Father : Than which, nothing (I think) can be more unintelUgihle ^or can introduce a greater Confiifwn into our moft folemn Ads of Di- vine VVorftiip.
Ug, 525. But you add : T]oere is a whole Chapter in Iren5;us, [lib. 3, cap. 6,^ purpofely to fjew^ that Chri/l is in Scripture exprefsly and abfoliitely called God j and that he is the One and Only God in the Unity of the Farhe/s Sub fiance or Effence ^ a7id Very God, in oppofition to all thofe that are im- properly called God in the facred Writings. A Reader, that pleafes to look into Irenxus^
will
to M' Ndfon. II
will very much wonder at your citing this Chapter of his , which, inftead of contain- ing what Tou think you find there, does on the contrary very clearly and fully exprefs the dodrine in the fame manner as / hav^ done 5 infomuch that there are Few mora remarkable Teftimonies in all Antiquity, of the opinion of the Primitive Church in this whole matter. It is a large Chap- ter 5 and the Defign of it throughout, is to explain how Chrift is tritly God and LW, and yet that at the fame time the Father is ftriaiy and emphatically the One and 0«/v God. The whole Chapter is worth every learned perfons perufal : But the Sii?n of it, is This. When the Scripture fpeaks of Falfe Gocisy it always does it, fays he [_cum aliquo add'it amenta ^ figjilficatione^ per qua?n ofiendujitur non ejfe dii^ with the Addition of fome w^ord which (hows them to be indeed 1:^0 Gods •, as when it calls them the Gods of the Ge?itiles^ or the like : But whenever it ufes the word [God or Lord~] abfolutely, and without any fuch additional explication , then (fays he) it always means a perfon v/ho is truly and really God or Lmd \ That is to fay, either God the Father Qqui dominatur omnium^ who ntleth over All^ or the Son \j\m do- minium ACCEPIT a Patre fuo omnis conditionis] who RECIEVED from his Father dofninion over the whole Creation :
According
17 A KETLY
According to the following Texts (fays he^ Pf, 1 10, I, Set thou on my right hand^ till I make thine Enemies thy footjlool -^ And Gen. 19, 24, The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah Ftre and Erimfione from the Lord ^ that is, the Son, faith he, [not in his humane Nature, but in his State before his Incarnation,] RECIEFED Power from his Father to judge the Sodo- mites, [a Patre ACCEPISSE poteftatem ad judicandum Sodomitas,"] for their wicked- nefs : And Heb. i ;> 8, 9,
t The Reverend Vr Welts Thy Throne, 0 f GOD, is contends, that the word, (?o(/, /, -^ j ^7
[C=3»n^i3 in chisfirftpart* fi^ ^'^'^^^ ^^^ ^'^^r, thou
of the Text, means r/jef«^/7?>- haft loved righteoiifjtefs,
as welJ as the Son. Letter to fh.^.f^y^ Q n 7) ....,, THV Dr Clarke, pag. 4. What ! Is ^j^^f^pre U U U, even 1 HI
chc Throne of God the h'ather UOD [the GOD of Him therefore /or ever and ever, ^J^q Jg himfeif (tiled G^^ in becauic God, even His God, t r • r -\ 1 j
anointed him, i^c/ This the foregomg verlej hath would have been thought very anointed thee I Here rfays
ftrange , in the Primitive , x , o - - ^ • 1
Times. h<^) the Spirit gives the
Name God, both to the Son who was anointed, and to the Father who anointed him. The Argument therefore of Iremms, is plainly This: The Gods of the Heathen are Falfe Gods, or no Gods at all : God the Father is True God or Lord^ bccaufe he originally. Rwfcr/j over All: The Son alfo is True God or Lord, becaufe he has Truly and Really RECIEVED from his Father Divine Power and Do?mnion over the whole Creation. But ftill the Father
Alone
to M^ Nclfon.
Alone Is ftriftly and properly the One and Only God. For fo he concludes his whole Argument : / pray to Thee^ 0 Lord^ the God of Abraham^ the God of Ifaac^ and the God of Jacobs the F AT RE ^ of our Lord
Jefus Chrift ^ who haft made Heaven
andMarth, and Rule ft over All -^ who art [Solus & Verus Deus] the ONLT and the True God^ above whom there is 710 other God : Who [* prster dominum noftrum Je- fum Chriftum, dominitione quoq^ dominaris Spirit us Sancti,"] he fides [that thou gov er- ne ft hy~\ our Lord Jefus Chnft^ rule ft alfo by the Dominion of the Holy Spirit : Grant that every o?ie that readeth this my Book^ may Qcognofcere Te, quia Solus Deus es^ hiow Thee to be the 0 VL T God^ d^c. And he alleges finally That Text of St. Panl^ i Cor. 1,4, We know that an Llol is nothi?ig in the world^ and that there is None other God but One ^ For though there be that are Called
^ Thefe words are obfcure, and feem not to have been well underftood by the latin Tranfiatcr, and are perhaps corrupt : But however they be underftood, they plainly re- fer to the Supremacy of the Father, with regard both to the Son and Holy Spirit. The later Editions of Len^Ui read this paffage, per dominum nojlrum Jej'um Chriftum^ dominatior.em [or donationem'] qmq, dona Spkitus San^i. But this, though it makes Senfc in it felf, yet does not at all fuit the con- nexion of the Authors Whole Dilcourfe^ Neither does the word quoq; come in at all better with the Benedi^ines d^mi* tiatianem, than with Dr Grabes donationem. The eld Edi- tions, though corrupt, yet in al! probability retain fome- thing chat is nearer to the Authors true meaning.
Cods^
14 AREP^r
Gpds^ whether in Heaven or in Earth ^ yet to Us there is but One God^ The Father^ of who7n are all things^ and we in Kim , and One Lord^ Jefus Chrift^ by whom are Alt things^ and we by Him. You could not have picked a Chapter out of the whole works of Irenmis^ or indeed out of all An- tiquity, more contrary to your own purpofe, or more pertinent to ?nine.
But however This might be ^ CERTAIN fitg. 325. it; is, you fay, that D^ Clarke, who had fa ample a CoUeHion of Tejiimonies concerning the Trinity before him in this Trearife [of Bp. Bulls,3 as well as in Petavius ^ hath not made That Ufe of them^ which this indefatigable and judicious CoUeElor j^Bp. Bull"] did 5 cr which 7night have been ex- pected from a Perfon offo great a CharaSer in the Church and learned world, as D^ Clarke. That I did not make the Sa?ne Ufe of my Coileclions^ that is, did not draw from them the fa?ne Conchtfwns, which fome ve- ry learned and judicious Men had formerly done '^ is indeed CjE'iiTy^ /2V, but 7io part of the Queflion between us. But, that I did not make That Ufe of them, which might reafonably have been expeBed from the Character you are pleafed with great Civility to beftow upon me ^ this, tt might have been expected a Perfon of fo great a (^hara&er in the leariied world as Mr Nel--
fon.
to M^ Ndfon. I^
foil, fiiould not have Concluded^ but have left to the Reader to judge whether it fol- lowed from his Premifes or not.
The Lift you have drawn up of the Paf- f^ir 321.
fages cited by me out of the learned Bp.BuIl^ and ranked in Columns referring both to His book and Mine^ that the Reader may atleifure compare and confider them ^ is a very fair and reafonable Method of fetting that matter in a true Light. There are in this Lift of yours, Thirty-eight Pafla- fig- 55^" ges, from which you leave the learned to judge what Conclufion rightly follows: And fo / alfo am willing to leave them. Only, fince you have thought fit, as a Spe- cimen, to make fome fliort Remarks upon the firft Four of them ^ you will give mc leave briefly to confider thofe Remarks.
The firft Fajfage^ you fay, is a Remark p^i- 329. ofBp, Bull, upon ctxi?Lm words {?/ Origen, wherein the Bp. has fljown (againft Hue- tins) that Origen /pake of Chriji as an Ex- emplar in his Himia?ie Nature^ and not with refpeS to his Divine "Nature : And not the lea ft word is faid^ that can juftly he inter- preted of the S071S Inferiority to the Father in Nature^ but rather the contrary : For he there fieweth, by clear and undoubted Teftt- tnojiies taken from the Book againft Celfus, that Origen did hold and teach the Son to be very God, Uncreated, Immortal, Immuta- ble,
\6 A REPLY
ble, d^c. I have abridged your ipords^ but I amperfvvaded your Candour will not com- plain that I have in the leafl altered your Serife. Now in every part of this Rea- foning of yours, there is (I think) fome- thing defective. For how many Other Attributes and PerfetVwns foever, Origen in his Book afcribes to the Son -^ yet unlefs he afcribed Supremacy alfo, (which he no where does, but on the contrary every where exprefsly and with great caution ex- cludes it,) this cannot at all aifed the Quef- tion : See my Scripture-doSrine^ pag. 359 and 16 6* And though he had indeed in Other clear and tmdouhted pajjages (which yet he no where has^ ailerted the Son to be Supreme as well ns the Father 5 yet it would not at all follow (unlefs Or'igeji were a Writer infallibly confident with himfelf,) that he did not interpret the particular text referred to, in the manner that I affirmed him to interpret it. And though Bp. Bull does indeed indeavour to fhow, that Origen in the place here referred to, fpeaks of Chrift as an Exemplar in his humane Na- 5eemy tuie-, yet he exprefsly acknowledges [7? Scripture- daremus Origenem ibi loqui de Chrijio qua- d^oarwe,^. ^^^^^j. j)^^^^. ^y^^ — — j^^^^j^ ^nhius veEle ed rati-
one Patri primas trihuere potuit^ that if it he granted that Origen there fpeaks con- cerning Chrift as God^ yet 'as deriving
^-from the Fountain of the Father^ he might
rightly^
5'
to Mr Nelfon. 17
rightly^ even in this fenfe^ yield the prehe^ minence to the Father : Which acknowledg- ment is all that I cited him for ^ and there- fore it ought not to be fuggefted that I had cited him^unfairly. As to the dillindlion you allege, that here is not the leafl Word faid^ that canjitfily I?e interpreted of the Son's Inferiority to the Father in NATURE^ but rather the contrary : I fh^U not contend with you about metaphyfical Words ^ which fince / have conftantly avoided becaufe of their Abftrad and Ambiguous Signification, j^w (hould not have chofen to ufe them in reprefenting my Senfe. Bi(hop Bull ex- prefsly owns the P erf on of the Son to be, in his Higheft Capacity, fuhordinate to the Per- fon of the Father : Which is a Notion ve- ry tJitelligible, (whatever be the Nature, Subftance or Eflence of either 0 and is all (I think) that the Honour of God and the Whole Doctrine of Scripture obliges us to contend for. The Word, Vature, (^s it fignifies the Nature of any Perlbn, abftraft from the Perfon himfelf,) is a Metaphyfical Term, of great Ambiguity and Obfcurenefs, and of no Ufe that I know of in any Qiieftion, but to introduce more Difficul- ties by dark Exprejfions^ than are really found in the Things thernfelves.
The next Paffage^ you fay, cited by 'D>Hg^^\^. Clarke, isno more for an Inferiority of "^^tmo. in the Son, than the frft is -^ the plain Mean-
18 A KEf Lr
ing of it beings that Chrift appearing to
the Holy Men under the Old Tejlament^ recei- ved from them divine Honours^ and was wani- fefled to them by the moslHigh Name of God. M^ Bull fir flprovethd^c. — And there is no- thing in this whole Method^ nor in any particu- lar Argument under it^ which doth tend in the lea ft to favour fitch an Inequality of NA- TV R E in Father and Son^ as is included hi That Scheme which it is brought to fup- hecmv P^^'^' The paffagc here referred to, are s^crjpture- thofe words of the learned Bp. &///, where- in he declares and approves the opinion of the Antient Fathers, that the A?tgel of the Lord (Ads 7, 30,) which appeared to A^^- fes in the Bufli, and faid, / am the God of thy Fathers^ was the Son appearing in his Fathers Name. Now fince the Scripture every where reprefents the Father^ as ab- folutely Invifible -^ and thofe Antient Wri- ters, whofe Opinions Bp Bull cites and ap- proves, always fnppofe it impious to im- agine that the S^ipreme God and Father of AlltvcY appeared vifibly in his own Perfon-^ the Inference I defigned fhould be drawn from hence, is, that the Perfon of the Son is Suhordmate to the Perfon of the Father^ whofe Angel cr Meffe'nger he is, and iU' whole Name and hy whofe Miffion he ap- pears. All this , the learned Bp. makes no icruple to grant •, and therefore 'twas to iiaifreprefentation of his words, to cite
them
to JM^ Nelfon. i^
thera as granting it. Concerning the Me- taphyfical and obfcure Notion of NA- TURE indeed ^ as the Scripture "^ no vvhere^v see be mentions it, fo neither have / any where low, the' drawn any confequence at all concerning ^^^^ °" it. And what Notion the learned Biihop ^ * '^' ^* had of that matter, was nut my bufinefs to inquire -^ fince my Scheme was entire, without entring into that metaphyfical part :, and, whatever was his Notion in other refpefts, yet That which I cited him as granting, he did exprefsly intend to grant.
The Third pajffa^e^ you fay, is certainly ]>ng. 531. no better applied^ tha?i the fanner -^ the De- fign of that whole Chapter from whence it is taken^ being to anfwer a principal Ob- jeBion^ which had even fbocked M^' Bull himfelf for a good while ^ that would infer a Differ erice in the divine nature of the Son from that of the Father^ the one Manifefl- abky the other Not fnanifefable. To which I anfwer as before : whatever was the De- fign of the whole Chapter, yet the Paffige cited hj me is neither mifreprefented norS^^'ny mifapplied, becaufe the Author in That ;/^^f.-^^^' paflage exprefsly intended to grant, whatp^^. us. I cited him as granting.
The Fourth pafjage^ [which is as fol- lows ;, Qjwd Origenes in loco citato dicit^ Filium etiam qua Dens ^/?, hoc ejl\ Dens ex
Deo^ Patre rmnorem effe ^ plani: Catho-
licim efje^ atq-^ etiam a Patribus^ qui pcjl B 2 Nicanu/n
20 A KE<PLr
tskAniim Concilhmi Arianam h^refm acemme
tnipngndrnnt ^ defeiifum oftendemus.
?. e. " What Ongen affirins in the place " before-cited, viz>. that the Son, even as " he is God, (that is, God of God,) is
" Lefs than the Father^ this we
" fliall fhow to be very Catholick, and " maintained even by the Fathers After " the Council of l>!ke^ who moft ftrongly '' oppofed the Arian Herefy ". Bp. Bulls Defeiife of the Nicene Faith^ SeB. 2, chap. I^i 331 9' S ^^'l This Fofirth p^^ffage, ycu fay, feemetb huleed to be very much to the Pitr^ pofe \ and every one that reads it as it is cited ^ and will not he at the pains to confult either what follows it^ or what is there diftinBly referred to^ may he eaftly led to tlfrnk^ that our Author [Bp. Bull^ was not a Defender^ hut an Underminer of the Ni- cene Faith ^ by maintaining the Son^ even AS HE IS (30 D^ to he LESS than the Father : TFbich though it he moft trite in a certain fenfe which He hath explained^ in ee-formity to Frimitive Tefli monies^ and to the Confejfion of the Council of 'Nice itfelf as He is God of God :, yet is both diame- trically oppofite to his plain Meanings and to what he defended for the Catholick Faith with fo rnuch flrength^ if thereby it he itn- der/lood that there is Greater and Lefs in the divine ISature and Eflhice. What the meaning is of Greater and Lefs in Ahflracl
met?.phyfical
to Mr Nelfon. 2 1
metaphyfical Votions^ which have no real Exiftence, fuch as are Mature and Ejfence^ I confefs I undcrftand not. But that the So?i^ the InteUigent Agent or Perfon him- felf, is in his Higheft Capacity Siibordinate to the Perfon of the Father • this the learn- ^^^,^y
1 T^ • '1 1 -1 rr -J Scripture"
edBiihop does, m toe paliage now cited, ^'o.r/r/ne, mod exprefsly grant , and nothing that he pag. 161. has faid concerning the obfcurer Notions of Nature 5nd EJfeiice^ in the Other parts of his Book to which both You and the Au- thor himfelf refers us, does in any wife revoke fo plaiii and intelligible a Conceflion. All the reft of the paflages which I cited out of this Learned Writer, you leave to the Judgment of the Reader, without ma- king any further Remarks upon them : And / alfo am willing there to leave them : Behig fully perfwaded, that any careful and intelligent Reader, who fliall give him- felf the Trouble to compare them, will find I have nowhere mifreprefented the Senfe of the Author : All the Citations be- ing fo many plain Conceflions, which he really intended to make in the manner I have reprefented them ^ though he did not indeed always draw fuch Inferences from , them, as / think follow by juftandnecef- fary Argumentation. And the like is to be underftood of my Citations out of the Later Fathers^ and out of fuch other Wri- ters^ as were not of the fime opinion with B 3 1^1^^
22 A R EF LT
me In the whole of this Controverfy. In which it is ftill always to be remembred, that not the uncertain Opinions of fallible Men, but the Authority of infpired Scrip- ture only, is the Rule by which our Judg- ment muft finally be determined.
JN your Letter prefixed to the Book en- titled, The Scripture-doBrine of the moft holy and undivided 'Trinity -^ Your defiring
^^H. 7- that this whole matter fnay be jif ted into ac- cording as it deferves^ and the Evidence of Truth may determine it for the ftrongeft fide :
tag, 14. Your fairly acknowkdgins;, that to the Go- fpel and to the Teflimony the Appeal is made^ and there let it he determined -^ and that All rnnfl commend the Deftgn of tracing the Ori- ginals of our moft holy Faith with Caiidour and Impartiality^ and of moft ftriElly cleavi?ig to the fine ere Revelation of Divine Truth r
fag, 20. Your profefTing, that if we ivould avoid rurming into Herefy and Erroiir^ we are ob- liged to have recourfe to the Rule itfelf^ and alfo to take in the be ft Helps for the under^
f^^. 22. Jlandijig this Rule : Your fully agreeing^ that this Matter ought to be examined thoroughly on all fides ^ by a ferious Study of the whole Scripture^ and by taking care that the Explication he coifijlent with itfelf
2)1
to M' Nclfon. 2 2
in every part : Your candidly allowing, that certainly the T>efign of dige fling with care pag. 22. and pams under proper heads the Texts of Scripture which relate to this DoBrine^ is very commendaMe -^ and then drawing itp a Scheme of the Whole ^ and reducing and ex- plainhig it^ in a great number of particular and diflinB Propofttions : Your declaring, that there is no fufjicient Reafon in your p/rg. 2^. Opinion^ for any Lear7ied Perfoft who inay think me miflaken^ to treat me a?2grily and in the Spirit of Popery , as if we were not to ufe our own Uiiderflandings in Matters of Religion^ as well as in other Matters j but ?Huft always plead for what Motions happen at any time to prevail^ as if they were Therefore true becaufe they prevail : And your wijljing that the Spirit of Meeknefs pag. 25. a?id ChriftiaJiity did more univ erf ally inflit- ence the Management of all our Difputes both Religious and Civil: In all thefe Inftances, Your Fairnefs and Juflice can never fuffici- ently be commended :> And the Perfonal Eftee7n you are pleafed to exprefs for Me^ p.?g. 15. is more than perhaps will by fome be thought excufable. Neverthelefs, fince in the other parts ot your Letter, though the Whole be indeed written with an excel- lent Spirit, yet there are fome particulars wherein I cannot but diifer from you in opinion ^ I know you will not be difpleafed
B 4 nor
24 A REPLY
nor take it at all amifs, if I freely comma- nicate my Thoughts to you thereupon.
In the firft place, the mention you make
fag, s', of drawing in Authors and Authorities to
fpeak that which we are certain enough they
could never mean^ feems to refer to the Ob-
jedtion you had before made, in the Life
of Bipop Bnll^ concerning my manner of
quoting Him and other Writers. To which
Objedion I have already anfwered at large
See above, above , vi^z>* that fuch Conceffions^ as any
t^g' 4- Writer is by the Weight of Truth obliged
and does exprefsly mean to grant^ however
he may not perhaps mean to draw the fame
Inferences from them as I do ;> fuch Concef
ftons^ far from being unfair Citations^ are
of all others the ?no[l pertinent Teflimonies
that can be alleged in favour of any AlTer-
tion vvhatfoever.
The CG7nmendation you give the Author ■pag. 9. whofe Book you publifli, viz. that he has applied the Rules of Criticifm not Againfl hut For the faith ^ of which the Catholick Church is in fofjeffion ^ feems not altogether agreeable to that exact hnpartiality^ which you exprefs in many other parts of your Letter. For the thing you here commend him for, is his contending for an Opinion, upon account of its being (or being vulgar- ly fuppofed to be) a Common one. (Which
Argument,
to M'' Nelfon.
Argument, you well know, holds equally in A!/ Religions^ and particularly in that of the Church of Rome with the greateft Advantage, who allow None to be Mem- bers of the Cathohck Church but Them- felves.) Whereas a good Writer ought not to intend beforehand to apply the Rules of Criticifm for or againft any thing , but to find, by ufing the right Rules of Criticifm in underftanding the Scripture, what Do- drine is true or falfe, and confequently what opinions he ought to declare for or againfl. How far I myfelf obferved this Rule, the candid Reader will judge, by obferving that I not only omitted none of the Texts which Others had alleged, but moreover mentioned fome Texts feemingly againft me, (fuch as Litke i •, i6, 17-, See Scriptitre-doBrme^ fag. 84 j) which 1 could not find that the Writers en the other fide of the queftion had taken any notice of for Themfelves,
There are^ (you fay, p. 9,) about Forty Texts^ upon which the main ftrefs of D'" ClarkeV Theory depends^ that are here exa- mined^ What Advantage your learned Friend can make of thefe Forty Texts, will appear in the SequeL But had he been able to prove ever fo ftrongly, that the Truth of my Theory did not at all follow from thefe Forty Texts , yet it would have
availed
25
2^ A REP tr
availed him nothing. For I alleged, be- fides thefe, above 500 other Texts, of which he takes not the leaft Notice, in which All that I contend for is as clearly exprelfed, as any thing can be expreffed in words.
What you allege (pag. 19,) concerning the Wounds which D^ Clarke'j- Book may have given his Another the Churchy (which has been fo Ki7id to him^ pag. 9 5) is alfo what I cannot perfedly reconcile with the other parts of your Letter. The Ktndnefs which has been fhown to me both in other refpeds, and in That likewife which I guefs you had in your Thoughts, I acknowledge mod readily with all gratefulnefs : And God forbid that I fhould ever, fo much as by Accident, much lefs by Defign, give any Wound to the Church : For Wo be to him^ by whom (even though it be but through Carelefsjiefs only,) any Offence cofnetk But fince you with all fairnefs ac- knowledge, and the Church irfelf con&^ntly declares, that to the Gofpel and to the Te/ii- mony the Appeal inufl always be made -^ that is, that the Scripture is the o?tly Rule of Truth in Matters of Revelation *, I cannot imagine upon what ground you can fuppofe a careful Examination into the Whole Do- ctrine of Scripture, made with Sobriety and Serioufnefs, with Modefty and all pof-
fible
f^g' 14'
to M' Nelfon. 27
fible Decency, is givhig Wounds to the Church. On the contrary, it feems to Me one of the greateft pofiible Expreffions of true Zeal and Concern for That Churchy Vvhich is to be gloriom^ not haimg fpot or wrinkle or any fiich things but holy and without blemijh j and one of the Befl Me- thods, if not the Only effectual one, of healing, rather than inlarging^ the Wounds of the vifthle Church '^ that every one con- tribute, as much as in him lies, towards making the Scriptures of God, in reality and in Effeft, as well as in Profeffion, the only Standard of faith and PraBife -^ and that all Opinions, and Explications of opi- nions, be Perpetually compared with and tried by That uncontefted Rule, To which purpofe you y our f elf have excellently dif- courfed, in fome parts o^BiJJjop Bull's Life.
You will give me leave from a PaflTage which I meet with in your Letter a little pag, 24^ lower, to obferve how ftrange and unac- countable an Influence the Ufe of Meta- phyfical and Scholaftick Terms fometimes has upon the Underftandings even of Wife and Good Men. The Divine Occonomy of Father, Son^ and Holy Ghofl, IN THE UN ITT OF THE DIVINE ES- SENCE^ is taught us, you fay, by our excellent Chwch in her mo ft pub lick a?jd an- thentick ABs^ and is the Common Faith both
of
28 A REPLY
of Vroteflants and Papifts^ or the Common Salvation as delivered in all the Churches Reformed and Unreformed. A Notion ex- preiTed with fuch Solemnity as This, is what an ignorant and unprejudiced perfon, hearing it thus deHvered, would immedi- ately exped to find in every page of his Bible, and of all Antient Chriftian Au- thors, and in every part of the Forms now ufed in the Church : Whereas, in Truth, both the word \El]ence~] itfelf, and the Phrafe [jn the Unity of the Divine Effence^ are merely Scholaftick and Metaphyfical Terms, of very uncertain Signification, (as any one will find, when he indeavours to declare what he means by them *,) not Once found in the whole New Teftament, nor in the Orthodox Fathers of the Firft Ages, nor in any part of the Articles or Liturgy of the Church of England^ which are its tnofl pithlick and aiithe7itick AHs. Now of What Ufe can the introducing fuch new Terms be ? For either they have no deter- minate Signification at all : Or elfe they are intended to exprefs the fame Dodrine, which is taught in Scripture ;> And then, why could not That Doftrine have been as well and better expreft by you in thofe fame words, which the Wifdom of God thought moft proper to exprefs it ni > Or elfe, laftly, they exprefs fomething diffe- rent from what is taught in Scripture •, and
then
to M^ Nelfon, 29
then they are very bad and dangerous ex- preffions indeed. Concerning This matter nlfo^ yon your felf have difcourfed moft ex- cellently, in your Life of Bijhop Bull -, and fliown with all Strength and Clearnefs the fiaifchief of fuch Scholaflick and Syftematkal Terms, in the paffages referred to in the Conclufion of my Letter to Dr Wells.
In the paffage next following in your Letter, ■ I cannot but obferve, that by your chajiging your Expreffion in one and the pag. 25: fame Sentence, you infenfibly drop the whole Force of the Argument you intended to make ufe of. For when you fay, many Learned and Good Men apprehend me, Vot to have reprefented the True Scripture-do- Brine of the Trinity^ hut to have fubftituted in its room another of my own^ Againfl — — (Again ft the True Scripture-doBrine^ your Argument required you to fay \ But in- ftead of Thar, you only fay) A^ainft the True Apoflolical TRADITION of that DoBrine] and the COMMON INTER^ PRETATION of the Scriptures thraugh- out all the Ages of the Church of Chrift. Now, againft Tradition^ and againft com- mon Interpretation^ is againft 710 body can tell what. For, other Apoftolical Tradition^ than what is delivered in Scripture, there is None to be found that can at all be de- pended upon 5 and cojumon Interpretation
fignifics
^o A RE P Lr
fignifies as rrnny different Doclrines. as there are or ever have been different Churches in the World. As I have (hown at large in my Letter to D"^ Wells.
The Excufe, which you (who know well how to write with the greateft Tem- per jow'fdf) are willing to make for Others who write without That Spirit of Meeknefs aiid Chriflianity^ is a very charitable one ^ fag. 24, vi'Z, that they think they obey the Apo- 25> 2!^. Jlolical In'jwiBion of Co?itenJi?ig Earneftly for the Faith. But This, though it will indeed excufe much Zeal^ yet it will not excufe Wrath and Uncharitablenefs. For, the Wrath of Man worketh not the Right e- cufnefs of God. And, as fir as I have been able to obfcrve, thofe perfons have always been in proportion mofl hot and angr)\ vvhofe Doclrine has been leafl agreeable to Scripture^ and who have been much lefs concerned for the DoBrine delivered TO^ than for Thar which (as you well obferve, pag. 24,) was delivered BT the Saints^ that is, by thofe Writers whofe opinions they happened mofl to like.
But the mofl important Objeclion in
your whole Letter, is That which follows,
^^^'• ' 5- Joo inany.^ you fay, think themfelves able to
overturn Any Foundations whatfoever^ f
fuch a Method^ as D- Clarke propofes^ be
allowable J
to Mr Nclfon. 5 1
allowable^ with refpeEi to the mofl folemn ABs and Deeds of That Church and Canmm- 7iity whereof we are Members^ and to fubjii- tute what they pleafe in their Roo7n : That fro7n a Method of This 'Nature^ we are p^g. 19,. threatned with the overturning of Foimdati- 071S both Sacred and CIVIL : That // the p^g. 21. Judges and Others learned in the Laiv^ fljall follow the fame Method of interpreting the Laws of the Land^ and accommodating the CIVIL Oaths ayid Engagements^ as D*" Clarke has taken in interpreting and ac^ commodating the Senfe of the CHURCH^ in her mofl authentick For?ns and Declarati- o?is before God and Man^ and of the Vene- rable Fathers of the Catholick Church , there are Many of the Opinion^ that every thing ?mght be eafily leaped over^ and that no Efla- bhjlmtent could be fo firong as to lafl loiig : And, Who knows whereabouts his Religion^ pai, 22. Liberty^ or Property may be^ if fiich a La- titude of Interpretation be defenfible .<? I am fure I have reprefented this Objeaion of yours, in its full force. The Reader will obferve, that 'tis an Objedion ad hominem only, and nothing at all to the Merits of any queftion concerning the Truth or Erro- neoiifnefs of any Opinion or DoBrine. Ne- verthelefs, becaufe 'tis indeed a very Im- portant Objeftion ad hominem^ I will in- deavour to explain myfelf very diftinclly to you upon it. With refped to Civil
matters.
32 A REPLT
matters, which are in their own Nature indifferent^ there is lodged in every Go- vernment a Leg'iflative Power ^ which makes what Laws it thinks fit, and may, in things which are the proper Subjed of Civil Au- thority, either eftablifli one thing by Law, or ayiother thiiig quite different from it : And the Subjecl fliall equally be bound in either Cafe, becaufe in fuch Inftances no Siiperiour Authority hath required him to aft otherwife : Nor can there, in this Cafe, be any other Rule^ by which to interpret the Law -^ but only by difcovering, from the obvious Signification of the words, what v/as in the Whole the Real Senfe and Intent of the Legijlators, But now in Ec- clejiaflical matters, (excepting Rites and Ceremonies^ which are of a Civil nature,) the Cafe is very different. The Churchy in matters of DoBrine^ has no Legiflative Pow- er : The Protejlant Church pretends to no Article loSuch. Powcr ; but ouly to be a Witnefs and a Keeper of Holy Writ. Chrift and his A- poftles have delivered and unalterably efla- blifhed That whole Doclrine, which is to be, in Matters of Revelation, the Rule of our Faith : And to this Rule no humane Power can add any thing, nor di?ni?ii[hfro?n it : For he that preacheth any Other Gofpel^ is accurfed^ Gal. i, 9. Particular Churches require Mens Afjent to^ and Ufe of certain forms of words ^ not as the Rule of their
Faith^
to SMr Nelfon.
Faith, but as prudential Means of Uniform mity^ and of preventing Disorder and Conpi-^ fan among themfelves. And when in fuch Forms there be (as there generally are) Expreffions which at firft fig;ht look diffe- rent wqys, (as 1 have (hown there are more Expn ffions in the Liturgy of the Church oi England exprefsly for me in the prefent Controverfy, than there are which feein to be againjl me ;) it cannot be. but Men muft be allowed to interpret what is ohfcure^ by that which feems to them more plain and fcr'^ptural Every Man that (for the fake of Peace and Order) afjhits to^ or makes life of any fuch Forms of Humane Ao- pointment *, is obliged to reconcile them with what ppears to Him to be the Do- drine of Scripture, and take care to under- ft.and th^m in fuch a Senfe only, as is con- fiflent with That Dodrine : Otherwife he parts with his 'yhriiUamty^ for the fake of a Civil and political Re:2gio?i, It becomes a fincere Man, (efpecially if he varies from Notions commonly received,) to Declare plainly in what Sen^'e he underftands any words of hum.ane Inftitution ^ that his I?i- feriours and Equals may not be impofed upon by him, .ind that his Superiours may judge of fuch Declaration. That the Senfe in which any Human Forms appear to a Mans felf to he eonfifient with Scripture, and not the prefurned Meaning of the Com-
C pliers.
33
34 A REPLr
filers^ is to be the Rule and Meafure of his underftanding them ^ is both evideiit i?i Reafo?i^ (becaufe otherwife every Humane Goverment makes a new Rule of Fdith^') and is moreover fy All Protejlayits agreed upon without controverfy in PraBife. For, the Article in the Apo files Creed concerning Chrijls Defcent into Hell^ is now univerfal- ly underftood in a Senfe probably different from what the Compofers of the Creed in- tended. And the damnatory Claiifes in the Athayiajian Creed^ are now by very Few underftood in that Senfe, which in all pro- bability the Compiler of it in that very dark and ignor;^nc Age defigned to exprefs. And the Vroceffion of the Holy Ghosi^ fet forth in the Nicene and Athanafian Creeds in one Senfe ^ (not to mention Bp, Pearfons apo- logizing for the Greek Church,) is by M"^ Bemiet in his Explication of his own Senfe concerning that point, fliown to be Nozv underftood by Many (without any Suipi- cion of In(incerity) in a different Senfe. And the Doclrincs of Prede/iviation and Original Sin^ are at this day by all eminent Divines (after the example of Arch-Bifliop Laiid^ and of the Learned Bifliop &///, whom you yourfelf have excellently vin- dicated,) underftood in a Senfe, which there is no appearance the Compofers of the XXXIX Articles meant to teach ^ and which, there is all appearance tlie Compo- fers
to M' N<:iron. 35
fers of the Homilies intended fliould not be taught. And That Article in the Iskejie Creed, [ofOjie Sub (lance with the Father,!^ is now (through the Ambiguity of the La- tin and Eng.iflj Tranflation,) by mcft Men taken much otherwife, than the Council in- tended it : For the greater part of Modern Chriftians, (if we may judge by the W ritings of eminent Divines,) underftand it (^s if it had been <m.^JTolui(^ to fignify, of one INDIVIDUAL Siibftaiice with the Fa- ther • Whereas all learned Men know, that the Greek word "^ [o>o«^^l never had ^ See any {bch Signification, and that the Coun-^^;^ cilf meant no fuch things but, of the at ^y rem, fame KIND of Subftance with the ^^-P^f/^^.^ ther : ['Ek -f Uoa 1? -Tr^ltPh fo the Coun- ^•
cil of Nice explained thcmfelves, though thofe words are now left out of the Creed {] The Son was, they faid, ycwyi^e^s en S ^m.- leps, T^iigiv U ^ ^^-- tS 'm7ep.-. begotten of the Father, that is, from the Sub fiance of the Father : And therefore was not (which Notion was then univerfelly condemned) himkMThat individual Subftance from which he was begotten. But their meaning was j he was produced, not from any Other Sub- ftance, (as Man was formed from the Duft of the Earth,) but, after an ineffable man- ner, from the Subftance of the Father only. Which Senfe of theirs, is Now generally mi- ftaken. I fee no poflible Remedy for Thefe C 2 lncQi\'
^€ A Com)mntary upon
Inconveniencies, but either plainly to declare (as the Church of Ro7ne declared againft the Beginners of the Reformation,) Hrmiane Forms of fpeaki?ig to be abfolutely a Rule of Faith and Opinion^ (which is indeed the fame with M^ Hobbs's Scheme of profefiedly abolifhing all Religion •,) or elfe, on the contrary, to indeavour perpetually by all juft and reafonable means, to bring back words of obfcure and uncertain Significati- on, to the more plain and intelligible Rule of Scripture : VVhich is holding fa (I the Form of Joiind Words ^ i Tim. i, 13.
1 Proceed now to the Confideration oiyoiir Anonymous Friend's Book *, which confift- ing of Forty feleft Texts, I fhall confider thofe Forty Texts in the fame Order that He has done, after I have premifed the two following general Obfervations,
Firft^ 1 obferve, (as before,) that if thofe Forty Texts could have been accommodated to His Notion, as I think iiot one of them can 5 yet it would not at all have followed that That Notion was right ^ becaufe I have alleged more than three Hundred other Texts, befides thofe Forty, which do all of them clearly exprefs the contrary. Now it has (you know) ufually been obferved,
that
Forty SeleSi Texts. 27
that Men of All Seds and Opinions whatfo- ever,are apt to plead Scripture in their own Defenfe. The true Meaning of which obfer- vation is, that Men of alinoft Any Opinion may pick out fome Angle Texts, which, when taken by themfelves, (hall feem to look in Favour of That Opinion. But the Me- thod / ufed, was to fet forth in One View ALL the Texts that in any manner related to the matter in Queftion -^ and, by compa- ring them together, I fliowed how they might All be reconciled in one uniform and con- fident Scheme. Tour learned Friend has not taken That Method ^ And therefore, had there been more Texts alleged, and more favourable to him, than Any of them really are -^ yet This would not have Proved any thing.
Secondly *, I obferve, that from thofe Texts which he does allege, he does not fo much as attempt to Frove his Notion to be true ^ but only indeavours to reconcile the Texts he alleges, to the Notion ox Siippofition which he had before laid down in his own Mind. To which, if -^Z^ the Texts he al- leges, coidd really be reconciled, as very Many of them cannot ^ yet flill here would be Nothing proved. Befides : What That Notion or Suppofition is, which he inte?ids to eJlahUfi , is very hard to guefs. For fometiines he affirms the Perfon of the Son h'^i^ 5t to ad fubordinately to the Perfon of the Fa- C 3 ther^
-*3 A Commentary
ther, and denies him to be Self-exiftent^ tag. 6^. which (he fays) would be falling into Sa- fag. 74. belli anifm : At other times he fays, the Fa- ther and the Son are one and the fame hidi-^ vidual Bemg^ or two perfons in one and the fame indwidital Being : x'\nd at another time he makes them All one and the fame Perfon^ fag. 28. when he fiys, 0 F him as HE is Father^ THROUGH him a^ HE is So?t, TO him as HE is the Holy GhoH. All which No- tions are inconfiftent with, and contradicto- ry to, each other. For if rhey be AW one and the fame individual Eeijig^ how c^n one and the fame individual Bdng ht fuh ordi- nate to itleif ? And if HE who is Father^ be aifo himfelf bodi Son and Holy Ghosi , then it will follow, that there is 710 dwifie Nature of Chrisl at all, but that Chrisi was only a great Prophet^ in whom God the Father manifefted hin/elf extniordinarily , Which is downriQ;ht Socinianifn. So that indeed it is impollible your Friend's Argu- ments fliould be conclufive to prove any thing, when he does not fo much as know diftinctly what 'tis he intends to prove. Neither can he allege, that thefe things are a Myftery : For the inosi evident Con- tradiSiions are not a whit more niyjlerion^s^ than the 7nGsi evident Truths.
But to proceed to his Texts In parti- cular.
No
on Matt. 19, 17. 39
N°, I.
Matt XIX, 17. There is 7ioneGood, kit m the Onel that k, God. . ,^^-
Upon Tliis Text I obferved, that the ?4^o.jn word, Ojie, according to the Nature oi^^^^^^l^^ the Greek and Latin Languages, [^5, Unus^ i. muft of neceffity fignify. One Perfo?i.
This, your learned Friend denies -^ and contends that it may as well or better fig- nify, 0?ie Being. His Reafons are,
That the word. One, [^s] is Mafcu- line, by reafon of its relation to GgcIj
That it is no lefs fitted to reprefent Be- hig, than ?erfon , fince they are neither of them Mafculine.
That the fame word, {Is^^ is ufed for One Thmg, Gal. 3, 28, Te are all One^ \Jif] in Chrift Jefm. Not One Per/on, for That (he fays) is impoflible , but, Ona Thing.
That the Vulgar Latin renders it fo, [U?nim eftis^ Te are One thing or body.
Thd^t Theodoret and TheophylaEi^ (and doubtlefs the Greeks were proper Judges of their own Language^ explain it as fignify- ing, h !7w/:>^, One Body.
C 4 Laftly,
f
p.
4© A Commentary
Laftly, that as the fame words in Mar 4 0, 7, [ei ^ cisj oBeoj,"] are tranflated, but God 07ily '^ fo here alfo they might better h?ve been rendred, but God only or God alone*
And This (he ftys) puts an End to the Criticifm of Perfonalhy founded upon the Term [Jii, U?ius^ One.
But the Obfervation is not fo foon put an End to^ as He conceives : For, his Con- clnjion runs much fafter than his Vremifes. And were it ever fo true, that the word \^i] could iuftly be rendred, One Being , it would ftili amount to the fame thing : For Ojie Behig^ when ipoken of an Intelli- gent Jgent^ is the very fame as One pp-rfon-^ JSIeithcr is there in Nature any other No- tion of a Perjon^ than ?.% it ligMties an In- telligent Agent or Intelligent Being : When- ever the word is ufed otherwifc, no Man can tell whit it fig^nifies : And cf What Ufe are words, when they have no Signifi- cation ? Could therefore the word [Zr\ poflibly have been rendred, as your Friend would have it, One Being ^ it would have availed him nothing, againft any thing 1 had affirmed. But that it cannot poffi- bly be fo rendred, I ftill affirm ^ and I am willing to put it upon This ffiort and plain iflbe : If there be Any One Paf- fage in Any One Greek or Latin Writer
in
on Matt, ip^ 17.
in the World, accurate or inaccurate, wherein the word [_«5, Uiiiis^ or any other mafculine Adjedive, placed abfolutely with- out any antecedent Subftantive, (as vS^eis and Is are placed in this Text,) can pof- (ibly fignify either Thing or Behig^ or any thing elfe befides Perfoji -^ I will acknow- ledge my Explication of This Text to be erroneous. Your Friend might as well have affirmed that, in Englifli, the word, Man^ fignifies a Hoiife or a Ship -^ or that any other word fignifies any other thing what- foever , as that the word, [ais, Unn^^ can fignify Thing or Being. 'Tis certain that Arguments run very low indeed, when all Grammar is forced to be reverfed in fuch a manner, as would make every Language a mere Babel of words, without Any deter- minate Signification. By Grammar^ I mean, not only the artificial Rules of Graimna- rians^ but the common and natural Senfe of Mankind. As, when in Englifii we ufe the word, He -^ 'tis impoflible to mean thereby a Thi?ig or a Beijig in general, but only an Intelligent Agent or Beings that is, a Perfo?u Thus likewife in Greek, 01 cvns^ can fignify nothing but Perfons -^ tt* ov^, nothing but Things. When the Platonifls fpeak of God^ confidered merely as the 56^//- exiflent Beings abfl:racl from the confidera- tion of Life, Adion and Governn:ient -^ they then call him "(^ oV, The Being : But
when
4 2 A CoWMetitary
' when It is, o mv^ He that ex'ifis^ it then always reprefents hlni as an Agent or Per- ^fon. x\nd the fame Oblcrvation holds uni- vcrfally true in all cafes, without excep- tion.
But the word [«$"] Ofie, may in this Text (he fays) be Mafculine, by reafon of its relation to God^ [0ar;j.] I anfwer ^ This cannot poflibly be, becaufe Then (the fame being to be faid of y^^^s alfo.) the full conftruclion v/ould be, There is Isone Good^ [vS'ei^ dyoi^i^ there is no God Good'] but One God^ that is God: Where^^s the plain conftrutlion is, There is no Perfon Good^ but One Perfon^ which is God. Had our Savi- our meant to fay, (as he might very pro- perly,) There is no Being Good^ but One^ that is^ God ^ (which yet would not have denoted That fort of Goodnefs which is Moral^ but that which is IS^atural ov Meta- fhyflcal :,) he muft have exprefled it thus, iikv ayjt^i)^', a fjw iv, 0 ^2oi : in like man- ner as the Philofopher fays, yJ^V yi?^ctgi'^y, ei iLwi ly, 0 ^i^o^wttds, [JSihil riftbile esfy niji Unum^ nempe Homo '^ 'Nothing is capable of Taughter^ but only One thin(r^ namely Man^ or, the Species of Mankind. Had he iaid, kJ^«< ♦)^Aa5i)(^J. a .mil «>', o cLv3pM7r@^^ [Fejno rifihilis^ n'jfi Ujius^ nempe Ho?no '] No One [that is, No Perfon] is capable of Laughter^ but One^ ?iamely Man^ or Man- kind 5 the Expreflion had been manifeftly
abfurd :
en Matt, ip, 17. j^-j
abfurd : Which ihows that thefe Two manners of Expreflion cannot poilibly be confounded. And though Two different Senterices^ may fometimes by Accident be nearly of the fame import *, (as, There is No Being Good^ hit One^ that is God ^ or. There is No Perfon Good^ but One^ that is God'^ yet the fafne Words that exprefs One of thefe Sentences, cannot poffibly ex- prefs the Other.
Yes 5 the word \Jis^ Uniis^ One^ is no lefs fitted (he fays) to reprefent Beings than Perfon ^ becaufe Neither of them are Maf- culine. But This is a great miftake : For the word, Perfon^ is always expreft both in Greek and Latin by the Mafculine Adje- ftive, and by It Only , there being no other word either in Greek or Latin, by which it ever was or can poflibly be expreft. Perfona^ and 'zs-^uzo'-rniv, and LTrogztOT?^ are all of them words of a quite different Senfe, and never ufed by any good Author (un- lefs in very figurative Conftrudions) in this Signification. The Schoolmen have indeed, in their barbarous Language, made Hypoflafis to fignify Perfon •, but what they ptean by the word, they themfelves know not.
But the fame word [^a? J is ufed (he fays) for Ojie Things Gal. 3, 28, Te are all One [Ji,~\ in Chrisi Jefiis : " Not one ^' Perfon-^ fur That C/;;^/;o'jJ is impcffible^
" but.
44 -^ Commentary
" but. One Thing ". I anfwer : Literally fpeqking, the whole Number of Chrift's Difciples can no more properly be called One Things than One Perfon , and figura- tively fpeaking, they may as well be called One Perfon^ as One Thing. And that S^ Paul does in this place tJitend to call the Church, in fuch a figurative manner of fpeaking, One Perfon ^ (befides that the word, a?, necelTirily fo fignifies,) will ap- pear from the following confiderations. In the whole New Teftament it is very ufual to comp^-ire the Chriftian Church to a Body^ whereof Q^ni? is the Head -^ and particular Chriftians (faith the Apoftle) are Members of his Body^ of his Flejlj^ and of his Bones^ Eph. 5, 30. In purfuance of which ele- gant Similitude, the Church is often repre- fented under the Notion of a Perfon^ un- der the Character of the Spoufe of Chrift: 2 Cor. II, 2, / have efpoufed you to one Husband^ that I may prefeiit you a chafle Virgin [yiioii 'jntp^vov clyv'Dv~] to Chrisi : And Rev. 21, 9 5 19, 7, / nvll JJjow thee the Bride ^ the Lambs Wife :, — The marriage of the Lamb is come^ and his Wife has made her felf ready :, and to Her was granted^ that fie Jhould he arrayed in fine Linen^ clean and white ^ for the fine Linen is the Righteoufi nefs of Saifits. Again, Eph. 2, 15, To wake in hifnfelf] of twain^ (viz. of Jews
and
on Matt, ip, 17.' A^
and Gentiles,) one new Man^ evcc ^gjfvcv aV- ^WTTDK Thus likewife in the palTage be- fore us, GaL 9, 27, Te have put on Chrjjl -^ There is ?ieither "jew nor Greek^ there is neither Bond nor Free^ there is neither Male 710T Female -^ for ye are all [^«5,1 confidered as One Perfon in Chrisi Jefii^s. Your learned Friend did not at all perceive the Elegancy y^ and Beauty of the Apoflle's Expreflion in this Place. Conlider the Church as One Things as a Congregatioyi or Body of Men^ and all thefe natural Relations ftill continue diftinB 5 But confider it under the Notion dione Ferfon^ the Spoufe of Chrisi^ and then all thefe differences and diftinclions vanijjj. By the fame Figure of Speech, the Jewijl} Church is (tiled in Scripture the Daughter of Sion : Nations a?id Empires are, in the Prophecy of Daniel^ perfonated as Kifjgs : The Church in the Revelation^ under Per- fecution, is a Wornan flying into the Wilder- Tiefs: The Falfe Church abufing the tempo- ral Power of Princes, to perfecute good Chriftians ^ is the Wo?nan^ the Whore^ riding upon a Scarlet-coloured (or bloody^ BeaH. Deceivers and Falfe-Teachers^ are / he Falfe- Prophet^ Rev. 19,20, The Beasi — and the Falfe-Prophet were caH alive into a Lake of Fire : The Body of corrupt Chriftians in the latter Ages of the World, are The Man of Sin^ 1 Th. 2, 5 j and Anli-Chri'si -^ 2 toh. 7, Many Deceivers are entred into the ^ World,
;^ |
3 |
rA |
|
» " • |
^^ |
c |
-«? |
tr |
(-4 |
^ |
|
V |
'^ |
t m |
|
t.,-1 |
u% |
\r^ |
n |
^■^ |
H< |
^6 A Comment ary
Worlds who confers not that Jefiis ChriH is come in the FleJIj •, This is Qo TrAaf©. ^ o di"Ti^^<p:>i'] The Deceiver and The Anti- Chrift. You fee, Sir, your learned Friend concluded fomewhat too faft, when he thought he had put an end to the Criticif?n of Perfonality founded upon the Term^ «$,
Well ^ but the Vulgar Latin (he fays) renders it, [Unum eftisl^ Te are One Thing or Body. I acknowledge it : And 'tis a great contirniation of what I have faid. For, the Reafon why the Author of That Tranfla- tion did not render it Umi^s^ as Be^a right- ly does •, was becaufe he knew that Umis could not poflibly iignify any thing elfe than One Per [on : VVhich He not appre- hendnig how it could (land in that place, nor perceiving the Beauty of S^ Paul's fimilitude -^ inftead therefore of rendring the Apoftles word which he underftood not, he put in another of his own which he underftood better, and thereby altered and quite fpoiled the Apoftles Senfe.
Theodore t and TheopbylaB^ were not TranJIators^ but Com?nentators. Th ey there- fore might juftly parapbrafe the Apoftles Expreflion, by the Phrafe [Jv (mn^'] One Body. But though This be of the fame import, as to the main of the Senfe, with the Apoftles word [Jif] One lerfon : yet it does not thereforefoUow, that, in any pof-
fible
on Matt, rp, 17. m^
fible Conftruclion, the word &i fignifies Xv aSiy^ ; any more than it follows that the word Patdiis fignifies in Latin ^;; Apoftle^ becaufe a Commentator may happen (with- out fpoiiing the Senfe) to put the word Apoftle inflead of Paul
Laftly, becaufe the fame words [« ^^ eny 0 6go$] are in Mar. 2, 7, paraphrafti- cally rendved, but God ojily ^ therefore here alfo (he fays) they might better have been rendred after the fame manner. But, in right reafoning, juft the contrary is true. Becaufe thefe words in the place before us are rendred, not paraphraflically, but lite- rally and exactly :, therefore in That other paflage of St Mark^ they ought to have been rendred fo likewife.
I add only, (though I depend not on Authorities, ) that Clerneiis Alexandrimis^ (when he paraphrafeth, One that u God^ by the words, o thxtyp fum 0 cv ws v^^vus^ My lather which is in Heaven ^) and Ori- gen^ (when he recites the words thus, « ^.v» «?, 0 6 go? 0 oiccTTp, there is none Good^ hut One^ which is God^ even the Father 5) and Novatian^ and Athanajius himfelf, interpret This Text exactly as I do. As I have ihown in my Scripture'DoSrine, No 540. To which may be further added Irenmis^ who cites the words thus, e^s I71V ccyct"^?^ 0 F^- ivp cv TjK ^o^vo7i There is One that is Goody even the Father which is in Heaven^
lib.
^8 A Commentary
lib. I, c. 20, alias 17. AnA Clemens Alex-* anclrmus again, when he fays, ov ^vov ov<tw
rfu^u ^ ^gos, n>bo?n our Saviour and God de^ dares to he alone Good^ even God the Fa- ther^ Strom. 7. And Juftin Martyr^ who cites the words thus, "^E/s Wiv dyL^j *^ '^ol- fjYp pLM o CA' ^7s «e^vr/?$, There is One that is Good^ even 7ny Father which is in Heaven^ Dial. cumTryph.
N° 0.
la the M AUK XII, 29. The fir ft of all t])e Com^ 5cr/p^wje- mandifients^ is *, Hear^ 0 Ifrael^ the Lord N"^ 2. In our God is one Lord, [^or, the Lord our the An^ QqJ ^^^jj^ ^Ij^ Lord^ is OiieJl /M?er, pag- ' -•
^' The only Obfervation your learned
Friend makes upon This Text, is;, that God is here laid to be Ofie, only in oppofition to Llols or the Falfe Gods of the Natioiis. Be it fo : The Qiieftion then remains, Who That God is, of whom this is fpoken. The Jews to be fure, when thefe words were fpoken by Mofes^ could underftand them of no other than of the Almighty Father^ the Creator and Governor of all thijigs : And the natural Apprehenfion^ or cojnmon Senfe of Mankind^ obvioufly leads all Men to under- ftand them after the fame manner. In the
en Mark 12^ 29. 4j>
l^ew Teftamejit^ whenever thefe words are referred to, they are ftill always underftood in the fame fenfe. Our Lordhimfelf^ fpeak- in^ of his Father^ calls him the Only True God^ Joh. 17, 3. And5f. ?aul^ after One Spirit, and One Lord, mentioning in the laft and higheft place One God^ calls Him. [yi^. That One God,] The Father ofAf, who is above all^ Eph* 4, 6. And when he had faid, that to Us Chriftians there is but 0?ie God ^ he adds, by way of Explication, The Father^ of whom are all things^ I Cor. 8, 6. And in more than 500 other places of the New Teftament, the word, God^ is by the conftrudion of the words with which it is joyned, of neceflity confined to the Perfon of the Father fingly : As ap pears in the PalFages themfelves, coUeded in my Scripture-doBrine^ Part /, Ch. /, SeB, \. And Athanafms himfelf, exprefsly interprets the words of the Text now be- fore us, to be meant of God the Father j in two paflages cited in my Scripture-doC' trine ^ Part ^N^ 2. And not only the fame Author in other places, but Clernens Roma- mis alfo, and Ignatius^ and Ji^ftin^ and IreniH- its^ and Clemens Alexandrinus^ and TertuU lian^ and Origen^ and Novatian^ and Eufe* bius^ and Hilary, (if the matter was to be decided by Authority,) fpeak after the fame manner, in the paffages which I have cited from them in my Scripture-doBrine^ Part
^6 A Commentary
II, ^ 9. Well •, But if This be fo, is Chrtft then excluded alfo among the Falfe GoJs ^ I anfwer : When God the Father is thus ftiled The One God ^ Idols, in oppofition to him, are excluded hereby from being Gods at all -^ and the Son, in fitbordtnatwn to him, is excluded, not from being truly God, but from bemg That Per/on, That Sti- prerne. Independent, Self-exijient Governour of All, who, upon thefe accounts, is ftiled, by way of Eminence, the One and Only God, while the Son is neverthelefs, by cojnmunicatioji of divine Voiver and Domt- mon from the Father, really and truly God. This is very confiftent and intelligible : And the Paflages your Friend cites out of Athanafus, muft either thus be reconciled with the exprefs words which I had before cited from him, wherein he interprets thefe Texts exactly as I do *, or elfe he unavoid- ably contradids himfelf. Iren^us, as I have * Sec -^ already fhown, explains this whole mat- ^^^iM'^^^ at large, in his whole Sixth Chapter of his Third Book, with as much accuracy, as if he had written on purpofe againft your Friends unintelligible Noti- ira ut is quld^gi, qui om- ou. And therefore, when
Sftc*"ici^rTur&°Do™!: hefays in another place, that ius Solus, ilk ^. cap. 8. He who rnade all thijigs, is,
together with his Word, juji^ ly filled the Only God and Lord ^ (unlefs the Greek perhaps fignified, that He who
made
on Mark ii^ 32. 51
made all things by his Word^ is jufily (tiled the Only God and Lord -^ m like manner as he h^d been (howing a little before in That fame Chapter, that He who is the God over All^ made all things by [Chrift^ his word ^) 'tis evident his Meaning;, to fpeak confifte.nt- ly with Himfelf, muft be, (not fuch a Confufion of Perfons as your Friend intro- duces, but) what he explicitly and copionjly declares in the fore-cited * Sixth Chapter "^ See a^ of the fame Book, and in numerous other ^'^^'^^' places 5 viz. that the Son is truly God and Lord^ by having REClEVED Dominion over the whole Creation^ from the Father^ who being of Himfelf abfolute Lord of AU^ is by way of Eminence the One and Only God. But ftill you will always remember, that the Queftion muft finally be decided, not by Humane Authority^ but by the Words of Scripture.
Mark XII, 52. There is One God^ and l" .t^c there is None other but He. dMnel'
n° 9. la
It cannot be doubted but the Scribe^ /i^f^r^pag. when he fpake thefe words, meant the One 6. Supreme Govemour of the Univerfe^ even Him who was known to the Jews by the
D2 Title
5 2 A Cotnmefttary
Title of the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and who is declared to us Chriftians by the Title of the God and Father of our Lord Je- fits Chrifl. That the Writers of the Nev7 Teftament did not alter the known Signi- fication of the words, Ojie God -^ I have iliown under the fore-going Head. That the Chriflian Writers in all Antiquity underftood the words, orie God^ to fignify the Father , I have (hown by a very large Colledion of Teftimonies, in my Scripture* doBrine^ Part 11^ § 9. Your Learned ^^ J Friend Himfelf acknowledges in this very place, that the Father Alone is ['Auirifig©^! He who derives his Bei?ig and Godhead from no Caiife -^ and confequently that He alone is, in that fenfe, the One God. But how- ever, the Terms 0?ie God (he fays) are ufed in no fuch Meaning in This Text. And Why not in this Text ? Why, becaufe the words are ufed here (Joe fajs) in oppo- fition only to Falfe Gods^ and therefore ought not to be confined to the Father Alone ^ fo as to exclude the So?u So as to exclude him from what} From being ^^ who alone derives his Being andGodheadfrorn no Caufe^ your Friend exprefsly allows that He is always excluded : And God forbid th:it I (hould ever argue, for excluding him from being God in any other refped. He is really^ and tridy God (which no falfe Gods ;^re,) by deriving real and true Diviriity from
the
on Mark i7^ 52. i^i>
the ineffable Power of Him, who Alone has all unoriginated Being and Godhead. Wherein then does your Learned Friend and J differ ? I think, in This only , that, after allowing a clear dijlinclion^ he ftill contends for fuch an unintelligible way of fpeaking, as either neceffarily introduces, or at leaft cannot be vindicated from intro- ducing, a Confufwn ofPerfons.
As to his Citations from the Fathers up- on this Head 5 though I do not think my- felf at all concerned to reconcile to each other the different ways of fpeaking found in the Fathers '^ yet I cannot but defire the Reader to compare the Fezv Places here ci- ted by your Friend out of Three Fathers, with ten times the Number of places cited by Me out of the Same and many More Fa- thers, in my Scripture-doElrine^ Part 11^ § 9. By which it will appear, that Much the greater Number of Ancient Writers declare themfelves with the greateft poffible diftindnefs to have underftood This and the like Texts, exaftly as I do , and that Thofe who fpeak more confufedly, (as when Tertitllianfays^ Deusfe Unicum, fed cum Filio, oftendit , God declares hirnfelf to be 0?ie ojdy^ but yet together with his Son j J did not mean, as your learned Friend does, [Dewn c^ Filium ejfe imiciim^ that God and the Son of God were One Individual , but, that GqU was fo 0?ie, [jit tamen Filium ha- D ^ heret.l
54 ^ Comment ary
beret^ that yet neverthelefs it was to be maintained, againft Jews and Heathe7is, that he had a Sen to whom he had com- municated true Divine Dominion over the whole Creation, Tertidlian himfelf, . (though, as to the metaphyftcal Point, he introduced indeed a Confufed Notion of the Sons being a ? ART oi tht Father* s Siih fiance^ in hke manner as a Branch- is Part of a Tree ^) yet, as to the prefent Quefti- on, he expresfly afferts God to be One^ in the fame Senfe that the Monarch of a Country is the One and OnlyKtng^ notwith- ftanding that he be fuppofed to have an On- ly Son, whom he has receiv'd into the Whole Adminiftration of the Government with himfelf^ See Scripture-doBrme^ pag. 534. Hovattan^ out of whom your Friend here cites one fingle Sentence, does every where fo exprefsly aiTert all that I contend for j, that a Reader, who pleafes to perufe his Book, will be amazed to find the Whole of it, from the Beginning to the End, to be written on purpofe to eflablifli the very Notion f am pleadmg for. Athanajius him- felf underflands the Words One God^ m the Text before us, te be meant of the Perfon of the Father ^ though he adds, (and fo fir indeed very rightly,) that This is not to be underftood {&$ avoupe(7iy tS i/i^ fo as to deftroy the Divinity of the Son. Laftly, the Paffage of Origen^ (one Scrap of which
youx
on Mark i7^ 32. 55
your Friend cites, and thus tranflates, We worjhip One God^ who is both Father and Son J is itfelf, when the Whole of it ap- pears together, a large Explication what He thought the Senfe of the Church to have been in His days concerning this matter : If any one Cfays he) is di- ,r, ^f , , jhirbed at tbeje txpreljions^ ex^-m^n^c-m, m '^^ dvTout- as if we favoured the Opi^ii- -^^f^j 's^fo? 7«< Avcfj^hTog onofThofelth^ Sabellians] Jlnir^^^.n^TX' who deyiy the Father and the -ndv-mv rj^v mTivcuvTzoy n Son to be Two dtftinB Sub- ^^^'f-J s".r3\^f' ''? Ji]te?icies ^ let hint conjiaer %v i<r(jUv, "Eva. h ^ov, a^ That Text (Ads 4, 32,) «>=^.cfcly^^^ 7^ ;7«7^'^, ;^
All that believed, were ot Qji^<rAvouiv h Tiv 7.^7^^^ One Heart and of One Soul, Tf</?<v^eiai, k^ toV v'i'ov toV and then He will underftand "^Z^: ^ i^ This^ I and my Father are o^voU )^t'^ av^tpmiet}^ rn One Thing. Weferve there- S.nr^elfJIib.lf"'^''^®'- fore^ in the Seiife I have now explained^ One God^ the Father^ and
the Son. We worfiip the Father of the
Tntth^ and [alfo] the Son who is the Truth ^ bei7ig indeed Tzvo things in Subftftence '^ but in Agreement and Coyifent and Samenefs of Will^ they are One. There are in My Book Many Citations of PaiTages, wherein /Au- thors exprefsly grant (and ijitended to grant) what perhaps is very difficult to re- concile with fome of their own Conclufi- ons : And in citing fuch PaflTages, there is (as I have largely fliown) no unfairnefs, but D 4 the
t6 A Commentary
the greateft Strength of Argument. But I have never cited any pailage, as your Friend (though in the Whole a very fair and fincere Writer) has happened to cite This of Origen^ fo as to make it appear to the Reader directly contrary to what the Author intended to exprefs in That Very faffage.
In the J o H. X Vn, 5. That they might kmtP Thee^ Scripture* the 0?ijf True God , and Jefiis ChriH^ K^tu whom thou haH fent.
the An-
f^er, pag. Thefe words, it hath been fuppofed, may be underftood Two ways.
Either Thus : That they might know T'hee^ the Only True God ;, and [that they might know^ J^fi^ Christy whom thou haH fejit.
Or Thus : • That they might know Thee^ the Only True God ^ and Jefiis Christ who?n thou haft fent^ [the Only True God alfo.l
The former is, I think, the True Seme of the words ^ your learned Friend thinks the latter to be fo.
The
9
on
Joh. 17, 3. 57
The Reafons for My Opinion, are :
1. That the obvious and natural Con- ftrudi on of the words, is This : That they might know Thee^ [who art] the Onlv Trite God * and [that they ini2;ht alfo know] Je- fus Christ _, [who is"] He whom thou haft fent^ [viz. the True Mefiiah.] Efpecislly, if it be obferv^ed how the latter words are difoo- fed in the Greek *, [ji bV ai^gi?[ci.<;, huiv ^i^v^ and Hiin 'whom thou haft fent^ even Jefus Chrif}.'] The other Interpretat'oii of the words, isfo forced and unnatural: that an imprejudiced Re^^der will eafily be deter- mined, even by That conlideration alone, to rejeft it.
2. In each of the other places of the New Teftament, where the True God is menti- oned, it fio;nifies, by way of Eminence, the Perfon.ofthe Father. In iTheffl i, 9, 'tisevi- dently and indifputably ro,becaufe exprefsly contradiftinfyuifned from the Perfon of the Son in the very words of the Text it felf ; Te turned to God from Idols ^ to ferve the Li- ving and True God, a7id to wait for His Son from Heave?i, The other palTage, i Joh. 5, 20, (hall be confidered by and by, in its proper pkce. In like manner, the other places of Scripture where the 0?ie or Ojily God is mentioned do All of them real- ly, and fome of them moft evidently, mean thereby the Pe?fon of the Father fingly.
Thus
^8 A Commentary ,
Thus I Cor. 8, 6, To Us there is but One God, the Father ^ and 0?ie Lord^ J^fi*^ Chriji. And Eph. 4;, 4, 5, 6, One Spirit^ — One Lord^ — One God and Father of all^ who is above all ^c. And Jude 4, The Only Lord God, and our Lord Jefus Chrift.
3, All the Writers in the Three Firji Centimes^ (if the Reader thinks lit to be determined by Authorities,) whenever they refer to the Text before us, underftand it as I do. Your Friend mentions two of thefe Writers, Origen and ISlovatian* Origen^ he yields me : and Novatian interprets the Text jufl: as I do, in thofe very words which your Friend cites as an Argument to the contrary.
4. Many even of the Later Fathers alfo, underftand this Text, as I do , Which no- thing; but the mere Evidence of the thing itfelf, could have obliged them to. Atha- nafius thus \ qti iJiQv®^ /^iytTOLj 6 'Trtirp <SriJs^
See Scrip- When the Father is Jliled the Only God^ &c.
trme t^tg. *°^ aAWrChj^of ♦Ctsov, tdi/ t« J^^r^ *nzLT6^^
4. & 254. The True God^ even the Father of Chrrfl^ &C. MovQv 3'gor aAwrSr, — tis J^' Zv e^' «'TO«, iiJM' r( 0 tS xt^T^ 'TO^TVj? ; The Only True
God, Who is He but the Father of
Cbriff i? Tcr evoc 7^ fjigvov dXyi^vov S'goy, — • xiyjo ^ 'T nS xt/^q-^ 'TTCLTifJcc'f The One and Only True Gody I mean the Father ofChrift^
6cc.
e?;; John 17^ 3. 59
&C. 'O'TT 0 mpytoj^BS WJQ/.oi (S ^eh if^p *lrj(Tvi Xt-^^ d Tu-oc^p G^ ^^^9 ^^' (^^ OK^poi (pauisv) 6 fjigv^ ©gcf, ctTct(nm fxcL^nrupimv di ^eicu %«,- (^o*, That Jefiis Chris} our Lord and God in- carnate^ is not the Father -^ and that He is not (as the SabelUans would have it^j That Only God 5 the Holy Scriptures every where teftify. Alfo Hilary thus ;, Non Patri adi- mitur, quod Deus Unus fit, quia 6c Filius Deus fit 5 ob id Unus Deus, quia ex fe Deus : The Son'*s being God^ does not hin- der the Father from being the One God ^ For He is therefore the One Gody becanfe He is Self-exiftent God.
5. The Learned Bifloop Pearfon^ (Expof. on the Creed, pag. 40 ^) and the Learned BiJJjop Bidl, (Defenf. Seel. 4, cap. i, §. 2,) both of them exprefsly acknowledge thefe words, The Only True God^ to be meant, in This Text, of the Father only, by way of fupreme Eminence, in contra diftindion to the Son who was fent by him.
The Reafons yoitr Learned Friend alleges for underflianding this Text the other way, are :
1. That the Term, Only^ does not al- m- h^ ways exclude every thing eife but the Sub-
jed to which it is applied.
2. That the Doftrine the Text contains ^^^• 12. according to His Interpretation of it, is
found \
^o A Commentary
found evidently in another place of Scrip- ture, vi^. I Job. 5, 20.
3. That the word, Ow/7, is added mere- ly in oppofition to Idols and felfe Gods. fAg. igS: 4. That feveral Fathers underfland the '4- I Words in His fen^e : Thqt Athanafms m other places explains hiinf:lf, as to his Meaning in the places I cited from him : And that Origeri^ fenfe, which he ac- knowledges to be the fame with mine, inay he as difficult to he proved out of Scripture^ as his critical Rernark^ that the Article [0] prefixed to [0go$,] appropriates the Name to God the Father.
Nqw to thefe Reafons, I reply : I. To deny that the Term, Only^ al- ways excludes every thing elfe, but the Subjeft it is applied to -^ is to deny that Words have any Signification. For if the word, 07ily or Alo7ie^ does not appropriate • there is no word in any L^inguage, which can appropriate any thing to any Subjed:. 7^i- p. But He alleges an Inftance : " Ecclnf. 24. *^ 5, Wifdom fays of herfelf, / alone com^ " P^JI^^ ^^^^ ^^Ycuit of Heaven : Which " furely, fays he^ does not exclude the Fa-
" ther 5 And if the Term, Only^ does
" not exclude the Father, we cannot ne- ^^ cellarily infer that it does the Son ". But now the Difference is This: The Wif^ dom of God the Father^ does not exclude
God
on Joh. 17, 5. 61
God the Father^ becaufe it is itfelf nothing but an Attribute of God the Father ^ and to fay that the Wifdom of God does any thing, is only fiying in other words that G^^does it hmfelf But affirming any thing to be- long to One Perfoft Alo7ie^ is of neceflity de- nying that fame thing to belong to any Other ?erfon in the fame fenfe. What- ever therefore is appropriated to the Fa- ther alofie^ is of neceflity denied to belong to the So?i in that fame fenfe, in which it is appropriated to the Father. Unlefs it be declared (according to the Sabellia?i Notion, which upon the Whole amounts to the very fame with Soci?iia?iifm ,) that the Sofi is not a real Perfon^ but a mere Attribute of the Father. Which Opinion your Friend difclaims, though his Reafoning here necef- farily fuppofes it. >
2. That the words, This is the True God^ I Joh. 5, 2C, are not fpoken of the Son ;, I (hall (how by and by, in its proper place, ^0 i^.
g. That the word, Only^ is added merely in oppofition to idols or Falfe Gods, is a great Miftake. For the word, Oyily^ of ne- ceflity always appropriates fomewhat to the Subjed it is applied to, not only exclufive of every rhing which That Subjed is op- pofed to, but alfo of every thing which Thnt Subjed is contradtjlinguifjed from. The Son^ is not (as Falfe Gods are) cppofite
to
62 A Commentary
to the Father^ but co?itraciifthigwJl:ed frotfi him : And when the Father is, in this Prayer of our Saviour, fliled the Only True God ^ this Title is appropriated to him not only becaufe Idols are Falfe Gods^ but be- caufe He ojily is the Subjeci whom our Sa- viour was fpeaking of in thefe Words. In that paffage of S^ Paul^ i ThejT* i, 9, Te turned to God from Idols, to ferve the Living and True God, and to wait for His Son from Heaven ^ the Father is filled the Living and True God^ not only in op- pofition to Idols which are "No Gods^ but exprefsly alfo in contradiftinction to his Son expeBed from Heaven ^ who is True God by communication of Divinity from the Father, while at the fame time the Father is therefore (as Hilary and moft other Fa- ( thers exprefs it) juftly fliled by way of eminence the One and Only True God^ as having Alone his Divinity (or Supreme Dominion) of Himfelf abfolute and un- derived.
4. As to Authorities -^ your Friend men- tions none in the Firf: Three Centuries^ but Origen^ whom he gives up , and Novatian^ whofe words prove jufl the contrary to what he cites them for : JVe mu(l believe^ faith That Father, in thcLord^ the 0 nly True God -^ and^ by confequence^ i?i Jefus Chrifl whom He [viz. the Only True God] hath fent. Novatian does indeed add, that our Lord
would
on ]ohn 17, 3. ^3
would not have added the latter part of the words, unlefs he had expected that He him- felf alfo fiiould have been believed to be God. But 'NovatiarCs meaning herein is, that Chrift is God by having received True Divifie Domhiion over the whole Creation^ from and in Subordination to the Father. For the Defign of his whole Book from the Beginning to the End, is to prove this very things and in the very fame manner as I have explained it. The Reader, when he per- ufes l^ovatians Book, will be furprized to find how exceeding clearly and difiinQly he explains this whole matter.
The PafTages your Friend cites out of Hilary^ I defire the Reader to compare with That which I have cited jiift above ^ [pag» 59,3 out of the fame Author.
The Pallages / cited out of Athanafius^ your Friend defires the Reader to compare with fome other paiTages of the fame Au- thor : Which / alfo defire him to do \ And if he cannot reconcile thefe with the others which I firft cited, he will then obferve that thofe others are fo much the ftronger Evidences of what I alleged them for, as being the Conceflions of a perfon who was himfelf of a different Opinion.
Na'Z>ianz>en\ Argument is this : If the former part of the words [that they 7night knozv Thee the Only True God^~\ had been meant of the Father Only ^ f^aV-n^yp'S?,]
if
^4 A Commentary
if it had been me^int of him in contradU fiincimi to the Son :, then there would not have been addend thefe latter words, \^a?id J ejus Chrtft whom thou ha ft fent.~\ vVhere the Force of This Argument lies, I confefs lunderftand not, but leave it to be confi- dered by the Reader. One would natural- ly think, that thefe latter words were added for That very Reafon. for which the good Father fuppofed they ought not to have been added. For, taking the True God to be meant in oppofition to Idols or Falfe Gods^ (as Nazia?ifzen explains it '^) then our Sa- viour's prayer is, that Men forfiking all Idols and falfe Gods^ may know The Only True God^ and H'i?n who was Truly fe?it forth from That Only True God.
Amhrofe\ Argument is, that the Con- junftion [j^nd^^] n^ver feparates things, but joins them together. By the fame Ar- gument, when the Scripture f^.ys that the people feared the Lord AND Samud^ it would follow that the Lord and Sa?nuel were one and the fame Individual. Were /an Admirer of Ambrofe^ I would certainly have torborn citing out of him fo ridiculous an Argument.
Origen^ your Learned Friend allows to be clearly on my (ide. His words I flrjll here repeat, becaufe I am willing to tike This opportunity of corrednig a ALllike, which (though your Friend was fo kind as
ziot
on John 1 7, 5. ^5
not to take notice of it) I was guilty of in my Tranflation of That paiTage (fays Ongeri) we may folve the Scruple of many Pious perfons^ who^ through Fear leaft they Jhoidd make Two Gods^ fall into talfe and wicked Notions : (either on the One fide ^denying the Real Perfonality oftheSondiflinB from the Father -^ and fo^ whi^e they Qrightly] acknow- ledge his Divinity^ making him [erroneoufly] to he in reality nothing but a mere Vame : Or elfe on - the con- trary^ denying [erroneoufly] his Divinity^ while they [rightly] acknozvledge his Real Perfonality^ and that his Sitbfifience is truly and pro- perly diftinSl from that of the Father :) This fcruple^ I fay^ of many Pious perfons^ may thus be folved. We mufl tell them^ that He who is of Himfelf Qod^ is 'That GOD , (as our Saviour^ in his Prayer to his father^ fays^ That they may know Thee the Only True God ;,) but that Whatever is God^ befides That Selfexiftent Perfon^ being fo o?ily by Co?mnunicatwn of His Divinity^ cannot fo properly be filed [0 (d{^r\ That God^ but rather [jnoC] a
E Divine
Hence
cS TmTfJf, •uohcyipTVii ^Ip livcu Tvp^ yikxtx ovouaTQ-
•yl^ duTlTlf 0 77 TXTg M)ifi ai/-
"TmiJ cAj to Tra^ tc ^iiuTZ^Q-, -n. in Job. fag. 46, HHStii,
66 A Commentary
Divine ferfon. It is not poflible that Any Words fliould exprefs the Senfe of the Pri- mitive Church more fully, more clearly, more diftinclly, than thefe do. Your Friend therefore fairly gives up Origoi^ pai, 13. and makes only the following Reply. Per- haps (fays he) it may be as difficult to prove This fenfe of the words ^ [^viz. that The only true God fignifies the Father, as being ecu- ni^©. God unoriginated,"] out of Scripture^ (which the DoBor profeffes to he his Rule in thefe Matters '^) as it is to ?nake good ths critical Remark of the fame Father [Ori- gen,3 ^hat the Article [J] prefixed to the word (^0go«,]] appropriates the Isame to God the Father -^ when it is evident, that the Son is called God with the fame Article, hy his Difciple Thomas, Joh. 20, 28, 0' Geos uy* A/id hy S^ Paul alfo in his Epifile to the Hebrews, ch. i, 8, which is taken fro?nFL 45, 6 : To fay nothing of Writers Older than Origeii -^ and even of Origen himfelf, who deflroys his Criticifn in hs own Writings^ as will appear from One Inflance that may ferve for others, fj^^ij^pij^cS^Y) o ^ecs y^fJi^Vy which he ufes of the Son, lib. 4, contr. Celfum. All This, is exceeding ilrange in- deed. To ipr ovc 074t of Scripture, what the Senfe of the words in queftion is, was what I indeavoured in my Seripture-doBrin^. To That, it has been anfwered, that we ought alfo to take in the Senfe of the Pr/-
mitive
on Joh. 17^ 5. 6y
mitive Church. What the Senfe of the Primitive Church was, is with all poflible Accuracy here defcribed by Origen. And to This, it is aiifwered, that Perhaps it may he difficult to prove this Senfe out of Scripture^ And how difficult > why, as difficult as to make good the critical Remark j^^q^^^^\^^ off Origen, that the 'Name [0 0go<] is appro- fame Re- priated to God the Father. I made no Ufe [J^'g^j^' ^^j of that critical Remark, in My Book ;, and r,fted on^ yet your learned Friend is very unfortunate^ by fm^bu in afferting that That Remark is evidently Jlci^ft, falfe. Tis not good to be confident about Tkoi lib: an U?i7verfal Negative^ and therefore I will Comment- not prefume to fay that 0 ^ios was never ing upon ufed by any Writer concerning any other ^°^^- ^' '• than God the Father : But This I can JJ^^^^J^;^ affirm, that, as far as 1 have been able to andrhm k obferve, I could never find That Title gi- \lf^l^^^^^ yen abfolutely to "^ any Other perfon, ei- ^^d son ther in the Scripture^ or in Any Writer he- confidered fore Origen^ or in Origen himfelf or in ^^q]JI^^ Any Writer ^/f^r Ongen. All Men that/j/^fW-, underftand Language, know that 0 ^Dgoj fc^, 'Z^''':^er\- is quite a difterent thmg from 0 .S-go? ablo- co make lutely. S^ Thomas's 0 \^go$ f^y, is fpoken '^I'^^^l of Him, whofe God and Father is q S-^o'j. ^he fame Sc PauH 0 a-gcf, is the Vocative Cafe from perfon: 53go5. And Origen s 0 3-go$ 7)fjjiv, is juft as xharPa- different from 0 Qsos abfolutely, as was 5^her is noc Thomas's 0 SgJ; (a^. 'O (ieo, abfolutely, is^^.^f^^^^.
E 2 the fdf.
6S A Commentary
the fame as o* TravTux^'awp, or o' ^ 'mvfmv 6ao$. Wherefore He who is abfolutely o' Sgof, may very well be, and often is called, 6eOi : But it does not therefore follow, that He who is truly Bsof, may on the other fide be as properly ftiled o* 6go$. The Paf- fage which comes neareft it, is one omitted by your Friend, Ro?n. 9, 5, 0 t^u 2^ Wi/- ^cf)v ^tos ^ which, if allomed to be certainly fpoken of Chrift, yet is not the fame as if the Apoftle had laid, 5 wV 0 'Gn miv^myf 6g(3V»
N°5.
In the I C o R. VIII 5 4, 5, 6. We know that an S^rr* ^^^^^ ^^ nothhig in the World^ and that
N° :^- in there is None other God bitt One. ■
the An- for thoi^gh there be that are called — - — •
jwer,pag, Qods many and Lords many ^- to Us
there is but One God^ [viz.] the Father^ ef who?n are all things and we in him ^ and On€ Lord^ [viz.] Jefus Chrift^ by whom are all things^ and we by Him*.
Thefe words are fo exprefs and full a decl -ntion of God the Fathe/s being by way of Eminence the One God^ that there are no poGble words by which it could have b-en afl^rted iviorc explicitly* Had
the
on I Cor. 8 ; 4^ 5^ 6. 6^
the Apoftle faid only. To Us there is hut One God, and one Lord Jefiis Chr'ift ;, there had really, according to the Analogy of Scripture, been no Ambiguity : But when he adds by way of Interpretation, as it were on purpofe to prevent all poflibility of iTiiftake, there is hit One God, the FA-- THER'^ and one Lord, Jefm Cbrift ', it is a very furprizing thhig, to find a Learn- ed and Sincere Man indeavouring to put another Senfe upon the words. One God ^ different from That which the Apoftle in fuch exprefs words declares himfelf to mean.
But (fays your learned Friend) it is plain ^^^• '4- here^ that the Unity of God is affirmed in op- pofition to Idols. Very true: But it is plain aifo, that the God, whofe Unity is here fo affirmed, is by the Apoftle exprefsly de- clared to be the Father.
But .(adds your Friend,) though the Fa- P-g^ » 5. ther be faid to he the One God, yet this is not fpoken to the exclufwn of the Son, who has been proved to he comprehended in the One God. That the Father'^ being by way of Eminence the One God, does not exclude the Son from being truly God by true com- munication of Divinity from that oneunorigi- 9iated God the Father, I readily acknow- ledge. But to fay that the 0?ie God the Father is the Son alfo, and not the Father mly 3 or that the Son is not excluded from
E 5 being
70 A Commentary
being That 0?ie God^ which is the Terfon of the Father -^ this is diredlly affirming that Two Perfons are 07ie and the fame Per- fon ^ Which is the utmoft Confufion. tag. 16. But (ftys your Friend further,) the Son is comprehended in the One God the Father^ as He is the Word : But forafmuch as the Son is not only God^ hit God and Man con- filing of two Isatures ^ ajid^ by reafon of That Uiiion^ cannot be comprehended^ as to his whole Perfon^ under any One of them • therefore does he feem to be mentioned after God the bather^ as a Being diflinB from pure Deity^ fuch as the Father is -^ though his Superiour Nature^ or God the TVord^ is co?nprehended in it. I anfwcT : Not only God the Father^ but God the Father and Son and Holy Ghofl^ muft needs by your Friend be al lowed to be Pure Deity : And confequently, if the Apoflie had here men- tiojied Jefm Chrifl in the fecond place (as your Friend fuppofes) only upon Account of his being (as God-man) a Being difiinEi from pure Deity -^ he muft have faid, not. One God^ the Father \ but One God^ the Father and Son and Holy Ghoft ^ and one Lord (or God-man) Jefus Chrifl, Befides j When your Friend affirms the Son to be comprehended (in the Senfe we are now fpeaking of) in the 0?te God the Father^ as He is the Word , What does This import,
but
on I Con 8; 4^ 5^ 6. 71
but either that the word Father fignifies both Father a?jJ Son^ (which is to affirm that One Verfon is Tzvo Perfons '^) or elfe that he fuppofes the So7i^ becaufe he is called 77:?^ Word^ to be only an Attribute or Power of the Father^ and not any Perfon at all?
Authorities for his Interpretation of this Text, your Friend alleges None : Becaufe it is notorious that All Antiquity under- ftood this Text in My Senfe, and not in His. One only paffage he cites out of Ire- n^iis^ which in the Latin Tranflation (the original Greek being loft) has fome Obfcu- rity in it. There is One God the Father^ (fays Irenxus,) who is above aU^ and throng
ali and in all : Above all is ^ . . , _
, ' y, , , t 77 ' . Super omnia quia^m, vz-
the rather-^ through all, ts jer; per omaia a. -rem,
the Word ; and in all of IIS^ Verbum -, in omnibus aucem is the spirit : For there is "^ '^''''^'^ ^'' '''' ^- '' One Father^ who is above all^ and through all^ and in m all. That this is the True Rendring of the words, (and not, as your Friend tranflates them, above all^ as Father-^ through all, as Word -^ and in all ofus^ as Spirit -^ appears from the words which follow in the
vpr\7 f;imp rhanter • There UnusDeus Pater, fuper Cm- very lame v^napter , ii:iere ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^
is (lays he) Oyie Uoa tbe ^uod per omnes, &c. md. Father^ who is Abovi AU-^ and One Word of God^ which is Through
E 4 All:
72 A Commentary
Hie Deus, eft Pater Domi- AH : And again '^ This God^ Jlc tulif A^A'Sy Itc, " ^^^ f^tk. ./ our Lord
Vnus Dens Pater, qui fufer Jefm Chi ft *, ancl of Htm it
"T'\ti^'!-C"J'c^'V'"' ^^. that S^Paul the Apoftle
tubus nobis, lib. 2. cap. 2. ' • ^ W t
declares^ 1 here is One God,
even the Father, who is above all, and
through all, and in us all. And Athana-
fms^ if he did not tranfcribe Ireitmis's words
as they were in the original Greek, yet he
, explains them fufficiently,
J^^^SujLtr^ when he fays :0«. G.i is
j)a TTtt^TTtr ^ h -nuffiv' iTH preached in the Churchy even
tf9X" ^ '^>" "^^^ ':^*V7ry|/ 7/7 7 • 77 >#
«/^\ J)* T« a6>vj* Si' ^^c7 c/v, tbrovgb ali^ and in all -^ A-
pift. ad ^erap. i. 7 / ^ • - 7 77^
and Ungtiial and rountain
of all 5 Through all |^not, as He is the
Word^ but^ by his TVord ^ and in all [_not,
as He is the Holy Spirit^ hvx] by his Holy
Spirit. I need not add, that the Learned
Eifloop Pearfon (Expof. on Creed, pag. 40,)
and the Learned Bifiop Bull (Defenf. Seft.
4, c. I, §"• -)) acknowledge the words, 0«^
God the father^ in the Text before us, to
be meant, not only in oppofition to Idols
which are Falfe Gods^ but alfo in contradi-
fiiiiBion from the Son himfelf who is True
God : According to that re-
Fiiius Deus fit ; ob id Vnus before^citcd j The So?i*s be- De«/, quia ex fc Dcus. N,/. ^j.^Qod (faith he) does not
mnaer the r athcr f^'om beuiz ^ The
on has 5 ; 3, 4. 73
The One God *, For He is therefore The One God, becanfe He is Self-exijlent God*
N° 6.
Ac T s V 3 3, 4. to Lie to the Holy m the
Ghoji. Thou h>fiji not hed unto Men^ dJnllnel'
but unto God. n° 55.
In the
The plain and obvious meaning of theie pag. 17. words, is -^ that attempting to deceive In- fpired Perfons, was not barely the Crime of attempting to deceive Men^ but was in effed an attempting to deceive God himfelf by whofe Holy Spirit thofe Men were infpi- red. This I have iliown at large in my Scripture-doBrtne -^ And A-
thanafius himfelf (as I there 'o -^iv^uutvOr •mS ^-^u^ obferved) interprets the Text ^f ^^-^'^^ ^ ©^^ 44et,ca7., m the lame manner : ne ji^ tk wvivMirQ- aVrS- that lied (\dith he) to the °j^l/f?j57 li jTrviv/Mt t« Holy Ghoft^ lied to G 01^ t7t^ 'X T«'^.%VJL JI^ who dwelleth in Men by his 071 0 0s&f iv v(mv fuv^y on Sptrh: For where the Spnit t^h^'^T^it^^'vt
of God is^ there is G^^Qhim- bi ^ contr, Arianos,
felf.^ For hereby^ faith the Apoflle^ we knozv that GOD dwelleth in ■i/s^ becaufe he hath given us of His Spirit, Neither can your learned Friend allege Any Author, from the time the Text was written, till after Jthanafus's days, that
underftood
74 -^ Commentary
underftood this Text in any other Senfe. Why then does he feek for a l^exp Interpre- tation, unfupported either by Scripture or Antiquity ? If the Term God^ fays he, can be applied to the Holy Ghoft^ \Jox Proof whereof he refers to five Texts, in not one ef which the Term is fo applied -^ why fhoiild there be fo much pains taken to prove it to belong to the Father^ who is 7iot fnen- tioned in the Context .<? I anfwer : It re- quires no great Vains or Force, to under- fcnd the word, God^ in this Text^ as fig- nifying the Father ^ becaufe in AH other Texts the fame word always fignities the Father^ and in No other Text ever fignities the Holy Ghojl. The word occurs in the New Teftament above One Thoufand times, and in all thofe pafiages, (excepting three or four in which it is applied to the Son,') it always fignifies the Father, (as I have fliown demonflratively in my Scripture-doc- trine^ and is in no place applied to the Holy Ghojl. In what Senfe, and with what Propriety of Speech, the Holy Spirit may, or may not, be ftiled God, (which your Friend indeavours to intermix in his Ar- gument,) is not here the Queftion : but whether in fa(3 he is, or is not, fo ftiled in This or in any other Text of Scripture. The Holy Ghofl, is the Holy spirit of God ^ that is to fay, the Holy Spirit of the Fa- ther : And if the word, God, placed abfo-
lutely
en Afts 5 ; 3^ 4. 75
lately as in this Text, fignified, not the Father^ but either the Holy Spirit or the whole Three Perfons •, it would follow that the Holy Spirit of God^ was the Holy Spirit ofHiinfelf-^ which is a manifeft Abfurdity. The only Argument your Friend urges, why the word, GoJ^ in this Text, fhould be meant of the Holy Ghofl^ and not of the Father ^ is This very obfcure one : That if the word God here fignified the Father^ then it would follow that the Holy Ghofl aded by the Authority of the Father -^ which fince the Apoftles themfelves alfo did, it would follow that They might have been ftiled the Objeds of the Lie, as well as the Holy Ghofl ^ the Perfon of the Spirit being as little affeded with the Lie fpoken, in comparifon of the Authority affronted in Him^ as the Perfons of the Apoftles were affected by it in comparifon of the Authority affronted in Jhein •, Neither could a Lie againft the Holy Ghofl^ have been fiid comparatively to be none againfl Men^ if the Holy Ghoft were not He who is here ftiled God. I am fure I have repre- fented his Argument more clear and ftrong, than the Author himfelf reprefented it ^ and yet at the beft it is a very obfcure one. The Strength of it indeed, is no more than this: If the Holy Ghoji be at all fubordinate to the Father^ (as the Scripture every where declares he is Jent and given by
Him,)
J 6 A Commentary
Him^ then He is nothing at all fnperiour to Men. The Reader, I truft, will not (land in need of any Help^ to anfwer this Ar- gument.
N'
7'
-"*f«re- G A ^- ^^•> ^* ^^ ^^^ Service unto them dlnrke, which hy l^ature are no Gods^ [^<tu?5 ^ (pj- ^"^ 1^°'. W «^ ^^o''^* 01"? ss it is in the Alexan-
^Jddendct, drian MS, tl^S fucrl 7>Mi Sot 3'go?J.3 pag. I. In
Srfpag. pf ^hefe words I propofed the Two foi- 19, ' lowing Expofitions.
1. JJnto Gods^ which have no Bei?ig in Natifre^ or which in Nature Qn reality^ have no Being*
2. Unto Beings^ which by their Nature are not capable of having any divine Power or Authority: Thus^ Ads 19, 26, they be no Gods j that is^ they have none of that Authority and 'Dominion over you ^ which you afcribe to them.
Of the latter oi thefe Expofitions, your Learned Friend takes not the leaft Notice. I fuppofe, he overlooked it, as not being in its proper place, but in the Addenda^ pag* I *, Though he elfewhere takes Notice of fomething elfe mentioned in That Page,
Againft
on Gal. 4^ 8. 77
Againft the former of them. He argues as follows :
!• Th^t the Two mod Antient Verfions, the Vulgar and the Syriac, agree with out received Tranflation of the words.
2. That in S^ PWs ftyle of Writing, (pu'i7i$ is no where ufed for Nature in gene- ral, or the Syftem of Natural Beings.
3. That, had q^^jou been ufed by him in that general Notion, yet, according to the Analogy of his Style in other places, he would rather have faid ca> (jpJarf, than ^ojrf alone, if he had maCant in Nature and not hy Nature.
4. That if <t>v(j^ had fignified in Nature^ yet 'tis probable the Apoftle would rather have faid td/s jw.ri £^ alone, than m7s (fvcet
5. That (posei is often ufed by the fame Apoftle in other places, to fignify by Na^ ture^ not in Nature.
All thefe Criticifms of your Learned Friend; (which I have here fairly fet before my Reader,) I acknowledge to be Right , And they are, by much, the moft Scholar- like Obfervations in his Whole Book.
Though therefore the words (notwith- ftanding all this) may poffibly fignify, ha- ving 710 Being in Nature -^ yet, becaufe By Nature is in itfelf the more natural Signi- fication
I.
78 A Commentary
fication of the word, and alfo more agree- able to the xA.nalogy of 6^ Paul's ftyle ^ I acknowledge it to be more probable, that That is the True Rendring.
The Queftion then is, what is the Mean- ing of the Phrafe, By Nature, Them which fy Nature are no Gods.
Addenda And This, in my Latter Expofition of lln-cioc' ^he Words, (which your Friend takes no uine, pag. notice of at ail,) is as much as to (ay, They have hy their Nature none of that Divine Au- thority or Dominion over Tou^ which yoii^ vainly afcrihe to them.
Either This is their True Meaning *, or elfe the Words, no Gods by Nature^ mufl fignify Beifi^s ivhich in their metaphyfical and ejfential Nature are not Supreme^ Self- exiflent and Independent.
Now th^t the Word Q<?ti^5^ in Scripture, does not fignify the Nature of things in the wetaphyfical or efjhitial^ but only in the vulgar and 7iatural^ the 7noral or political Senfe of the Word ^ that is, the true State and Condition of things, their Capacities and Powers^ their Circu?nfla?ices and Qiiali- ficatiojis^ the Reafon of things, and fome- times even Cufloms only ^ appears from rhe Ufe of the fame Word, i Cor. 11, 14, Doth 7iot even Nature it f elf teach you^ that if a Man hath long Hair^ it is a fjatne tmto him^ & Rom. 2, 14, do by Nature the things
contained
on Gal. 4^ 8. 70
contained in the haw ^ & Rom. i, 2^, T/?^f which is against Nature ; & Rom. 2, 27, Uncircumcifion which is hy Nature ^ 6c Rom. II, 24, which is wild l^y ]<i2LtmQ J 5c 2 Pet. 1 , 4, ^^z/ wi^/?^ /'^ Partakers of the divine Nature , & Gal. 2, 15, ?F^ W:?^ are Jews by Nature ^ And Ephef. 2, 5, 7^^ were by Nature the Children of Wrath : Not by our original Nature or ESSENCE , God forbid : But, (as that Text itfelf ex- prefsly explains it,) by the Then prefent CIRCUMSTANCES of our Nature, the habitual Wlckednefs and Corruption of Mens Manners before their Converfion to Chrifti- anity. And thus likewife in the prefent Paffage \ Them which hy their Nature, (that is, which in the Nature and Reafon and Truth of Things^) are no Gods •, have 7io di- vine, no invifible Authority or Dominion over you ^ have nothing of That Nature, which you vainly afcribe to them , nothing of That Dominion and Power, which the Worfliip you pay them fuppofes them to have. And This is the True Notion of Idolatry : viz. the afcribing to any Being, real or imagi- nary, fuch invifible Dominion or Power, and confequently fuch Worfliip and Ho- nour, as does not belong to it. For, Wor- fliip being nothing elfe, but the Acknow- ledgment or Payment of due Honour, cor- refpondent to the True Dominion and Dig- nity of the Perfon to whom it is paid j (for
AU
8o A Commentary
All Worfliip or Honour is Perfonal^ paid not to a Metaphyfical Suhflance^ but to an Intelltgent Agent '^) it follows manifeftly, ihnfo far as Dominion and Power and Au- thority is afcribed to any Being, more than it really has -^ fo far That Being is merely \JiS'u3Xov~\ an Idol, a Nothing in the World^ I Cor. 8, 4, a mere Fi&ion of the Imagi- nation. When therefore S"^ Paid here char- ges the ^ Heathens, (or per- =^iftheApoftiefpeakshere Ws, as the Context feems
concerning Heathens, k mult ^ ^ r r ^ o/
beobferved, in order co the tO luppoie, COrrupt JeiVS right underftanding of the and Worfllippers of Angels,)
fs'reke^';o£r?ew°ct with Joing Service to Them vfrcs frcm among the Hea- which bylsatitre arenoGods', I''"' '' ''n' J'l ^fT- "' 'tis evident his Araument is
being corrupted by fuaaizing ^
cbriftians, to think circtm- not, that the Gods they cfion and other Jewifh.obrcr- vvorjfhipped were not abfo-
vances Ihll neceUarv CO iaiva- -, , -^^c- <p 7^ .^
lion under the Gofpei. luteiy ^uprefne, belfex7jU
ent^ Independent Beings ^ (for They did not pretend This, nor does the Word ^ioi ever fignifie any fuch thing ;) but that, negleding the Worfhip of the True God, they worfliipped Gods who had really nothing of That Nat74re which was afcribed to them ^ none of that Authority or Do?mnion^ either Supreine or Subordinate^ which Thefe Men (like the Church of Ro7ne Now in the cafe of their Saint-Wor- fhip,) imagined them- to have. For they were Gods, which either had 7io Being at all 5 Fictions, and mere imaginary Deities:
Or
en Heb. 3; 3, 4^ 5, 6. %
Or d{t, at beft, they were [Sh^fj^via^ Be- ings which in reality were not of That l^a^ ture which their Worfhippers pretended them to be, indued or capable of being in- dued with divine invifible Dominion and Authority over Men. Thus Jer. 5, 7, Them that are no Gods , and Acts 19, 26, They he no Gods ^ that is, have not and cannot have any of That divine Authority and Dominion over you, which you fooiifti- ly and wickedly afcribe to them.
But now, Chrift is by Nature Truly God'^ (as Truly ^ as Man is by Nature Truly Man 5) that is, he is God^ not Self-exi- ftent and Unor.iginate -^ (for That is pecu- liar to the Father^ and abfolutely incom- municable *,) but he is God^ as having, by that Nature which he derives from the Fa- ther, True divine Power and Dominion over all things both in heaven and Earthy in fub- ordination to Him who alone is abfolute- ly \} TuoLv^yLf^iiTtafX of Himfelf Supreme over All.
H E B. m i 3 , 4. 5, 6. Tor this Perfin [viz. '^J^l^ Chrift3 ^^"^ counted worthy of more Glory ^o^rme^ than Mofes^ inafmuch as Fie who hath ^^^^^^^ builded the Houfe^ hath more Honour than /Vpfr,pag.- the Houfe. ^3-
F For
$2 A Commentary
For every Houfe is buihled by fome one ^ Bi(t
. Be that built all things^ is God.
And Mofes verily was faithful in all h'&
Houfe as a Se^rvajit^
ButChriJly as a Son over his own Houfe ^
The true Meaning of thefe words, I think, is This : Mofcs was faithful as a Servant^ in another Man's Houfe •, Chrijl^ as a Son in his OTvn Houfe, of his own Building -^ And the Supreme HoujJjolder [the Pater-familias'] or Father over all, is G O D.. It is a like Form of fpeaking, to that in i Cor. ii, 3, The Head of every Man, is Chrift ^ a7id the Head of the Wo- ^nan, is the Man ^ and the Head ^/Chrift, i5 G O D. x\nd Ver. 12, but All things^ of GOD.
Your Friend is defirous to find another Interpretation of this palTage 5 by which he would indeavour to underftand the word, God^ as fpoken here of Chrifl. But what he fays upon this occafion, is fo obfcure and dark , and fo fpoils the Elegancy of the Comparifon the Apoftle makes, between Mofes's Faithfulnefs as a Servant^ and Chri/i's as a Son .^ and feems fo little fatisfaclory, '^- even to Himfelf ^ that I need only defire the Reader to compare our Two Explicati- ons together, and follow That which fliall
<j-.
feem to him moll reafonable, ,...vi- ,,<
Vfo
on 2 Pet. r^ I. 83
N« 9.
2 P E T. I, I. The Righteoiifnefs of Godwin the
and our Saviour Jefiis Chri/I. %frh7'
N" 28p. .
I do acknowledge (and I obferved it.be- ^'^ fore in my Scripmre-doBrhre ^thit the 2^!'^"^^* words [Biii^Lomjvn t5 6^2 y)fj{^^, ' ^ ^Tzt^p©* I>7o-3 xe^r'^i] may, in true grammatical Conftrndion, equally be rendred, either,^ The Righteoufnefs of our God^ and of our Saviour Jefiis ( hrifl^ or, The R/ghteoufnefs-, of our God and Saviour fefiis Chrifl. So that, if one Man thinks the word, (3od^ is here meant oC the Father^ and another thinks that it is rather applied in this place to the Son ^ Neither of their Opinions can .. be deinonftrably difproved.
It feems to Me^ to be meant of the Fa- ther 5 and your Friend thinks, on the con- trary, it belongs to the Son. Only he did, not do well, to fet down his own Tranfla- tion only^ which determines the Senfe ac- cording to his Explication ^ whereby an Enghjlj Reader may be deceived, fo as to; think there is no Ambiguity in the Origi-^ nal '^ whereas indeed the Original leaves it- wholly Ambiguous, and the Englip) Tran- flation in our Bibles determines it accord-* ing to wy Explication.
F 2 My
84 A Commentary
My Reafons for underftanding It of the- Father^ are : Fir ft ^ becaufe the word, God^ throughout the New Teftament, generally fignifies the Father^ and therefore moft probably does fo in this place likewife. And Secondly^ becaufe in the very next Verfe^ the fame words are repeated in fuch a Conftrudion, as determines the Senfe ne- ceffarily without Any Ambiguity ^ \J^y^
Knowledge of God^ and of Jefm our Lord^ Now fince, in the fecond Verfe^ thefe words, [^rhe Knoxvledge of God^ and of Jefm our Lord,'] are in the Original placed in fuch a Conftruclion, as of nece[fity to fignify God the Father in Contradiffinftion to Jefits our Lord ^ 'tis probable that, in the firji Verfe likewife, thofe words, \Jhe Righteoufnefs of God^ and our Savmtr Jefm Chrifl^ though placed arnbigtwufy in the Original, yet were intended in the fame manner to fignify God the Father^ in Contradiffinftioo to Jefiis our Saviour^
Tour Friend^' Reafons for underftanding this Text the other way, are : Fir/?, that the words \Kv^v if^v ^ G;'n|p©-3 ^^^ Lord and Saviour^ ^re often ufed conjundly of Chrift., But This is a very diferent Ex- predion : For, our Lord anct Saviour^ is al- ways meant of C/tt//?, and never of the Father :, But on the contrary, God our Sa- vlour^ is always fpoken of the Father^ and
never
9n 2 Pet, i^ f . §^
never of Chrlft : See i Tim. i, i, The Commandment of God, our Saviour^ mid the Lord Jefm Chrifi ^ and Tit. 3 ; 4, 6, The Love of God our Saviour, — which He fied 4)n us ahundantly through Jefia ChriH our Saviour. 'Tis moft probable therefore, that in the prefent Text likewife, both God and ■our Saviour Jefus Clorift being mentioned, it was intended to be underftood diftinftly both of the Father and of Chrift. Secojidly^ Your Friend alleges, that thofe other the like words, Tit. 2, 13, \yS fjjeysihii ©ga j^ cztfTTi^ i\fjfpv 'l)jo-» x^^^* "^^^ Great God nnd cur Saviour Jefus Chrifi^ though he acknowledges them to feem, in our EnglijJs Tranflation, againft him ; yet were under- ftood by Clemens Alexandrinus and Gregory i^yjfen^ as if the Apoftle had faid^ Our Great God and Saviour Jefm Chrift : And This Senfe he inclines to think the moft probable, becaufe the word £S^<pfitV«a, The Appearing of d^cJ] is never ufed elfewhere in the New Teftament, but of Chri/i ^ the Father being neva: faid to Appear. But This reafon, I think, is by no means f^affi* cient : For, Chrijl being the Image of the^ Invifible God , ithefe words, the glorious Appearing (or, the Appearing of the Glory') cf the Great God and our Saviour Jefus Chrift^ (as our E?iglifi Translators rightly render the Text,) very naturally fignify, the Appearing of the Great God By our Sa-
F 3 viour
S6 A Commentary
mour Jefits Chrifi \ accoviiing to the Analo- gy of thofe other Scripture-rxpreffions, that God pjall judge the World by Jefus Chr'tft^ and that Chrift ihall come in the Glory of his Father^ that is, the Glory of his lather jl:all appear hivefied in Him, 13. -fides \ th : words, {^t5 w^yij^'d 0K«, Jhe Great God^ being in tht Old Teflrrment the Charader of the?>- ther-^ Deut. lo, 17 , 7 Sam. y^ 22 \ ^Ghr. 2^ 5 ^ ¥ehenu 9. 52 ; Job 36, 26 : Pf 86, 10: 5 jer. 32, 18 ^ an4 in the New] 'ejia^ ffie?it 'nQvcr.ukd4)f Chr^'ft^ but uf the Fa- t'/:?^ronly. Rev. ic^^, ly y 'tis therefore v.::ry reaionable that rhey thould here alio be 10 underftood, Efpecialiy, confidering the geiieral Style of S;F Patil r Who, having laid it down as a Foundation^ 1 Cor. 8, 6, that to Us there is but One ' 0 D, the Father ^ and One LOR D, Jefus Ch isl : and Eph. 4 ', 5, 6, One L 0 RD, One' G 0 D and Father of all : does fo conflantly and uni- formly keep to this Rule of expreffion through his whale Writings, sf For iH /ioj?;. 9 5, ic is ^hat (in all -^ imcontefied
uncertain whether the word, , ^ , r -i
God, was originally in Che pla'^^es) he never tails to Text- and, if it was, wjie- conhne the wcrd, 0^^, to
ther it be not there Ipokei ot ^t t? ^7 ^ / I -
the Either In 1 TiL ^, i5, ^^e Father^ and (except in inftead ot the w.t:rd^ oodf ^ Citations out of .the Old tJl^^m^^^^ Tepn>e,rt:) the word,LW, which: knA all the h\.\\tni- to ibrist -^ At leaft, when- ''"n"'f '■'SVttin""^^ ever Both are mentioned to-
many ot tnem n«ve it now in t» ~ i r-r.i • r /
tke Text itfclf, [d«o\, Gcf^ 5] gCth^r. DCildi^S '* IhiS whol^
paflage,
on
1 Pet. r, T.
a--^
87
pqlfAe, \Jhe GRACE of
O 0 D- hath APPEAR^
ED to all Me?t j looking
for the glorious APPEAR- ING of the G REAT GODy a7id our Saviour fE- SUS CHRIST-;] is €x- adly parallel to, and ex- plained by. That other Paf- fage in the. next Chapter, Tit. 3 ', 4, 6, [^ The Kind- nefsaftdLOrE of G 0 D our Saviour^ (viz. of the Father,) toward Man A P-
PEARED
-'Which HE
yet from the TenoUr of their Comments upon it, and tVom their never citing it in the Arum Controverfy, it appears they read it, [qui or quod,] Which, or He which y 'till the time oF Macedonius under the Emperour Anaftafius, in the Beginning of the Sixth Cen- tury. Of the Two pafTages cited to the contrary by the learned Dr Mills in his Ap- pendix , Thxt from Juftin Mtrtyr does not prove he did, but rather that he did nor, read it[^e^] ^od ;,5nd Thaf from Athanafni^^ is out of a Book acknowledged to be fpu- rious. And therefore thefe Two Tcxt5, [i Tim. 9, i^, and Rom. 9, f,] are by your Friend liimfelf omitted in his Col'eaion. Laftly, j^e^. i, 8, is only a Citation out of thj; 4$th F/^/w,. wherein the word CIZ»n78 is rendred ^h^ God, and is there fpoken of a perfon, whom GOD, even I/is Gody had anointed^ '
fjed on us through J E-
Sp'S CHRIST our Savi^ our ; that^ being jujlified by hisGRACE^&Cc!] But be- fore I leave this Text, 'tis reafonable that I acquaint the Reader with an Argument in favour of your Friend's Interpretation, much ftronger than any that he has brought for himfelf. It may be alleged ;, if the Great God figni- fies here the Father^ and not Chrisi -^^ that, then Sc Faul would, have faid, t5 }jjc'ybhH S-ga^ >^ T3 cTyT^p©- r^fji^v 'hcrZ ^e/T^j ^p3 not
(imply T? fMyoiha S-gy j^ oioTiip©^ ^H^v 'Ijjca.
5^e*r«. \ But to This, the true Anfwer is ^; that ini' Nouns Chat'^cteriftical and Equiva- lent'(as it were) to Proper Names, the Ar-
F 4 tide
88 A Commentary
tide is very frequently left out. Thus
Sreoi is often ufed to fignify the fame as o
^eoiy wje^Q^ as o' -ajl/^©^, G^^h 2s o Qirrips
Though on the contrary o* ^eos is never
ufed for ^eoi, o x/Je^©- for twqjl© , nor o*
Q,Trj/) for Q;t7]/) in general : The reafon
whereof, is, in the Nature of the Language,
evident enough. Now in like manner as,
fuppofing S^ Paul had faid, t5 fjueydAv ^eS
^ wjcJ^h (that is, tS wje)-\f) ifJi^v 'ha» x^/"
^S, every Body would have underftood figa
to belong to the Father^ and ;a;e^'« to Chriji j
fo, when he fays t§ fMyoixa ^t^K^^ G^tS/)®*
(that is, tS ^tS/j© ) r.fJi^v 'I'/jo-S X€J^^^'> ^^^
meaning is ftill evidently the fame. Thus
Luke 2, 1 1, Unto you is born thk day (^wrSp)
a Saviour : It is put as fignifying the fame
with 0 G'TTf^, and (hould accordingly have
been tranflated. The Saviour^ (the expeded
or promifed Saviour,) which is Chrift the
Lord, Again, Phil. 3, 20, From whence
alfo we look for {azornes^, here our Tranfla*
tors rightly render it as if it had been toV
cvrrie^t] The Saviour^ the Lord Jefus Chrift*
In like manner, i Tim. i, i, the words
which we read, 5(5^' ^mtyr^v 0g« Q)Tr)p@*
ifjl^v & y/j^ys 'hcS ;^^r«, fy ^he command^
mgnt of God our Saviour and the Lord Je-
Jus Christy are in fome Manufcripts, f^T
S^Tayiiy S'fy (that is, 7? 3'g«) •crctrep^ ^
(^Tnp©* (that is, tS OTyrSf©*) rifj^^v Jjjo-Sf
en Matt. 19 i?- ^9
^€Jt<^v, by the commandment of God the Fa^ ther and our Saviour Jefus Chrift.
N^
10.
Matt. XIX, 17. There is None Good^ but tn the One, that is God. %2tZ'
N= 540,
Concerning This Text I have already ^ ^^^ ^;^. difcourfed at large above. No i. I (hall here fwer, pag. only take Notice of what your Friend has ^^• added New in this place.
I had cited a paflage of Clemens Alexan- drinus^ where he Paraphrafes the words [One^ that is God^ by thefe which follow, [0 ^cLrip fJiy 0 cv TD?$ h^vQiSy My Father which is in Heaven.'] Your Friend alleges out of him Another paflage, wherein he fays. The One only Good God is the Son in the Father. I leave the Reader to compare the Two paflages together, and draw from thence the beft Inferences he can. Only let him confider, that One of them is a di- reft Expofition of the Text itfelf^ the o- ther, is only a Rhetorical Sentence of the Author.
In like manner, out of Athanafms^ I ci- ted a paflage, wherein, by way of Expofi- tion upon this very Text, he fays, [The^ttScnf- Son, when he came into the World ^ i^^^^fi^^^yllfT^ not himfelf but his FATHER j faying to 5 2?^' ''^* ' a cer-
po A Commentary
a certain Verfon -that came to hm^ Why calieft thou Me, Good > Th^re is Noi^e^ Good, but One, that is God."] Yo^r Friend refers to Other pafTages of the fame Author, where he fays the Son is not excluded^ but is In the One and Only God. In what S:nfe This may well be true, and yet the fame Author's Comment upon the Text ftill hold good and confident, that the Oyie G/?a^th.Te mentioned by our Saviour, is the Father ^ an intelligent Reader will eafily apprehend.-' If not ^: then What does the Authority ak' leged, amount to ? • '.
Novatian^ fpeaking, of the Father^ has thefe words , Whom ahne onr Lord juftly pronoimces to be Good.^ Your Friend indea- vours to find in the fame Author fome o- ther palfage, which, by a remote Metaphy- fical and Scholaftick confequence, futh as Zv^^'L'/^fir?/^ never thought of, may feem to- caft fome obfcurity upon this plain paflage. But Novatian fpoke every where very uni- formly ^ .And his Whole Book was written' profelfedly upon This Subjed ;, And the Defign of it throughout, is to maintain the very thing I am contending for : Which he has done with great Accuracy, againft the Errours in Both Extrem,es : So that his Book is highly worth the perufal of ali Learned Men." uj. uoh
And Thefe are All the A7it:horities^yom learned Friend here^refcrs to. ' '^^
As
onM2Ltt. 19, 17. 9^^
-As to the Text itfelf, the True Meaning of it feems to Me to be this : That in the like Senfe as God the Father is in other places of Scripture declared to be the Ojie and Only Cod, he is in this place declared to be alfo the 07ie and Only Good. That is to fay : As God the Father is, by way of Eminence, the One and Only God, becaufe He Alone has [iuoriGeo'ni^"] Divinity abfo- lutely of Hiinjelf Supreme, Unorigitiate,and not' derived from Any '^ (as Or /^^/j learnedly and at large argues in the phce before- cited ^ Seeabove,'pag. 6s-') and y^tChrifl is ^{(6 True God, becaufe he has T;w Di^ vtjuty derived to him from the^ Father ^ whereas all Falfe Gods, are no Gods at all : So God the Father is likewife, by way of Eminence, xhtOtie and Only Good^ becaufe He Alone is [yutyiuctr^Biv'] the original im-. derived Fountain of Goodnefs :,. and yet Ck//7alfo is rndy Good, by having the Father's Goodnefs communicated to him with- out Meafure , whereas Falje Gods, have neither Any Dominion, nor Any Goodnefi
at, all. ; „ I
,..To' This, your Friend anfwers : Inat 'Self originated and Begotten, do mt appear pag. 27. to beeffential, but perfonal CharaBers :, in- ferring, 7iot a differeiice of Subftance, but a different manner of having their iSubfiftence •, thSon receiving it by Generation from the
Father^
^1 A Commentary
Father^ which denominates him Begotten ; the Father having it without receiving it from any other ^ which names him Selfori^ ginated*
I reply : His affirming Self-originated and Begotten^ to be, not effentiaJ^ but per- fonal Charaders , is affirming, in other Words, that they are, not effential^ but ef fential Charafters. For What is a perfonal CharaBer^ but a Charafter which diftin- guifhes That particular Perfon from all o- ther Perfons ^ and What is This, but the Ejfence of That Perfon > If we know any thing of the Ejfence of God, the firft and of all others the mo ft e [fential Charafter of him, is his being Selfexiftent or Unoriginal ted. The Suhftance of the Son, whatever the Vature of it be in other refpefts, yet is certainly derived from the Father ^ other- wife, the Son being Self-exiftent as well as the Father, it would follow, that Not the Perfon of the Son^ (that is, Not the Son himfelf) but the Perfonality only of the Son was begotten of the Father : Which is un- intelligible Metaphyficks, and without any Foundation in Scripture. However, your Friend, by allowing the Son to be Begotten^ and the Father alone to be Self originated or (to fpeak more properly) JJnoriginated ; clearly grants All that I contend for : Though, at the fame time, by darkning it
with
on Rom. ii, 3^. P3
i*^Ith other more obfcure and metaphyfical Expreflions, he would feem to deny it.
N°ii.
Rom. XI, 36. Of him ^ and through him ^ in the and to him are all things. Scripture"
'^ do^riney
N*» 372.
The Meaning (I think) is: From Him^^^^^^n- [yiz. from the Father] all things derive f//' ^'*^* their Being, hy Him all things are prefer- red and governed, to his Glory all things fliall terminate.
Your Learned Friend paraphrafes theWords thus : Of him^ as HE is Father , through him^ as HE is Son , to him (or rather^ in bim^ for fo the Particle ^% is frequently ufed^ ds HE is the Holy Ghosl.
Had he here intended to exprefs the Sa- bellian Notion, which in the Whole a- mounts to the very fame with Socinianifm • denying the Son and Holy Ghoft to be any thing more than mere empty Names ^ I know not how it could pofGbly have been declared in more fuil and expreffive Words.
The Paflage he cites out of Novatian^ is not for him, but diredly againrt him. All things (fays Novatian^ fpeaking of God the Father,) are 0 F Him^ becaufe they exisi by
his
94 -^ Commentary
his Command^ and are THROUG H Him^ becaufe they are Qverbo ejus digeftd] put in order by His Word -^ (Not, as your Friend would have it, by Hiin as HE is the Word.)
I obferve one thing further upon This Head. Your Friend is very fond of con- founding All Language. In the firft Text he quotes, he will have [en'] to fignify Ojie Things inftead of One Verfon. And here he would have [«5 ^r^v~] to fignify, . in Him^ inftead of, to Htm : The Particle, he fays, being Frequently fo ufed. But there is no fuch thing in the World, as putting one Word^ in this manner, for an- other : And indeed it is impoflible there ftiould '^ For, at that rate, no Language would have any Signification. Some Gram- marians indeed give Inftances of ^;/^ Word's feeming to be put for another -^ But the In- ftances they allege, are always either Cor- ruptions of the Copies, or elfe their own Miftakes. There are fome places in the New Teftament, where our Tranflritors render \Jii ku^i\ in him -^ But where-ever they do fo, 'tis becnufe they miftake the Senfe. Thus i Cor. 8, 6, 'To us there is but One God^ the Father -^ of whom are all things^ and We In him : In the Greek it is [ ^s ^jj^v^ and we To him : That is. To or ^or
^i^Tlt ^^^^ ^^^^y '•> ^^' (^^ ^^^ Learn ^'d W Mede paraphrafes it,) to whom as Supreme we are
to
Pet. 1.
^^ Ephef. ^y 6. pi^
to direB all our Services. The like vu^ gar Error, with regard to the Particle [jri] in the Latin Language, I have re- futed in my Annotations upon C^fars Co?nnie7itaries ^ tid lib, 4. de Bello Gallic co^pag. 76, Im. 12. Sometimes indeed one and the. fame Word has indifferent- ly, two or more fignifications \ and then it m iV (according as the Senfe requires) be underftood in Any of thofe Significations. Thus the Word [:!.] in the New Tefta- ment, according to the Genius of the He- brew and Helleniftical Stile, fignifies indiffe- rently In or By. But there is no fuch thing in any Language, as putting one Word for another^ And therefore ^^ ^jjtov^ (the Word e?? having but one ngnification,) can be rendred no otherwife than To Him.
N^ 17.
E P H E S. IV, 6. One God and Father ofm the all^ who is above all and through all and ^^^'P^^'''^' in you all. N° 382^^-
In the Ati'
^This (he fays) is underftood of the Tri^ {7;'^'^- nity^ by Ireyiaus. If it were fo, Irenaus's Authority would fcarce be fufficient to prove, that One God a?id Father of all fig- pitied the Trinity. But what Iren^^s meant i^ the .place, referred to, I have ftiown above, •-"-•■ pag.
^6 A Commentary
pag. 71. I think I need not add, that Bi^op Pearfon (Expof. on the Creed^ pag. 40,J and Bijhop Bull (Defenf. Seft. 4, cap. i, ^. 2,) underftand this Text of God the Fa- ther only. The words of the Apoftle are very exprefs, without a Comment : There is— One Spirit^ — One Lord^ — Oyie God and Father of all ^ who is above all and through all and in you alU
N° 15.
In the T I T. II, 1 5. The glorious appearing of the foarinr ^^^^^ ^^^-> \y^y ^^^ appearing of the Glory N" 395*. of the Great God j] and our Saviour Je- Inches,,. LChriB.
Here your Friend refers only to what he had faid before upon this Text, under the Head (N' 9 •) Under which Head, / alfo have at large fpoken of it above, pag. 85.
28.
N° 14.
In the
Sr I J o H N V, 20, 2 1. Thk is the True God, N«4io. and Eternal Li fe — Keep yourCelves from '-'-/"- Idols. .
fomyz.e^ Your Learned Friend reads the whole w iL^*^ Paflage thus : The Son of God is come^ and fag 73. hath
' on I John 5^ 20, 21. pj
hath given its an Under flanding that we may know Him that k 'Tme^ Qviz. the Son of God ^3 -^^^^ '^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ Him that is 'True^ even in his Son Jefm Chrtft. This [viz. Je- fus Chrift^ ^^ '^^^^ True God and Eternal Life : Little Children^ keep jourfelves from Idols.
/read and underftand the Text thus: The Son of God is come^ and hath given us an Under ft ajiding^ [has enlightened the Eyes of our UnderftanJing, as 'tis £/?/?. i, iS,^ that we may know the True God^ [viz. that we may know and acknowledge the Father revealed by the Son ^"J Jnd we are in Him that is True, [viz. in That True God,] by (or, through') his Son Jejm Christ* This is the True God ^ and Eternal Life ^ [viz. This God, whom the Son has given us an Un- derftanding to know, is the True God , and to know and acknowledge him, and to be In him in (or by) his Son, this is eternal Life : «tb$ eq'tv 0' aAw^j/os ©go?, ^ C^^'^') ri ^wi oLioit'i©. : This is the True God^ and This the vVay that leads to him ^ This is the true Worfhip of God, by his Son, un- to eternal Life :] Little Children^ keep your felves from Ldols^ [from Idol-Worihip.J
The Reafons for each of thefe Interpreta- tions, are as follows.
G Your
98 A Commentary
Your Friend alleges in the firft place, that the general 'Defign of the Epiflk^ is not to teach the Truth and Exiftence of the Oiie only God^ in oppofition to Idols , but to incourage Believers to continue in the Faith of the Son of God, by affuring them that they had eternal Life by virtue of That Faith. And from hence he fuppofes the Apoftle to conclude, that the Son of God^ Jefus Chrui^ is Hmfelf the True God^ and the only way to Eternal Li fe^ or rather Eter^ nal Life itfelf -^ and that therefore Men ought to keep themfelves from Idols^ or from All Means of approaching God^ befides this Divine Perfo?j»
But now This Argument proves juft the contrary to what your Friend intended. For if the Defign of this Epiftle be (as in- deed it is,) to incourage Believers to conti- nue in the Faith of the Son God^ as that v^herein thtiv Eter^ial Life conMs -^ and to warn them to keep from L/oIs, that is, from Jll other mea?is of approaching God, but through this divine Perfon : Does it not from hence plainly appear, that the x\po- ftle, in his Conclufion, means to declare ChiFt to be the Way^ the Truth and th€ I^^fe^ the only Means of approaching Cod^ th<)i is, not of approaching hifnfelf but of aprro:'c!nno; his F^ither^ who is here ftiled The Tme God^ whom the ton of Cod has
givc7i
on I John 5^ 20^ iu pp
given us an Under (landing to knovi?^ and, by giving us That Underftanding, is our Eter- nal Life.
As the Befign of the Gofpel^ is to (how, that T/:?/> is Life Eternal^ to know the Only True God^ and Jefiis Chrisl whom He has fent^ Joh. 17, 3 ^ and again, Joh. 2c, 31, T6^/^ thijigs are written^ that ye might be- lieve that Jefm is the Chrift the Son of God ^ and that believing ye might have Life through his Name : So the Defign of this Epiflle is to (how, that our Eternal Life confifts, in believing Jefus to be the S 0 N of God^ and in being brought by him to the know- ledge and acknowledgment of the True God in oppofition to all Idols :, and not in be- lieving him [the Son of the True God^~] to be himfelf that very fame individual True God [that very {ame Perfon] whofe Son he is. Verfe the 5^'^ of this Chapter ^ TFho is he that overcoineth the TVorld^ but he that believeth that Jefus is the SON of God ? And r^r. ii, 12, 13, This is the record^ that God hath given to us Eternal Lfe ^ and this Life is in his SON: He that hath the Son^ hath Lfe *, and he that hath not the Son ofGod^ hath not Life: Thefe things have I written imto you that believe on the Name of the SON of God :, that ye may kfwiv that ye have Eternal Life^ and that ye may believe on the Name of the S 0 N of God.
G 2 In
'oo A Commentary
In the next place, your Friend alleges, that the word [aA>f^K$, and o dx-n:^voQ He that is Tme^ is in S^^ Johns^ Writings feldom applied to the Father ^ in this firft Epiftle, 7iever applied to the Father , but, in all his Writings, frequently applied to the Son : As Rev. 5, 7, Jhefe things fahh He that is True ^ Rev. g, 14, Thefe things faith the Faithful and True Witnefs -^ dc Rev. 19, II, He that fat upon the white Horfe^ mas called Faithful and True , as if, True^ were a Name or i\ttribute more par- ticularly the Son's. And from hence he infers, that therefore probably in the pre- fent paflage alfo, the words. Him that is True^ and, in Him that is True, and, the True Ood, are all fpoken of the Son: Efpe- cially (ince, in the Conftruftion of the words, [JFe are in Hiin that is True, even in his Son Jefus Chrift^ 'tis plain (he fays) that the Terms, in Hi?n that is True^ are explained by, in his Son , fo that no doubt (he fays) can be made, but that the word True belongs here to Chrift , and therefore 'tis a ftrong Probability, that they are meant of Him alfo in the foregoing words, that we may know Him that is True.
Now All this (which I have reprefented in its full force) is very plaufible to an Unlearned Reader, and (I believe) very
(incere
en I John 5^ ao, 21. loi
fincere (as the whole Book feems to be) in the Writer himfelf. But yet Nothing is more impoffible, than This his Interpre- tation. For it all depends upon Iwo very great Errours : One^ an Errour in the read- ing of the Original ^ The Other^ a Miftake in the Englifi Tranflation. The Firf}^ is an Errour in the reading of the Original : For if your Friend had (as it was reafona- ble he fliould have done,) confulted Dr Mills'^ he would have found that the Moft and Bed Manufcripts have it, [iVa ytvcaa^tof}- Ijjcv T oiAy)^vov GgoV,] that we may know j^not, him that is Tme^ but] the True GOD. Now though your Friend's Obfervation is very right, that \jlKvi^vQi, or 0 aAwn^i^of, he that is True^ when ufed alone, as Rev^ 19, II, always fignifies the Son^ becaufe it is of the fame import with [0 ccah^vos fjj^p- rrui] the Faithful ajid True Wit7iefs^ Rev, 3, 14 : yet, on the contrary, when it is joined with Q^sos] ^od^ it always fignifies the Father^ and 7iever the Son : Joh. 17, 5, That they might know Thee the Only True God [dhr^Jivov ^ov^andJefusChrifl whom thou haHfent ^ And i Tk i, ^^ To ferve the Living and True God, [©gw dhn- ^vu)^'] and to wait for His Son from Hea- ven. The firfl: part therefore of the Text before us, according to the true Reading, ftandg thus : The Son of God is come^ and G 3 hath
103 A Comment aty
hath given its an Underflanding Qra yj'wV- 'itu}jjcv @ d^ J\vcv ^iov~\ that we may k?20w the True God^ \jt eo-fx^v c^ toj clh7\3ii^co] and Tpe are in That True God -^ or, in the True One -^ fo the word ought to be rendred, and not (as we tranflne it,) in Him that is I rue : For the nieaninor is not, [in Verace^'] in Him that fpeaketh the Truth -^ but, \jn Vero^ in Him that Is the True One. Bafil^ in his Fourth Book againft Euno?nius^ reads
tne Text tnUS^ net ytvoia-ytojiJUfV @ fj^vov ocA't)- ^vov Qeovy ?^ eafx^v ov nco oiAv'h'OJ voc ojutS
'Itjo-S x^^^' ^^^^^ '^^^ ^^^V^ hiow the Only True God^ and we are in his True Son Jefus ChriH 5 Which Reading, though corrupt, yet confirms the Authority of thofe Manu- fcripts, which, in the former part of the Text, put in the word 0goV. The Other Errour your Friend is guilty of, is his be- ing mif-led by a Mifiake in the EngUjlj Tranflation of the following words, [(^
taiJUev 04^ TOO aAi^tdnvct)^ ov nrotj tfw Ofjii Ircry
%e^r^"~\ which our Tranflators, following Bez>a too implicitly, render thus, We are in Him that is Triie^ even ?w his Son Jeftis Chrijl In which words (fays your Friend) " it is plain that the Terms, in Hm that is " True^ are explained by, in his Son -^ fo " that no doubt can be made, but that " the word 7 rue belongs to Chrill ". But if this were fo -^ and the words, 7n Hwi that
on I John 5^ 20^ ai. 105
is Tnte^ were meant of Chrift •, Whom then would the word, His^ refer to, in the following Period, even in HIS Son Jefus Chrtfi .<? Is not, HIS Son, as much as to fay, the Son [tS ocAyiJiviT} of That True One ? and if then by That True One was meant ChriH^ would not This bt^ to fay that Jejus Chr'isi was the Son of Htmfelf ^ Or, does the word, His, refer to fome very remote Antecedent ? The True Rendring therefore plainly is j that we may know the True God^ and we are In That True God B T his Son Jefus Chrisi : That is ^ Chrift has not on- ly given us an Underftanding to kiiow and acknowledge the True God, but has more- over brought us to a ftill nearer Union and Communion with him, even fo as to be In Him: Thus <:/:?. 4, 15, Whofoever pall C07i- fefs that Jefus is the Son of God^ God dwelleth in Him, and He in God ^ And Joh. 17, 21, Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee, that They alfo may be one in Us. The Defign of the Apoftle is not to prove (as your Friend fuppofes,) that we Are in Chrift , but to infer from thence, (That being the Premife, not the Conchifion of his Argu- ment,) that in like manner as Thofe who are in the World, (ver. 1 9, J are thereby \Ja; Totf 7nivy)pf\ in the Evil One, and, becaufe they have not the So?i, therefore neither have they the Father, ch. 2, 25 *, fo We, on the contrary, who Are in Chrift^ are G 4 thereby
104 A Commentary
thereby Confequently [c^^ V a^jijivw'] hi the Tri4e God^ and Know oiirfelves to be of God (ch. 5, I9,J becaufe by Chrift we have the Knowledge of the True God (ver. 20,J ynd arc in the Trite God by his Son Jefus Chrisi, We have the Father (ch. 2, 23,) or are in the Father^ ver. 24, Thus \jiVoui ou '■u^v£i^nr\ to be In the Spirit : And [J^vcu cAf 'rnvkup^^Ti cc-^^^^Tt/}^ to be in an unclean Spirit^ (ignities the fame as
C'*^' *'! ^^ ^^^^"^^ ^'^ unclean Spirit. We are in the True 0<?^/then, ET his Son Jefus ChriH : So the Praspofition [c/v~] fignifies in the Hebrew Idiom. Thu^ver. ii^'' of this very Chapter^ This is the Record^ that God hath given to us Eternal Life^ and This Life is IN (that is, By or Ihroitgh^ his Son* Asjain, ver. 5, This is He that came by Water \J\ v^<nf] and Blood *, 7iot by Water \yx, 'li N ^ wdic7i3 Ofdy^ but by Water a)id Blood. Or, the words may be rendrcd thus , We are In I hat True Cod^ by being IN his Son Jefus Chrift : Taking the Prxpofition in its ufual Signification , As ch. 2, 24, Te Jljall continue In the Son and In the Fa- ther. But the more natural rendring of the words before us, is (as I fiid,) We are in That True God^ BT bis Son Jefus Chrift. For fuppofe the Apoftle had faid in this place, according to his ufual Style, la\jAv
vjdii 'ImZ XP^T?^> i^ would then have been
manifeftly
on I John 15^ ao^ ai. 105
iraanifeftly impollible to render the latter Pr^pofition [c</,] otherwife than, B T. We are in the True (-.od^ [and He in Us J By his Son Jefits Chri/l, Laftly, if any one fliall allege, that the Praspofition [ci,] re- peated (as in this place) twke together in the fame Sentence, cannot fo vary, as in the one part to be rendred, iw, and in the other, ly ^ the following undeniable In- ftances will convince him of the contrary :
fjicfy was with (or amongj our Fathers in the Wildernefs : Rom. i, 9, of tiJ* 'mv^vfji^'n ijlm ov Tstf svaryB?viCf)y with mj/ Spirit^ in the Go- fpel : Gal. 2, 20, cm/ uap-iu, ov 'TnV^j in the Flejfj^ by the Faith : Ephef. i, 3, ot/ ^<j-yi
iuXoyia, ov toTs lir^^viQii^ ov X^^^^-> ^^^^ all Blejfings m Heavenly places in Chri/i: Ephef. 2, 6, ov 'Tr.?> g7r«2^j'/os .ov x^q-^y in Hea- venly places in [_with or by] Chri/l : Ephef. 5, 21, ov TV oxkAwotcc ov 'XjC/'^^t ^n ^'^^ Church by Chrifl. : 2 Th. i, 4, 01/ Ju?"!/ ov ^?$ G«xA>?OTx(?, in [c^/^r^r/ii;?^] you in j^/:?^ Churches : l Joh, 4, 9, or tst^ — ov ifjuv^ in r&V — towards us. And thus likewife in the prefent PaiTage, ov tw ochnjtvo) ov 1^ t}^ aj(n^, in the True One by his Son,
In the third place, your Friend alleges that Iren^iis , and fome other of the Anci- ents, filled Chrifl: [_Ferus Dens'] True GoJ^ or, as the better Copies oilren^m generally
have
lo6 A Commentary
have it, \Vere Deus^'] Truly God *, And that therefore ChriH is mofl probably meant iu this Text by the Words, This is the True God*
I anfwer : Ireji^us very juftly ftiles Chrift True God and Truly God -^ meaning thereby, (as I have above fnown at large, pag. ii,) not Self-exifteut ^ Lidepeiident^ Underived Divinity ^ but t'as he exprefsly explains him- ^Seci/m{'^If jj-j |-j^g Tk g^Q.]^ y^uj. priend fo often re-
c-'dirough-fers to,) that Chrift is Tndy God, by ha- Giit> ving RECEIVED from his Father True Di- vinity and Dominion over the whole Creation-^ whereas Falfe Gods have no Divinity or Dominion at all. Bur in what Senfe foever ChriB is by Irenmis affirmed to be, and in reality is, 7?7/^ God -^ yet in This Text 'tis not He, that is fpoken of by that Name. For the preceding Word, He that is True, (to which your Friend thinks nothing but Apparent Prejudice can hinder a Man from referring the followino; \Vords, This is the TrueG'-'d'^) I fay, the preceding Word, He that is True^ being fpoken (as I have now (bown) not of the Son^ (as your Friend fuppofes,) but of the Father ^ it fol- lows plainly that the next Words, This is the True God^ are meant aifo, not of the Son^ but of the Father. For it cannot be, but the fame Perfon mud be fpoken of throughout I, that we may hioiv the TRUE GOD, and we are in Htm that is TRUE
[in
on I John 5, 20^ 21. 107
[in That TRUE G O D] ^5^ ror zrfo'^?/^y:?) ^ij" .^<?;z Jefiis Chr'ifi^ This is the T RU E GOD &c. The word, [«tc?, Tbis^ refers back, as is moft natural and ufual, not to the laft word /';/ Order ^ but to the la ft arid principal in S^/z/>, that which was upper- moft in the Writers Thoughts, and chiefly- aimed at in the Whole Difcourfe. Had S^ John intended to affirm, what your Friend fuppofes 5 he would not have fcid, fro? Igif, but 'Egi (c yr©., or esi 5 ^ Ir^ &C. Neither would he have faid, «t©. Igir L-^'J aAv^^roi? 3-8053 for That would have been affirming the Perfon of the Son to be the very Perfon of the Father before- mentioned 5 but he would have faid, Ziii igiv^ or Igi 5 ^ 'i'Tni, ' AAnyivoi ^sU. For, as I before obfervcd, though ©go^ is often the fame as d s-g©., yet, on the contrary, 0 S-gds is never by Any Writers put for S-go> : As the Le?rned well underftand. It ought alfo to weigh fomewhat with your Friend, that None of the Writers of the Three Firft Centuries allege thefe words. This is the True God^ as fpoken of Chrift.
Laftly, your Friend urges in the lail place, that " the following part of the " Context, Eternal Life^ is another Argu- " ment that the Perfon of JefusChrift isun- " derftood by the Trite God: For it does not
" appear.
u
CC
1 08 A Commentary
appear, (fays he,) that thofe Terms [viz, eternal Life'] are fpoken of any other Perfon in the whole Epiftle, but of ^' the Son only ;, as ck I, 2 , eh. V, "II, 12, 13. If then the Son be ^' the eternal Life • the True God^ JVHO " IS this eternal Lfe^ muft be the Son
« oifo "
That the Terms, eternal Lfe^ are indeed in this whole Epiftle applied only to the Son^ is very true :, but This proves, not what your Friend fuppofes, but the contra- ry. For Sf John does not fay, that The True G/}d IS eternal Life ^ but he There- fore calls the Son eternal Life^ becaufe it is He that brin2;eth us to the True God. He IS the Way^ the Truth^ and the Life , and is fo, by giving as an Uiider [landing (as this very Text exorefTes it) that we may know the True God, The Meaning therefore of thefe laft Words [This is the True God and eternal Life^ is, as I before faid -^ This God, whom the Son has given us an Un- derftmding to know, is the True God ; and to know and acknowledge him, and to be In him in (or by) his Son, This is eter- nal Life : Zini/^.v 6 dXriJtvoi ^ecs.. ^ (^xviri) ri ^&)/j odconQ- : This is the True God, and This the Way that leads to him : This is, having the father a?id the Son^ i John^ 2 , 22, 25 ;, and 2 John^ 9. This is the True Religion, the Worfnip of this True God by
and
on Jude 4. top
and through his Son Jefus Chrift : Little Children^ keep your felves from Idols j Be- ware of Idoi-worfliip.
Your Friend wirties fome Inft.nices had been given, in which the True God is ufed for the True Religw?!. I anfwer : By the fame Figure that Idols or Falfe Gods^ in the very next Words, fignitie the TVcrflip of Falfe Gods^ wiiich is lalfe Religion ^ by the very fame figure of fpeaking here, the Tn/^ G<9^/ fignifies the Worfhip of the Trite God^ which is True Religion. 'Tis in Ts ei- ther Cafe, a ftricl Tranfation , but in Botby a true Paraphrafe.
N° 15.
J U D E 4. Denying the Only Lord God [^ in die uGvov ^iam^rrv BgoV , God the onlv Su-^^;;^^^^-"- preme Governour,] ^//r/ (denymg) our\^> i^^ Lord Jefus ChriH. ^ ^ 4 ^ J • i" f ^'^r
The Hereticks the Apoflle here fpeaks of, are the fame that S^ John mentions, i John 2 5 22, 23, Who is a Liar^ ll^^« 0' •J^vr^-r, The Liar, vvz. Antichrift,] hut he thatDe- nieth that Jefus is the Christ ^ He is Anti- cbrisi, that denieth THE FATHER and
i I o A Commmtdry
THE SON : Whofoever Denieth THE SON, the fame hath not THE FATHER.
Some Copiers of S"^ Jitdes Epiftle, not underflanding This Senfe of the Words, which S"^ John fo clearly explains ;, and not apprehending how all Denier s of the Soii^ are Confequently charged as being Demers of the Father alfo , have read S^ Jiules Words thus : ^ ^Vov S'eamTr.v ^ ^iuue^ov ii/^v 'IvjcryV ^^'-^v, or, @ (Jigiov (ieov >^ (T^o-ttd- Tiiv r yuo^Qv 7](jJ)v 'ivia^p ^6^w' denying our Only Mafter and Lord^ j^fi^^ Christ -^ or, our Only God and Mafter^ the Lord Jefus Christ. But 'tis plain that Neither of thefe Readings can be True : Firft^ becaufe the Word Moz©>- Only^ can by no means be af- cribed to Christy as it frequently is (by way of E?ni7ie?iceJ tothe tather : kwA Secondly ^ becaufe the Word [Ag.^Tys Sitpreme Lordly is Never applied to Lhrilt in the New Tef- tament, though Grotius (by Miftake) af- firms that it is, in his Note on thofe Words, 2 Pet. 2, I, Denying the Lord [AgcTzroTnj'] that bought them. The Comment of the Learned D^" Whitby upon which place, is very remarkable : '' Chrift (futh he) be- ing never fliled A^o-mTyu in the New Teftament , and S- Jude (ver, 4) diftin- guiihing this ^go-TRon;, or Mafler^ from our Lord -^ it feems moft reafonable to interpret This of God the Lather -^ who " is fiid to have bought the Jews, Dent.
- 32,
<.(.
6C
ic
iC
(c
on Jude 4. m
52, 6, Is he not thy Father who has
bought thee <? iVnd the Chriftians, i Cor.
6, 20, Te are bought with a Trice • " therefore glorify God 171 your Body ^ and in
your Spirit^ tvhich are God's " : To vv^hich may be added, i ?et. i • 17, 18, 19, i/^ ye call on the Father, — —ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible thin^s^
' kit with the precious Blood of Chrift,
as of a Latnh without blemifo, Novv as Chnft is no where in the New Teftament fliled AifTTrirttfi (but God the Father only, as Luke 2, 29- ^^j^ 4, 24, 2 Tiw. 2, 21 ;, Jude^ 4 5 and iJ^i'. 6, 10 ^ fo in o- ther the molt Antient Writers, and particu- larly in Cleme7is\ Epiftle, the neareft to the Apoftolical Stile :, the Word Jlo-TriTr^, and
0 cTgcTTTTDTTij T^ cL'Tm.vr^v , [the Supreme Lord of all,'] is with the greateft Care continu- ally appropriated to God the Father. W^hat Grotius (on 2 Pet. 2, i,) alleges to the contrary, out of Refponf. ad Ortbodoxos^ is out of a late and fuurious Book.
Againft all this, your Friend has nothing to allege -^ and therefore he lets pafs my Tr^nflation of the Word J^ecrTOTw^, (which
1 juft mentioned in my Scripture-doBrine^ and have here more largely explained,) without making any Remark upon it at alL The only thing he has here to obferve, is ^ that whereas i cited a Pailage out of Bifiiap
Fearfouy
112 A Commentary
Fearfoji^ wherein That learned Writer fays, (fpeaking of God the Father^') that He is the Only Potentate^ becaitfe He alone has all Power of Himfelf] and whofoever elfe has Any^ hath it from Hiin^ either by Dojiation or Permijjion -^ " we muft not '*, fays your Friend, " underhand this Citation out of " Pearfon^ as if That learned Author meant " that the Son — received his Power from the " Father either by Donation or Permiilion ". And Why muft we not underftand That learned Author to fnean^ what he fo ex- prefsly affirms .«? Why, " Becaufe he fays " in another place, that God was always " Father^ '^s always God: Which SEEMS " to import, that the- Charader of Father
" depends not upon the Will : — • —
" that the Son is as Necellarily Son^ as the " Father is Father ; and that therefore his " Power is no more by bare 'Donation from " the Father, than his very Being ". Sup- pofe now the latter words of Bifhop Pearfon^ had not only SEEMED to import, but had really imported what your Friend thinks they import. Would it from thence have followed, that his former words did not mean what they plainly exprefs .<? No : it would only have followed, that in the lat- ter words he had affirmed fomething, which, by a confequence, whereof perhaps he might not be awarc% deftroyed his former words. For if the Will of the Father was not con- cerned
on Jude 4. il
cerned in the Generation of the Son, it will follow unavoidably that the Son was not generated at all from the Father^ but was as much Self-ex'jftenc as the Father himfelf. For whatever is caufed by an In- telligent Beings is caufed by the Will of That Being. Otherwife it is not (in Truth and Reality) caufed by That Beiiig at all, but by fome Superiour Caufe, (be it Isecef- fity^ or fate^ or Whatever it be -^ under which, the Intelligent Being is in fuch Cafe as much an Injlrument only^ as if it was wholly Unintelligent. For which Reafon, All the Learnedeft of the Orthodox Fa- thers, who underftood how to argue cloie- ly and ftrongly 5 Juflin Martyr^ Origen^ Novatian, Eufehim^ the Council of Sznmum^ Mariiis ViBorinm^ Baftl^ Gregory Nyfjhi^ and indeed almoft all Antient Writers excepting only Athanafnis ^ profeffedly arg;ue (as I have fliown at large in my Scripture-doc- trine^ Part 11^ §. 17,) that the Son was generated of the Father, not by abfolute ifecejfity of Nature^ but by an Aft of his tttxnA Power and Will Which is the on- ly intelligible Foundation of that Authority the Scripture every where afcribes to the Father in the M{ffion of the Son. And though the Scripture has no where indeed in exprefs Ter?ns^ declared the Generation of. the Son to be by the Will of the Father ^ yet it does fo by plain Confequence^ when H our
114 A Commentary
our Lord fays concerning himfelf. Job. 5, 26, As the Father hath Life in himfelf fr hath he GIVEN to the Son to have Life in Himfelf
N" 16.
In the Matt. VL 9. Otrr Father^ which art m
Scripture- Tj '^
doarine, rLcaven.
N° 444-
^1^!^ Upon this Text, your Learned Friend 55. ' was obliged by his Hypotheiis to fay fo abfurd a thing, that a Man of his Sincerity ^ and Goodnefs could not fpeak it in his own Words '^ and therefore he only repeats the words of Tertullia?t^ who fays, that The Son alfo is invoked in the Father ^ and (fpeaking of Christ's delivering this Prayer,) that God only cotild teach horn he woiMl have HIMSELF he frayed to.
Now if This were true, it would fol- low, that when ChriH prayed to his Father^ he prayed to Himfelf-^ and when any Man prays to the Son to intercede for him, he prays to the Father to intercede for him ^ and when S^ John fays that Christ is our Advocate with the Father^ he means that the Son is an Advocate to Hivfelf With many other fuch Abfurdities, as not only Tertullia?i"s Authcrity, but even that of an
Afj^el
on I Tim. 2^ 5. 115
Angel from Heave?i^ would be very infuffi- cient to eflablifli in the Opinion of any rea- fonable Man, who had ever read the New Teftament. Your Friend (I prefume) fees- not thefe Confequences, becaufe he writes every where like a very fincere and good Man : But yet, for all that, they are Con- fequences, and ^iseviJejit ones too, as any in Euclid.
1 T I M. II, 5. For there is One God ^ ayidin the
0716 Mediator between God and Me7i, thef^l^l'^'
Man Chrifi Jefits. N* 501'
& 244.
That the words, One God^ are here fwer^p^i meant of the Father only^ is evident from37» hence, "that they are ufed as a Defcription of the Relative Perfon^ to whom the One Mediatour makes Interceflion. For, to whofn is the Mediation made ? Is it not to the Fa* ther ^ I Joh. 2, i, We have an Advocate with the FATHER^ Jeft^ Chrifi the Righ* teous. Not an Advocate with the Father and the Son ^ For then Chrifi^ who medi- ates as God-mayi^ would mediate to Himfelf: Which is abfurd.
What does your learned Friend anfwer to This? Why, the One God (he fays) is- H 2 fpokea
1 6 A Commentary
fpcfcen in oppofit'wn to Falfe Gods. Not fa in this place : For there is no mention of Falfe Gods in the Context : But One God is put direftly as the Perfon mediated to\, (which all Men allow to be the Father on- ly,) in contradiftindion to the Perfoir me- dtating to b'tm^ which is the Whole ?eyfon of the Son incarnate. Wherefore though the rnentio7iiniT the Son here (as your Friend goes on) After the One God^ had not in it felfhttw a ftffieient Argi4ment that he is ex-- chided out of the One God *, yet the menti- oning him with the Character of Media- tour^ in contradiffindion to the One God mentioned under the Oharader of the Per-- fon mediated to^ evidently iliows him to be not included here by the Apoftle in Him whom He thus (tiles by way of Eminence the One God»
All the P^ffages that follow, cited out of the Antieots, to prove that they (tiled Chri(t, God -^ (together with your Friends very (9^/i7/r^ Comments upon fome of them-,) are entirely befides the Purpofe. For I have a-lready often (liown, in what Senfe th^y taught (without the Confufon your Friend introduces,) that Chrift, both God and Man, became our Mediatour and Interceifour, in order to bring Men back to His and Their God and Father Supreme abfolutjely over All. QUt perducat ad Patrem, Ihat he Pti^ht bring the?n to his Father-^ fays Cy--
priat\
on Rev. 2 2^ p. 117
pflany in one of the paffages your Friend cites. n^7SLyct>y€iV 0 ^ek ?^yn W K^ -awTi 3-gf 5 G^<i 2^^<? ?'F(?r^ hnngs back the Soul of Man to the Supreme God over all j fays Ori- gen^ contr. Celf. lib. 6. To^ -^iscru^v ^st^Ql- ytyvi $* FxTg/, That he might reconcile the World unto his Father^ fays Athanajius^ E- pift. ad Phiiadelph.]
N^ 18.
R E V. XXII, 9. J^Tt^r//;//? G^^. In the
Scripfkr^.
Cyprian^ (f^ys yourTriend,) reads oxw^^^L explains it thus: Worjhip the Lord y^-inthe^/i-
V^' 42.
The whole PaiTage of Cy- prian, is as follows : " God the . P^^^ r J>^«s . P^^^epic fiiium
^'i'^f/^^r (faith he) Cbww^W^- Paulus, divini pracepri me- '' ed that his Son (Jjould be ™^";» P.^"'.^,,^ ^'^'^'h De,s
u n •^>. J jl J ll J^ fiJ ^^a^tavit ilium, e<r danav'it
TPOrJ hipped: And the ApoftU mi nomen, quod cj} fu^er omnc
*' Paid, mindful of the Divine "o'«^^^ «^ i^ "^^'''"^ Jefu omne Command Jays accordingly '^ %p;,^^ ^ inf. /nor um: u
God hath exalted him, and io Apocalypfi Angelus joanni
narn given mm a r^ame ^j^j^. ^^^^ /^^ /e.^^vj., ^^-.^
whichisaboveevery'Namej confervus tnus jum, i^ frg.
that at the Name of Jefus Tr^r^^n ^f'" ^o'^^"
every knee lliould bow, of cntix. things inHeaven,and things in Earth, and things under the Earth :
H 3 . ^'And
<(.
€C
cc
1 18 yi Cotmmntary
And in the Revelation^ when John would have worjhipped ihe Jngel, he forbad hint^ faying , See thou do it not, for I am thy ^' Fellow-Servant, and of thy Brethren , *' Worfhip the Lord Jcfus ". Thus Cyprian. Now from this whole paffage, what any Man can infer contrary to any thing I have anywhere affirmed, I cannot imagine. Only inftead of the words which We now read, Worfldip God^ (that is, according to the ge- neral UXe of the word God in the New Teftament, roorfoip the Father ,) Cyprian either read in his Copies, or perhaps cited by his Memaory, the following words, Wor- fiip the Lord Jefus. Which, though not the True Readmg of the Text^ yet contains nothing in it inconfiftent with what I faid in my Scnptnre-doBrine concerning ab folate- ly SiffremeJForfljjp hting peculiar to the P^r- fon of the Father. For fo we find in Scrip- ture a TForpip given to Chriji, which ca?inot be given to G^;^ the Father: Rev. i, 5, Z^nto Him that loved us^ and wafed us from our Sins in his own Blood, and hath made us Kings and Priefts unto God and his Father, [ist) Oe^ <£ WTe^ dvi?, unto His God and Father ,] to Him he Glory and Do- mnionfor ever and ever ^ Amen.
No
mLukc I ; 1 6, 17. up
N° 19.
L U K E I •, 16, 17. iW^w;^ /W/ i3& [John In the the Baptlft] turn to the Lord theirGoJ '^f/^fl^^' and he (Ijall 10 before Him, &c^ 'N"* 534-
The Title, L^ri God^ in the common 43. and natural Apprehenfion of all Mankind, and in the conftant Ufage of Scripture^ is a PERSONAL CharaEier-^ expreffing,not^^- culative and met aphyfical Qualities^ but Per- final and Relative PerfeSmis^ namely Do- minion and Governmejit over the World. As appears plainly from the Relative Terms fo frequently joined with it, OUR God^ OUR Lord God, the God OF HEA- VEN^ and the like : None of which Terms can be joined with metaphyfical Appellati- ons, which are Abfohtte and not Relative , fuch as are, The Infinite Being, The Eter- nal Being, and the like.
By this Term therefore. Lord God, m the prefent Text, muft of neceffity be meant either God the Father, confidered as Su- preme and abfolute Lord of all j or elfe the Son, who, by communication of the Fa- ther's Power and Dominion, is alfo, in Sub- .ordination to Him, truly Lord of all
In which foever of thefe Senfes it be un-
derftood, nothing can from this Text be
H 4 inferred
I20 A Commentary
inferred contrary to any thing I have affirm- ed. For if the Title, Lord God^ be here applied to the Son , it is ftill applied to him in the Senfe now explained : And if it be meant of the Father^ (as I think is more probable ^) then the latter part of the Text is, by an eafy Figure:, a Tranfition from the Perfon of Him who is the hwijible God^ to the Perfon of Him who is the Image of the lnv?ftble God^ and who always ads and fpeaks in His Name and Authority. A Fi- gure not unufual, either in Scripture or o- ther Authors. See my Scripture-doclrhie^ ^' 538, 597. 616 & IC56 -• AHb I Job. 5, I, compared with ver. 5.
Your Friend contends that the Title, Lord God^ is here given to the Son. And if it was fo, in the Senfe wherein his own Quotations out of the Fathers (as I (hall {how prefently) give that Title to Chrift ^ it would not prove any thing at all againft Me. For Moft of thofe Fathers, in thofe very Valjages he cites, cxpliin themfelves (as will appear immediately) in the very Lime manner as I have done. But your Friend, not content to underftand thefe \yords in the Text, ii] the faii^e Senfa as the like words are found in his Quotations^ labours to fuggeft another Senfe, which yet he cares not to exprefs diftindly, but leaves it darkly to his Reader to infer as well as }it can. If his words infer any thing , it
muft
en Luke i , 1 6^ 1 7. _ 1 2 1
muft be, that the Son is fo ftiled Lord God^ 35 npt to be diflinguiflied from the Father : Which, whtn exprefTed intelligibly, can end in nothing elfe, (though your Friend feems not to intend it,) but in denying the Son to have Any Being at all : Which is the Socinian Notion. And What Need is there of interpreting Scripture after fo un- intelligible a manner, when All the Texts in their obvious and natural Senfe carry with them another Signification > That which feems to have led your Friend into This, is a Notion he has entertained of certain Scripture-Interpretations jnftly Con- p^,, ^^^ ceived to be founded upon TRAD I TIO N^ & 4^' and of certain Doclrtnes and Expofittons of the Sacred Writings^ handed down to the Fathers ^7 TRADITION from Their Fa- thers. What and where this Tradition is, It does not appear: For the Greater Part of the Fathers plai?jly eiiough exprefs Ac very Notion I am pleading for , (as the Reader will fee prefently in thofe very Paf-. fages, which your Friend has cited to prove the contrary : ) But What that Do6lrJne is, vyhich your Friend alludes to as Tradi- xionary^ remains very obfcure -^ and he him- felf leaves it to his Reader to guefs at, ra- ther than any where explicitly cxorelTes it. What he drops in different places, amounts (if any thing) to a Total Confufton of Per- fp?ii : Which Perfons he fometimes fpeaks
of.
m A Commentary
f^g' s3, of, as being One fubordwate to Another j ^ ^^' and at other times, as if he thouc^ht thenj All but One Ferfon. Your Friend being a fincere and fober-minded Man, h?.s enired only a little way into thefe Traditionary Explications of Scripture : But thofe who have gone far into them, (as fome late Writers have done,) have given fuch V:fi' enary and CnhbaUfltcal Interpretations, efpe- cialiy of the Old Teftament *, as give too fad an Occafion for Infidels to look upon all Religion as Enthufiafm -^ and particular- ly have caufed the Study of the Hebrew Language, (which in itfelf is a plain, eafy, inartificial Language,) to be brought (by Men of weak Judgments abufing it) into the utmoft Contempt,
But to proceed to particulars. It feems to Me that the Term, Lord God^ in the Text before us, fignifies the Father. My Reafon is, becaufe this Title, zhe Lord God^ when ufed abfolutely, and without any antecedent Mention of the Perfon it refers to, does in Scripture-Lan- guage, by way of Eminence, Always fig- nify the Father. I'hus in this very Chap- ter, Blejfed be the Lord God oflfrael^ (fays Zacharias^ ver. 68,) for that. he hath raifed up an horn of Salvation for us in the Houfe of his Servant David :, viz. for that he hath raifed up unto us That Lord^ before whom John the Baptift was to go^ v&r. -jS. To
This,
on Luke 1 3 t6^ 17. 123
This, your Friend replies, that elfewhere S^ Hi- 4f Thomas calls Chrift, My Lord and my God. But I anfwer,This is plainly meant in That Senfe, in which St Paid applies to him the Title God in that Citation out of the Pfiil- mift ^ Thy Throne^ 0 God, is for ever and
ever 5 thnt haft loved Righteoidfuefs-^ — •
therefore GOD^ even TFT GOD^ [or, therefore ;0 God^ THTGOD'] hath .mohtt^ ed thee^ k^c* Your Friend alleges but one Text more. Rev. 22, 6, The Lord God of the Holy Prophets fent his Angel : And This he thinks is meant of the Son^ becaufe it is faid. Rev. i, i, that Jefits fent his An- gel. As if it might not very properly be laid, that God the Father fent That Angel, whom Chrifl fent forth with that Revela- tion which God the Father gave him to fend by the Angel. There are in Scrip- ture innumerable Inftances of the like man- ner of fpeaking. And that the Lord God of the Holy Prophets does indeed here figni- fy the Father^ is evident from hence, that, in the five fore-going Verfes of the fame Chapter, the word, Gody and Lord God^ are ufed two or three times in exprefs con- tradiftindion to the Lamb.
As to the PalTages your Friend cites out t^^^ 41- of the Old Teftament ^ if they be under- ftood literally, (in the manner he cites and applies them,) they prove too much for hirn, viz,, that Chfijl is God the Father
himfelf-^
124 ^ Commerjtary
himfelf'^ th^t is to fty, in other words, that Cbrift is a mere Man o?ily^ in whom God the 'Father dwelt. But if they muft not be thus underftood, (as he will grant they muft not, though he takes no Care to avoid it •,) then they can no otherwile be underftood, than according to St Stephens Explication, ABs 7, 30, where he fays, Jhe Afi^el of the Lor J appeared te Mofes in a Flame of Fire in the Bujh^ — ■ — Sayings I am the God of thy Fathers -^ Which is plain- ly the Angel of Gods prefence fpeaking in the Name and Perfon and Authority of the Father.
And in This Senfe, if the Title, Lord God, in the Text before us, be underftood of the Son, it will not prove any thing agiinft Me. Any more than your Friend's Citations out of the Fathers do : Which when the Reader compares, he will be fur- prized to find almoft all of them moft fully and plainly exprefling that Senfe I am now fpeaking of, and not at all That which your Friend cites them for.
The pl^.ce he cites out oijuflin^ is: thqt
fxg. 47. Cbrifl is Lord a?id God :, yet fo, as that the Father is the Caufe ( ctjZco$ n wmS nH eivax 0^ y.ue)-Cf) (t flgiS^ ^f '-^^ being both Lord and God. Directly contrary to what he cited it for.
The Places he cites out of Iren^us^ are :
r^^' 47 6- •Jh^t no other ts named God or Lord, but
on Luke i -, \6^ 17. 125
H^n^hois the GOD AND LORD OF ALL^ mdHis Son Jefus ChriflOur Lord'^ — He who RULES OVER ALL, namely, God the Father j and his Son who has R E- CEIVED from Him Dominion over all Creatures ^ fo as to be Truly God and Lord^ [as a Son in his own Houfe, Heb. 3, 6 5"] and not as Mofes was ftiled a God to Pha- raoh, being; indeed only a Servant, Heb. 3, 5. All This ao;qin, directly contrary to what it was cited for.
The place he cites from the Synod of An- ttoch, is: The Mejfenger [;'AJ^«a(^, The Angel~\ of the Father, k the Son ;, who him-- felf is Lord and God. This alfo, direftly contrary to what he cited it for.
Laftly, when he alleges Novatian thus fpeaking ^ trom what has been already f aid to prove the Divinity of ChriH, it is demon- ({rated that Jefns Chrifl is Lord and God, ^ which the HERETIC KS deny: That the Reader may know who they are, that Novatian efteemed Hereticks'^ I dciire him to obferve the following words of the fame Author in the very next ^^^, ^^^ ^^^.^
Chapter l It U jo ?na?l7feftly feflum eft in Scripruris eiTe
Cfairh he) declared in Scrip- Dcum tradi, ut periq, A'^re-
1 r^i • n ' r^ ] /^/carww, divmiracis iplius mag-
ture^ that Lbrijt is izoa -^ nicudire & veritare commoti, that moft of the HERE- ulcra m dum extendenccs ho-
TICKS, flmck wrthjhe SrfeftrSmT.'e™
Greanefs a?id 1 ruth of his promere & puwre. Dc Trm.
Divinity, and extending his ^^^- *^-
Ho?wur
II 5 A Commentary
Hondur even too far^ have dared to fpeak of him not as of the So?i^ but as of God the Father hi7nfelf
N-
1Q.
tn the John L I. And the Word was God.
Scripture- ^
^' 555- Of thefe words, I faid, there are only %1^'paT T^''^^ P^^^^^^ Interpretations. The firfi is, 52, ' that the word was Thatfaine Perfon^ whom he was with : And This is both a Coyitra- d'lBion in Terms, and aifo the antient He- reby of Sabellhis. The fecondls , that the Word was Another Self-exiftent^ llnderived^ Independefit Verfon^ co-ordinate to Hi?n with whom he was : And This is the Impiety of Tolytheifm , fubverting that Firft and Great Foundation of Ail Religion both Natural and Revealed, the Unity of GOD. The third IS '^ that the Word is a Perfon, (not ?^y©^ of^^iaGg*^?. the internal ReafonoxWif- dom of God, which is merely an Attribute of the Father \ but a Perfon^ whofe Name is called The Word of God^ Rev. 19, 13: The Interpreter and Meffhiger of his Fa-
ther^ Aoy^ t5 sjjjt^ ^tpxI^S ^'rpijyflviU Xj
*'A^ytA^ , Athaiiaf contra Gentes : God by communication of Divinity fro?n Him who is ofHimfclfGod^ fjf-STvxi '^ ^ 'AvJ^Qh figoTixt-
on A£i:s ao^ a 8. 127
/otgF©., Origen. injoh.pag. 46 .•) a Perfon, deriving from the Father (with whom he exifted before the World was,) both his Be- ing itfelf, and incomprehenfible Power and Knowledge, and other dkmie Attributes and Authority, in a Manner not revealed, and which Humane Wifdom ought not to prefume to be able more particularly to ex- plain.
Againft this Expofition of mine, your Friend alleges nothing but a metaphyjical In- quiry, concerning Suhftances and Ejjhices ^ which the Scripture never at all meddles with, either one way or other: And 3 figurative PaiTage out of Cle?nens AlexanJri-^ nns^ and another of Ireimm ^ which Paffiges the Reader may underftand, by comparing them with other PaflGiges cited above our of the fame Writers.
Acts XX, 28. To feed the Church of
God^ which He hath pur chafed with his ^sJptL.
OZVn Blood. Mhme,
Upon this Text I obferved, Firji ; that Jjl^ me belt and moft Antient Copies read it, 54. and the moft Antient Fathers cite it. The Church of the LORD. This, your Learn-, cd Friend conceals entirely from his Read- er.
laS A Commejttary
cr. Which he (hould by no means have doiie 5 becriufe it removes at once all the difficulty that appears in the confiraftion of the Words.
Secondly^ I obferved that the Word, God^ (if that Reading; be True,) may poflibly be un- derftood of Chi ft ^ in like manner as in Jolm^ I, I. But if, (which is much more natural, fuppofingThat Reading to be genuine,) it be underftood to mean the Father , then either, hU own Bloody mufl fignify, the Blood of his ozvn Son , or elfe the Words, He hath pnrchafed with his own Bloody may ftill be underftood of Christ, in the fame manner of fpeaking that we find ufed by 6> Litke^ dj. 1 5 i6, 17 : Not much unl'ke to which, is that Tranfition from one Perfon to an- other, which S*^ John ufes in his firft E- piftle, ch. 3, ver. i, compared with ver.
5-
But your Friend contends for another In- terpretation, viz. that the Word, God, fig- nifies in this place Both Father and Son. Of which Confufion,! am very fure there is no Inftmce in the whole Bible -^ that one and the fame perfonal and relative Title, fuch as God or Lord or Kinz or Father or Son or the like, fliould at one and the fame time fignify fag 5$. Tw^o Perfons. Yes, he fays ^ S^ John com- prehends the Father ^jid Son under the Name God^ in the/r/? verfe of his Gofpel ^ and therefore may be fuppofed to ufe the
fame
on Ac^s. 20^ aS. 139
fame Name fometimes for the Father^ and fometimes for the Son^ or for Both Jogether. But does S^John indeed ufe the Word, God^ (not only fometimes for the Father^ and fometimes for the Son^ but alfo) for Both Together <? Verily, had your Friend con- fidered here what he faid, I am perfwaded he would not have flood to it. For obferve what a Paraphrafe his Criticifm makes, when applied to the Text he direds us to apply it to. John^ I, i. The Word was with God^ and the Word was God ^ that is. The Word was with the Father and the Son^ ajid the Word was the Father and the Son* This is no mifreprefentation of his Senfe j but is his True, real, and profelfed Mean- ing. For his Defign is to iliow, not that the Word, God^ means in one part of the Sentence the Son^ and in the oth :r the Fa- ther j but that the fame individual Word fingly in one part of the Sentence alone, lignities Both Father and So/i* I wonder much, he (hould not fee the Abfurdity of it. Well : But in that PaiTige I referred to, I Joh?i^ 3, I, he thinks the Cafe is plain : Behold what manner of Love the Father hath be ft owed upon us^ that we pjould be called the Sons of God : In this place, he fays, the Term God m^y very well be judg- ed to ft ind for the Father and the son. Let us fee how that can be. Why, the Wafliing of Regeneiation, fays he^ through the Vir-
\ tye
150 A Commentary
tue of their Names invoked in Baptifm, be- gets us into Children, fo that we are the Sons of Both Perfons. By This Argument h^ fiwtiU hSiVQ faid, we are the So7is of the Three Perfons. But the Scripture gives quite a different Account of this Matter. We are There called The Sojis of Ged^ becaufe we are made, in our meafure and degree, by Adoption and Grace ^ what CJori?t was, in a complete and perfect manner, by Nature : We are reprefented as Heirs of God^ and Joint-Heirs with ChriH^ that is. Brethren of Christ and So7is of God. If then our being Sons of Cod^ means that we are Sons of* the Father and the Son , then alfo thrisFs being the Son of God ^ means that he is the Son of the Father and the Son. When once Confufion is introduced, there is no End of i\.bfurditics. But your Friend draws one Argument more, from the Word \j)aLvi^S^ he pall appear^"] ufed in the next verfe, I John J g, 2. NoTV are ive the Sons of God^ (that is, faith hd^ of the One God, Father ta^, 5^. and Son :) But when He fiall appear^ (that is, fatth he^ when the One God fiiall ap- pear in the Perfon of the Son.) Put now thefe two Explications together, and then the whole verfe frauds thus : Now are we thd Sons of the Father and the Son ^ But when the Father and the Son fl:all appear in the Per fen of the Son, wc /hall he like HIM
on John i^ 5. 131
^c^ I truft your Friend will be afhamed of This, when he confiders it again*
N° 22.
J o H. I, 5. All things were made by Him^ j^ the
TGr. cTx' etUT?, Through him.'] Scripture^
do^rhe,
N' c4d.
Thefe Words, I fiid , were fully and in the An- clearly explained by the parallel Texts, ^'^^'''^'^^' Eph. 5, 9, God created all things By Jefus Chrisi ^ and Heb. I, 2, By whom alfo He made the Worlds. And in This Explicati- on, all the A ntient Fathers, how much fo- ever they differ from each other in Other things, unanimoufly ag;ree. Even Tertitlli- an^ in his Book againft Praxeas : [Alium, fer quern omnia ^ alium, a quo omnia :]| One^ faith he, 0 F whom are all thi?igs ^ Another^ B T (or Through J whom are all thi?igs : Commenting this very Text of ' S^ John.
Here therefore your Learned Friend at- tempts not to allege againft Me, either Scrip- ture or Antiquity. Only, after having ex- prefsly grinted All that I contend for, viz. that the Son works every thing in Obedience pag. §7 6* to his Father \ the Father working prima- 5^. rlly^ the Son fubordinately : he adds, T ET the Son works Freely. Which I very readi-
I 2 ly
f 5 2 A Commentary
ly grant him, in return for what he has granted to Me. For ] never thought, (and I believe no body elfe ever did,) that the Father ufes the Son as an Unintelhgent^ but as an Intelligent Inftrument. Whatever the Father does hy the Son^ he does by the Free Will of the Son, concurring with and accomplifhing the good pleafure of his Fa- ther. The Son qiiichieth whom he will^ Joh. 5,21, Freely^ and by his own Will : Becaufe, (ver, 2 2, J the Father hath coin- mitted All jiulgjnent unto the Son. So again, Joh. 10, 1 8, 1^0 Man taketh my life from me^ hut I lay it down of7nyfelf [Freeiy and Willingly :] / have Power to lay iv down^ a?id I have Power to take it again ^ [^Becaufe] This Commandment have I recei- . ved of my Father.
in the John V, 18. But faid alfo that God was Soiptnre^ Hs Father ['TirtTse^ T^^ov, his own Fa- f^^' ^jI^^ ther,] making himfclf equal with God.
In the An-
fwer, pug. Your learned Friend, in his Explication of ibis Text, begins to indulge hjs /^^f^£- natiofT, more than is ufual for fo calm and reifonable a Writer. The Jews^ he fays,
P'-ti- 59' who drew the Ir?ferencs^ M TJ ST have had
fomt
on ]oh. 5, i8. 133
ff^e reafonfor ufiderftamlwQ^ the Premifein fi exalted a S'enfc, as would i»fer their Cen- dyfion : that is. they Al VS I have had a Notion that there was a certain Perfchjo
clofely united to the Great God, that
the Great God was his Proper Father^ and that on This account he was Equal with the^
Father : tor except all this be fnppofed^
it is difficult to account how fo extraordinary a ConcUtfion COl) LD he drawn from a Premife, that was otherwife capable of a low^ er Interpretation. Now it is CERTAIN that the Jews, if they underflood the Mean- ing of their own Scriptures, Ml) ST have known ^ that there waf a Divine Per/on fuh- filling with the Father from the Begin- ning of the vVorld, which is called Wifdom 5 as is EVIDENT from Prov. 9, 22, The Lord poffcffed me in the Begin- ning, and that this Divine Perfon was
brought forth, or begotten, when there were no Depths, Prov* 8. 24 5 And B T CO NS Ek.'iJ ENC E that this Divine Perfon Ml) S T he the Only begotten.-— -r They MUST have alfo known that God hai a Son, Prov. 30, 4; and that This Son is the fame with Mifdom or the Onlp, begotten ^ otherwife Wifdom could not be the Only begotten, if there be a Son begotten dif- ferent from Wifdom The Jews, I fay^
could not have been ignorant of thefe great Truths, nfon the SVPPOSlTiON of I 3 tf^^iK
124 "^ Commentary
their Knowledge of the Scriptures ^ dttd this Knowledge OVGHT to be SVPPO- S P D, 'till the Contrary he made to A F- FEAR.
Is not This now a wonderful Flight of Imagination -^ to conceive that the jjfir?r^a- five ought always to be Suppofed^ 'till the Negative appears .<? that every AIa?i ought to be fftppofe J to know every thhig^ 'till the Contrary appears? and that every AccufaUon brought againft our Saviour by his maliti' mts Eneynks^ muft needs be in The7n a True DeduBton from True Principles Truly wtder floods That the Jews, not only un- derflood our Saviours calling God his Fa- ^-ti. $9' ther^ to be a claiming to himfelf more tha?i any other Man or Prophet could clai^n -^ but that they underftood alfo clearly every thing that was hinted in the Old Tefta- itient, even in the obfcureft Prophecies, concerning the Greatnefs and Dignity of his Perfon ? The Apoflles^ after they had converfed with him for feveral Years, and, tefides their own Knowledge of the Old Teftament, had heard Him alfo frequently explain it to them ^ and had heard him moreover exprefsly declare that his Kiyig- dom -was not ofthifi World, but that at the End He floould come in the Glory of his Fa- ther with his Angels to judge the whole World •, were yet fo ignorant, even after his Refurredion, as to ask him^ Lord, wi.'t
thou
on John 5, i8. 125
$hm at This time reflore again f/?<? [temper a Ij Khigdoin to Ifrael : And had the Jews^ his Accufers, fo perfecl a Knowledge of his fpiritital Kingdom^ as to underftand all the literal^ and all the myflical Prophecies con- cerning him, as perfeftly as any Chriftian has ever done to This day > Surely, there never was a more extraordinary Imagina- tion.
The True State of the v/hole Matter, is plainly no more than This. Our Saviour having healed a Lame Man upon the Sab- bath-day^ was accufed and perfecuted by the Jews as a Sabbath-breaker. To This, our Saviour replies, ver. 17, My Father worketh hitherto^ and I work : That is to fay '^ Though the works of God are finifhed from the Foundation of the World, and my^^^- 4, 5^ Father ceafed indeed on the Sevejith day from his works o^ Creation , yet -his works of Providence and Goodness go on every day for ever without Intermiffion , and / like- wife do works of Goodnefs and Charity, even on the Sabbath-day. The Jews, wil- ling to take any handle (though never fo unreafonable) of Accufing him, infer, ver. 18, (by way of Calwnny^ not by way of (IriB Reafoning^ that his calling God his Father \_q mirrip /x«J was as much as affu- ming to Himfelf, that God who was the €om?non Father of them All^ was in a higher and more peculiar manner [jmn^ 'l^ov^
I 4 Hi^
126 A Coijmientary
His own proper Father : And from This, and from his joynins^ and compearing his own Works with his Fathers vVorks in one and the fame Sentence, they infer farther, in the next ftep of Cahminy^ that he 7nade hinifelf equal with God : Meaning thereby, not that he claimed to Himfelf to be God indeed in Any Senfe ^ (for neither They nor his own Difciples had as y."t any the leaft Thought of That ^) but that hy Con- feqimice^ (which angry Accufers draw very hafiily,) he afTum d to himfelf a Power and Authority like That of God. The Ex- preilion is the fime, and meant in the fame Senfe, as That other Accufation, Joh. lo, 35, Thoit^ being a Man^ makefl thyfclfGod: Which w^.s fpoken after the fame manner, as Men. fay to an alfuming Perfon, Tou make your felf King -^ v/hen they intend to charge him with taking upcn himfelf, not the Perfon^ but the State of a Prhice. Ac- cordingly, to this Accufation of making himfelf equal with Uod^ our Saviour replies, ver, 19^ not by confounding himfelf with the Father^ (as was to have been expected in your Friend's Scheme,) but hy referring all his works To the Father ^ and fhowing that he really was (what he pretended to be,) the promifed Meffiah^ the Son of God, fent forth from God, inverted with the Power and Authority of the Father : That the Son can do riothing of himfelf but what
he
on Joh. 5^ 18. 137
he feeth the Father do^ ver. 1 9 : That the Father loveth the Son^ and Jljoweth him all things that him f elf doeth^ ver, 20 : That the Father hath committed all judgment to the Son^ ver. 22 : That therefore, as all Men honour the Father^ fo they ought alfo to honour the Son^ to the Honour of ths Father which fent hi?n^ ver. 23: That, as the Father hath Life in hifnfelf fo hath he given to the Son to have Life in hijnfelf ver. 26; That he can of Him f elf do nothings and that he feeketh 710 1 his own Will^ but the Will of the Father which fent hi?n^ v:r. 50 : That the works which he doth^ bear wit fiefs of hi^n^ that the Father hath fent hi?H^ ver. 36. This is the Anfvver he gives to the Jews Accufation ^ i\nd it fliows very plainly what he meant by calling God his Father^ (which was the Ground of their Accufation,) and by joining himfelf with the Father in thofe words. My Father work- eth hitherto^ and I work.
See this whole matter further explained beneath, A'^j 25 d^ 26.
The Pafiage your Friend cites out of l^o-^ vatian under this Head, is very extraordi- nary. iSovatian fays, [j:ap. 31,"] The Son's Godhead is taught us in fuch a manner^ as that Is one may think that 'Tvpo Gods are introduced |^aut dilfonantia aut hidiqualitale Divinitatis,"] either by a Dijference or Ine- quality
i^S ^ Commentary
quality ofDiviJiity. " That is ", fays yow friend^ '^ The Divinity of the Son was " taught to be like to, and Equal to that *' of the Father , becaufe otherwife, if " they were unhke and unequal^ their Na- " tures mud be diff::rent, and Father and " Son be diftind Gods '\
But now it is impoflible for any Man who reads this very Chapter of 'Novattan^ [cap. 31,3 not to fee that the words, v/hich your Friend cites, are Corrupt : The ex- prefs defign of the Author in every word of that Chapter, being to (how direBly o?i the contrary^ that, if they were ablolutely Equal ^ then and for that very reafon they would of neceffity be Two Gods. 7;^ (faith he) they were Both Equal,
^aSlac^^^^^^ they would Both be Unorigi-
ideo dms facerec Veos.
j¥.quales invenci duos Deos
reddidilTent. — F^r expref-
fus, duoi invii)bi!es oftcndiT-
fci\ & ideo duof comprobaf-
fet & Deo>. - Njnc aucem,—
dtm fe Patri in omnibus ob-
fiate^ and conieqnejitly Two
Gods. Being found E-
qual, they would he Two Gods.- — ■ — Being Equalj they would be Two Invifibles^ and
temperancem rcddir, qu^imvis con(equenthTsK^O G^i\%. But Fatrem de obediencia fua o- -^^'^^', 'i^hllft the bon Ol?eys
his Father in all thhigs ^ though He himfelf alfo be God, yet by his Obedience he declares his Father to be
fteDdic, ex quo & oiigmem traKJt : Ec ideo duos i a cere non pocuir, quia nee duos Ori-
gincs l^ecic. Subie^tisenim
ci qtufi filio omnibus rebus a
Pacrej dum ipic, cum bisqusB
illi fubjcrta lunr, Parri fuo The One God, from whofH
fubjiciur ; patris quidem fui ^/r^ /^^ J^^^^^^ J^y^^ Orinnal :
rilius probacur, cje^^ron,777 au- J i f c i tj
tern & Dominus i; Veas^^-r^ And therefore he could not
make
1^9
Deusqutdcm oflendicur FiJi- us, cu'i divinicas cradica & porredta ccnfp-cicur ; & ta- r.ien nihilo minus Vnus Deus Fetter probarur, dum ^radac-m reciproco meacu i'Ja maicflas
acq-.
on John 5^ 18.
i?;//?)^^ Two Gods, hecaufe he did not make Ttvo original
Tri7ic2ples. [^Here come
in the corrupt Words cited by your Friend.] For all things being made fubjeEi to him as Son^ by his Father :> he himfelf^ together with all things binder him^ being fub- jeS to his Father^ is proved to be the Son indeed of the Father^ but of all other t hi ftp's the Lord and God. — • The Son indeed isjhown to be God, becaiife Divinity is conv- municated and derived to him '^ and yet the Father is neverthelefs proved to be The One God, whilft That Ma-^ je/iy and Divinity^ which the Father commu- nicates to the Son^ is by the Son i?i acknow^ ledgment continually returned back to the Father who gave it. So that God the Fa- ther^ is juftly ftiled The God over All , and the Original even of the Son hiinfelf whom he begat Lord of All : And at the fame time the Son is the God of all Other things^ becaufe God the Father ?nade all things fubjeEi to Hirn whom he begat. Thus Jefus Chrifi the Mediatour between God and Men^ having from his lather Al Creatures fubjecled to him as their God j himf elf with
the
divin-.ris ad Parrcm, qui dederac earr, runiini ab iHo ipfo v"\ io ni lU re^ereirnr & recorquerur. \k mcrnb Deus P^ictr, Omnium De s fic, & Principium ipfjus cunq- F'lii fui ruem Drmj iuni genuic • Filius aucem. c<e erornni omni- um Deus fir, cuoriiam omnibus ilium Deus Pacer prctprfuic quern gcnuic. Ira Mediator Dei & hom-ni m Chrifi ub je- fus, omniscrearurcC !iib"e(^arn fibi habens a Pace proprio poceftacem, qua Deus ell; cuni coca creacura lubdics fibi,C' n- cors Pacri fuo Deo inventus, Vnum iy Solum tfy" Verm
DEV M Pacrem fuum
brevicer approbavic. cap. 31,
140 A Commentary
the whole Creation under his Do?ninion^ be- mg 7?i perfect Agreement with God his Fa- ther^ has briefly jhown his Father to be The One and Only and True GOD.
> And again, pqraphrafing
Hie ergo, qUaMvts That Text, Phil ?, 6 ;
cfTcT in torma Dei, n- r. eft ra- /-» .r-, /t -t i \ '-rnf^rmTJ-
pi .marbin:™'^ ^•'.'em fe <^/-'w/ (foltll he,) TliOL'GH
Dec cTc Quamv'. en-m fe he Was tn the Form of God,
'^'Z,:^t De,.:: y^^ fd not catch at bang E-
tri aur comfaravit aur contu'it ; qual With God. t Or thottgh
niemor le die ex luo Pacrr, ^^ ^^^^^^ ^j^^^ ^^ ^^^. q^j ^
& hoc ipfum quod eft, habere , . /^ i n i • t^ i
fequia Pacer Dediflec. Inde having hod for his rather ,
deniq^ & ante carnis aiTump- y^f; j^^ never Compared hifn-
tionem, led <x poft afiump- -^^ ir -^i r^ i i • rr a.i rioaem corporis, poft ipfam J^^J ^^^h Lrod his tather ^
pr^teiea refurreai nem, cm- renmnhrin^ that he was from
nem Patri in nmriibus rebus 7 • r? ^7 "' J ^i * j
obedier.Mam pwftitic r^riter '■'«. f'^f'f, ^»d that he re-
^c pr.if!at. Ex quo prtbatur, ce'ived from his father That nunuamarb,tr«umiHumefle ^g, Jl,, /^iz. his being
rapinim quandam divnica- ^^-^ i\ yrri n
ceni, \xi dtquarev fe Pacri D'?o : iifod.) Wherefore both before
quiaimb concra, omni i^pfius ^^J ^j^er his taking upon
impei«o o<: voiunran obcdiens ,. .J ^-,, ., 1 ir n
ate; lubjcetus, etiam uc for- hi7n buman tiep, ami aljo af
mamServi fufcperec coi.cen- ter his RefurreBion, he aL
tu fuir, lioc clt, hominem il- i- i 1 1 n /\
Im '^^f i, &c. cap, i 7. 7^'/^TJ• did and does pay all 0-
bedience to his Father* From whence it appears^ that he never thought fit fp to claim to himfclf Divinity^ as to Equal himfelf with God the Father : Vay on the contrary^ he was always obedient to His whole JVtll and Fleafure^ even fo as to be content to take upon him the Form of a Servant^ that is^ to become a Man.
Let
on Job. 8^ 58, 141
Let any fenfible Perfon Now judge, whether the Wor^s your Friend cited be not m^.nifeftiy lb corrupt, as to exprefs juft the very contrary to what the Author in that very place intended to exprefs. How the Words ought to be read, is not eafy to con- jecture without Manufcripts. PoiHbiy in- ftead of S^aut cViffonantia mit lUcTquaiitate Divinitatis^ it ihould be Q^z/^ dijfonantid
aiit (fome Word here being dropt out)
tn jEquaUtate Divimtatis.~] But of this, the learned Reader inuft judge. Something to That Purpofe, the Author mamfefily meant.
T o H. VIIL 58, Before Abraham was, /[,« ^^'^
^ 5 J 5 y > Scripture-
^W* dothine.
Though the Words may pofTible be xtn- ^^^^^ ^^^l dred, f / JVas^ before Abraham was horn 'if\ 62. the like manner of fpeaking being found in fome other plices of this Gofpel-, as ck 14,
9, TocrvTor 'y^vuv /ug^* Vfjjov ^''^ I M I, Am I
(that is. Have I been) fo long time with you ^ Yet I acknowledged it not to be im- probable , but our Saviour might rather mean in this place (according to the unani- mous Interpretation of all the Antient Fa- thers) to hint, that He was Thar Perfon in
whona
A2 A Commentary
whom [ExocL 23, 21,*] the 'Name of God was ^ vi'Z,. that He was That vifihle Ferfon, who in the Old Teftament appeared, inveft- ed with the Authority and rcprcfenting the Perfon of the Invijihk Cod^ and was called by His Name Jehovah ox I am: According to that of S; Stephen^ Ads 7, 90, There appeared to Mofes in the Wildernefs an ylngel of the Lord in a Flame of Fire in a Bujh^ fay- ing^ I am the God of thy Fathers^ See.
To this your learned Friend makes no reply in the way of Argument, but only (feeming fome way or other to have mifun- dcrftood my Words,) fuggefts fomething wonderfully obfcure and unintelligible ^ that "- the Name of Cod, was a diftmct " thing from the Perfon in whom it was ;," that *' confequently, not the Perfon of the " Son, but the r^awe of God in him, is Jc- " hai^ah or / am : " that then " the Mean- " ing of the Words muft have been this ^ " Before Abraham zvas^ the Name I Am ex- " ijled '^ And How could the Exiftence of " the Name of God^ prove the Exiftence " of the Son of God^ if the Son and Name " were Two different things? " That "it " would be ftrange Reafoning, for a mo- " dern Chrifti-m to prove his Exift?nce in " the Days of Chrift, from the Name of " Chnsi which he bears in him " ;, or '' to " call himfelf Jefts, becaufe he bears that " Name, or is baptized into it " j That he
who
on John 8^ ^8. 14^
who " affirms Self-exiftcnce to be an elTen- " tial part of the Idea of Bei7ig^ is obliged " to prove it , fince Others are of Opini- ^' on, and with good Reafon, that it rather " rehtes to the manner of exifting of the " firfl: Perfon in the Divine Being, than " to the Nature or Effence of Being it " felf " : That " if the Angel, or Chrift, " in refped of his Divine Nature, is a di- ftinct Subjeft, or fubftantially different from the Name of God in him , fuch a Conftrudion of th". Places compared, \yiz. Exod. 23, 21, and Afts 7, 50,"!
cannot be approved of : But if it be
intended to (how, that the Angel or Chrift is a diftuift Subjed or fubltantial- ly different from the Name of God in him, not in refped of his Divine Nature, but of a Created Nature aiiumed by the " Word at the beginning of all things, as " the Firft-fruits of the Creation, and " in refped of which He may be more pro- " perly and accurately denominated an " Angel '^ it may be readily aflented to, " as a ftrong Probability, not a little fa vour- " ed by the Sacred Writings.
To All This, fince I underftand it not at all, I hope you will be fo Good as not to cxped I (hould feturn any Anfwer.
Nc
cc
I (ij.4 A Commentary
in the N° 25: SC 0.6.
Scyifture'
do^r'we, J o H X, 30. / a?jd my Father are One.
V,9S^ And
In che J o H. X, 35. That Thou^ being a Man^
^;; '^^^''•' makejl thy felf God.
and 6c>,
Your learned Friend underftands thefe Texts, of an Unity of Nature -^ But what he means By Unity of Nature^ he declares nor. Moft ufu^Iiy, what he fays about it, ainounts to an Ufiity of Perfon : As when
^^^* he fays, Jehovah our God^ Jehovah is One -^ Which, in the Scripture, is exprefsly fpo- ken of One Perfon , as has been iliown a- bove, N^ I. So likewife, when he fiys,
fag, 66. The Father and Son IS the One True God : and that Of him are all tlfni^s^ as HE is Father '^ Throug^h him^ as HE is Son ^ and To him^ as HE is the Holy Ghoft -^ This is undeniably reducing them to One Perfon only. Nor does he any where fliow, what he means by That Unity of Nature ^ in which, Two Perfons^ Two Intelligent Agents^ Equally Supreme^ fhall not be TJVO Gods^ that is , Two abfolutely Supreme Governours. However, without knowing diftinclly what he intends by Unicy of Nature^ he proceeds to prove that thefe Two Texts ars meant
of
pg. 28.
on John lo ; 30^ 3::5. 145
of an Vnity of 'Nature : Not by confidering the Context^ and the Connexion of the words *, but by Two foreign Arguments. The firft^ is •, that the Name of God, [7^- hovah^ is in feveral places of Scripture gi- ven to the Son: And in what manner This is done, I have juft now explained, in the fore-going A^'^ 24. The fecond Argument is, a Colleclion of Sentences out of the Fathers : Some of which, do nor at all mean what your Friend thinks of ^ (efpe- cially thofe of Novatian ;, As the Reader will find by comparing the Paflages them- felves with what immediately goes before and follows after, and with the other Paf- fages which I have above cited out of the fame Author :) And the Reft are no Proofs at all, what is the True Meaning of the Texts now before us.
That there is a reafonable Senfe, in which the Father and the Son, though One be Self-exiftent and the Other not, may yet truly be affirmed to be of xht fa^ne Na- ture^ (though the Scripture never enters into fuch metaphyfical Speculations,) I de- ny not. But the Queftion Now is, not what may or may not Truly be affirmed in general^ but what is the True Meaning of the particular Texts at prefent before us. And This is to be gathered, not from our own or other Mens preconceived Hypo- thefesy but from the Scope and Connexion
K of
ij^6 A Commentary
of our Saviours whole Difcourfe in the Texts referred to.
Ver. 24, The Jews ask our Savlouf, How long dof} thou make us to doubt .<? If thou he the Chrifl^ tell us plainly* Our Sa- viour replies, ver. 25, The works that I ilo 171 my Fathers Name^ they bear witjiefs of Me 5 That is, The Miracles which he work- ed by the Power and Authority of the Fa- ther, proved him to be in reality, what he pretended to be, the Meffiah^ fent forth from God.
Ver. 26, But ye (faith he) believe not^ becaufe ye are not of my Sheep , That is, they were prejudiced, vitious, and unre- claimable Perfons.
Ver. 27 & 28, My Sheep [well-difpofed and unprejudiced Perfonsj hear my Voice and — follow me •, And I give unto them eternal Life ^ and they fb all never per ijlj^ nei- ther jJ:all any pluck the?7i out of my hand.
Ver. 29 d^ 30, For My father^ which Gave them me^ is Greater than Alh^ and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's .ha?ids : and / ajid ?ny Father are 0?je. That is ; Since None can pluck them out of the Father's hands, and the Father has communicated His Power to the Son -^ there- fore None can pluck them out of the Son's hands: So that, being in the Father's hands, or being in the So?}'s hands, is One a?id the
fame
on John To , 30^ 33. 147
fame thing. [This is the natural Senfe of the words, to which the Conftruftion and Connexion of the whole Difcourfe leads us* And fince the fame words are ufed alfo in other places of Scripture in the very fame Senfe ^ As, Job. 17, 22, That They (my Difciples) may be One^ even as We (I and the Father) are One , / in Them^ and Thou. in Me^ that they may he made perfeSi in Ofie J And i Cor. 3, 8, iJ? that planteth^ and he that watereth^ (Paul and ApoUos,) are One ^ 'Tis evident that the Senfe, in which your Friend defires to take This Text, cannot be gathered from the Words themfelvcs, nor from the Connexion of our Lord's Difcourfe, but muft be proved (if it be proved at all,) by fome other ways.]
Ver. 31 d^ 33, Upon this, the Jews
took up Stones to (lone him, faying -^ >
weflone thee —for Blafphemy^ and becaufe
that ThoUy being a Man^ makeft thy felf God. Meaning; to accufe him, (as I have fhown above, A^^2 3,) not of affirming him- felf to be the Supreme^ Self-exifient Deity ^ nay, nor fo much as of taking upon him- felf to be a Divi?ie V erf on at all , but only of alTuming to himfelf the Power and Au- thority of God. For, their z'Vccufation, thou makeft thy felf God, was not founded (as your Friend imagines, pag. 70,) upon his affirming himfelf to be One with the Fa- K 2 ther,
48 A Commentary
ther, (which Phrafe it does not appear they thought it all difficult to be under- ftood ^) but the Accufation was founded upon his ftiling God his Father^ [^ver. 25, 29 c^ 30J and confequently making him- feif the Son of GocL This appears plainly, from the Anfwer our Lord gave them in the words immediately following, ver. 34, 35, 36, Is it jiGt writteji hi your JLaiv^ I faiJ^ ye [Rulers and Magiftrates"] are Gods^ (^and Children of the mofi: High ?"] // he called Them Gods^ imto whom the word of God came^ and the Scripture camiot he broken ^ Say ye of Ilim wJoom the Father hath fanBified and fent i?ito the World^ Thou blafphemefl^ becaufe I faid\ I AM THE SON OF GOD ^ From thefe words ^tis evident, that their Charge againfi: him of Blafphejny, for which they went about to Stone him, was founded upon his calling God his Father^ (fee above, in No 23,) or declaring himfelf to be the Sp?i of Cod'^ which they, in their Anger, repre- fented, by way of Aggravation,, as making himfelf God
Now in order to urrferfiand clearly what their Notion was of That Blafphemy^whtre- with they charged him for caUirrg himfelf the Son of God , ir. will be necellary to confidcr the parallel places, wherein the like Accufition is brought againft him. Mark 2, 7, Upon his faying to a (ick Man,
Thj^
on John lo ; 50^ 53, i^^
Thv Sins, he forgiven thee ; they anA;rer Why doth this Man this fpeak Blafphe?mes} Who can forgive Sins^ but God only <? The Blafphemy they accufe him of here, was his taking upon himfelf, not the Verfon^ but the Vower and Authority of God^ to for- give Sins. Again , when he was brought before Pilate, the Accufation againft him was, 7^/;. T9, 7, We have a Law ^ and by our Law he ought to die, hecaufe he made himfelf the Son of God. What they un- derHood h:r j by his tnaking hi?nfelf the Son of God, and thereby being guilty of Blafphefny^ appears from the Account given in the other Three Gofpels, of his Exami- nation before the Hio;h-Prieft in the Coun- cil. 6> Matt. 26, 65, Tell us (faid the High-Prieft) whether thou be the Chrift the Son of God : Jefus faith unto him. Thou ha fl faid: [-zo-A^r TJ'yca:^ not. Never thelefs j but, Moreover~] I fiy unto you. Hereafter fiall ye fee the Son of Man fitting on the right -ha?id of Power, and coming in the Clouds of Heaven : Then the Hie^h-Prieft rent b's Clothes, faying^ He hath fpoken
Blafihemy^ ye have heard his Blafphemy.
S Mark relates it thus ^ ch. 14, 61, Jrt thou the Chrift, the Son of the Bleffed.^ And Jefus faid, I am ^ And ye fljall fee the bon of Man fitting on the right-hand <^c. S^ Luke thus 5 ch. 22, 6j^ They asked him, faying. Art thou the Chrift ^ He an Vered, K z Hereafter
1^0 A Commentary
Hereafter flodl the Son of Man fit on the right-hand of the Porver of God : Then faid they all^ Art thoH Then the Son of God ? And he faid unto them^ ye fay that I am. From thefe places compared together, it is evident, that That which they meant by asking him whether he was the Son of God, was to charge him with taking up- on himfelf to be That Son of Man ^ of whom Dar,kl had prophefied, ch. 7, 19, J favo in the Night-vifions^ and behold, one like The Son of Man, came with the Clouds of Heaven, and came to the Antient of days^ [to God the Father,] and they brought him rear before him 5 And there was given him Dominion and Glory and a Kingdom, that all People, Nations, and Languages JJ:fould ferve him • His T)iomimon is an everlafiing Dominion, which fljall not pafs away ^ and his Kingdom, that which floall not be de- JiroyeJ. Our Lord's decl3ring Himfelf to be This Son of Man, the Chrift, the Son of God, prophecied of by Daniel ^ was the Blafpbef.yy, whereof the Jews accufed him. And therefore 'tis probable, when they faid they had a Law by which he ought to die, Joh. 19, 7 ^ they did not mean That Law referred to in the Margin of our Bibles, Levit. 245 15, 16^ which threatens Death to him that curfeth God^ or blafphemeth the Name of the Lord 5 but rather That Law, Deut. 18, 20, which
threatens
on John lo 5 50^ 53. i^i
threatens Death to Him that JJjall pnfume to fpeak a word in the Name of God, with- out being really fent by him. And ac- cordingly, to This very fame charge of BUfphemy, (in the place at prefent under our confideration, Joh, 10, 53,) we find our Saviour replying, (not what your Learned Friend would have expefted in His Hypothefis, but) that he was really fent from the Father, fpake in his Name^ worked by his Power, and was no Deceiver: Ver. 52, Many good Works have I Jhowed yon from my Father. Ver. 56, Say ye of Him whom the Father hath fan&ificd and fent into the World, Thou Blafphemeji, he- caufe I faid, I am the Son of God ^ And ver. 37, 58, If I do not the Works of my F^her, [if my Works are not really fuch, as prove me to be fent of Cod, and to aft by his Power,] believe me not : But if J do, though ye believe not Me, believe the Works 5 that ye may know and believe^ that the Father is in Me, and I in Him»
Thefe laft words, [^the Father is in Me^ and I in Him,'] are of the fame import with thofe fore- going, ver. 30, / and my Father are One. And the Meaning of Both is fully explained, as by the Whole Scope of our Saviour's Difcourfe in this place, fo by thofe other parallel Expreffi- ons, ch. 6, $6, He that eateth my FleJJy and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in Me, and K 4 lin
i^a A Commentary
I in Him^ [even as the Father dwelleth in me^ dnd I in the Father ^ So fome MSS have if.] Ch, 14 i^. Believe^ thou not, that 1 am in the Father^ and the Father in Me ^ The words that I fpeak unto you. I /peak not of njy felf i^ but the Father^ that dvpelleth in me^ He doth the Works : Believe fne^ that I am in the Father^ and the Father in Me ^ or elfe believe Me for the very Works fake. Ver. 20, At that day ye fhall knoia>^ that I am in my Father^ and Ton in Me, and I in yon. Ch. 1 5 » 4, Abide in Me, and I in you, Ch. 1 7, II, Holy Father, keep through thine own Name^ thofe whom thou hafl given me ^ that They may he One, as We are. Ver. 21, That they All may be One, as Thou, Father, art in Afe, and I in Thee ; that They alfo may be One in Us ; that the World may believe that Thou hafl fent me, Ver. 22, And the Glory which Thou gavefl Me^ I have given Them ^ that They may be One, even as We are One. Ver. 33, 1 in Them, and Thou in Me^ that They may be made perjcU in One^ avd that the World may know that Thou hafl fent Me, and hafl loved Them as Thou hajl loved Me. Ver. 26, That the Love wherewith thou hafl loved Me, may be in Them, and I in Them. I Joh. 5, 24, He that keepeth his Com- mandmcnts dwelleth in Him, and He in Him. I Joh. 4, 15, Who foe ver fhall con- fefs that Jefus is the Son of God, God dwel- leth
en
John
IG
33- 153
leth in Him^ and He m God. And ver. 16, God is Love , And He that dwelleth in Love^ dwelleth in God^ and God in Him.
I conclude This Head with a Pair^9;e out of Tertullian *, who, though ^^ MontaniH^ and One, who in this very Book againsi Traxea^ affords your Friend more Citations to his Purpofe, than are to be found in all the other VVritcrs of the Three Firft Cen-. turies put together, yet Thus comraentcth the Text we are Now up- on. Concerning his Sheep alfo our Lord fays^ that none could take them out of his hand. For my Father^ who gave them me ^ is Greater than AU'^ audi and the Fa- ther are One, One Things he fays ^ not One Perfon. For^ One Things in the neu- ter Gender^ does not exprefs Identity^ but Union^ Like-
De ovibr.s criam fuis, cuod nemo illas de inanu eius eri- perer. Parcr enim auod mi- hi dedic, nujus efr :mriibus ; &> £^0^ ^aterVri.m j'umus.
ncn.
- Uiium funui'
lumus. O.i-rn' ^ :\z^
nei-rrali verbo •, qucd non ] er- tiner ad Singii^ariracem, Vcd ad Unicaccni, ad Simil'rudi- nem, ad Conji n(!lionern ; ad Diledtionemi'dcriF. qui nijiuni diligic^ & ad c^bfcquium Ki- Jii, qui voluncati Pacris ohfe- qu-cur. Vimn fumuu dicen?. Ego i<y Pater • oflendic dues A-
?iefs^ ConjunHim.^ the Love efie, quos xquat & jungit
of the Father towards the ^'^ '^ o ' '''^'l "i"!? ^^ ""
OOn^ ana rioe Uhedience of rum nihil iapidari merere^ur.
the Son to theWtll ofhh Fa- ^^ "^ P^farenc ideo fc iJIum
th^» ir^L 1 r r ' 3 T iapidare deherc^quafi fe Dc^A'W
ther, Wtoen he fays ^ 1 and the />M, id eft Pacrem, voiunTec
Father are One : he (Jmvs '"'^^•'^'gM quiadixerac, F^r. /<7-
tbat they are IWO Perfons, .;« D.i Deum oftendens, non
whom he fo joyns equally to- ^"^ ipjum Denm : S^ in !e.o;e,
g..loe}. t'or the fame reafon^ vol dii cfHs 5 & noS pcc.ft
he
^54
A Commentary
folvi Scriptnra •, quem Pater lanftificavic, & mific in mun- dum, vos eum blaiphcmare dicitis, quiadi^i, Filius Dei fum ? Si non facio opera Pa- cris mei, nclite credere ; fi vero fdcio, & Mihi credere non vu'cis, vel propter opera credite : Ec fcicoce quod ego in Pacre fim, 5: Pacer in Me. Per opera ergo erat pacer in fi- lio, & ii'ius in Pacre •, & i-ta per opera incelJigimus Unum eiTePacrem 8^ Filium. Adeo tocuni hoc perfeverabac ir-du- cere, ucduo camen crederen- tjir itiuna virruce • quia'aiirer Filius credi non poircr, nifi duocrederencur. Aclverj^Prax- CAin, C. 22.
he adds alfo that he had fljoiv?i them many Works from the Father^ for none of which he deferved to be Stojied, And least they Jljoidd thhik he deferved to he Stoned^ as ma- kin(r hi7nfelfto he God Him- felf, that is^ the Father ^ hy faying^ that He and the Fa- ther were One '^ (hy which he meant that He was God as heing The Son of God, not as being GOD HIM- SELF 5) he therefore adds further^ faying ^ If it is written in the Larp^ I faid ye are Gods^ and the Scripture cannot he broken -^ fay ye of Him whom the Father hath fanciified and fent into the JVorld^ Thou hlafpheineH^ he- caufe I faid I am the Son of God ^ If I do 7tot the Works of ?ny Father^ believe me 7iot : But if I do^ and ye believe not Me, believe me for the very Works fake : And know^ that I am in the bather, and the Father in Me. By the Works Therefore was the father in the Son, and the Son in the Father -^ and fo we under f}a?id the Father and the So?i to he One^ hy the Works, This the whole of our Lords Difcourfe leads us to believe^ that though they are One in Power, they are iieverthelefs fwa Perfons : Becaufe otherrvife it could ?v)t
je
on John is; 41. 155
he believed there was a Son^ if it was not believed there vpere Two Perfons .
Thus alfo Nov at i an : If ChriH (faith he) W ^..« .r^^L"! '^^SS-" the rather^ as the riereticks go ;fy- Pater Vnus sum.— Vnum imagine - he would have [aid, "^"'^'^'^^.e^ P^^cum, focieiatis
, ^j ^ T-^ , . /^ concordiam, non umtaceni
I and my Father Am One, perfons fonar. ut me-
\ljnm. One Perfon."] But "^^ Unum fic pacer & fiiius,
r\ • ^7 TVT ^ ?^ J P^** concord iam & per amo-
One, m the JSenter Gender^ rem. Novit hanc con^
njnum^ One Thing.] f^ni- cordis unicatem & Apoflolus
/.. Jjreer.enr of Fel/cv,Jhip, ^"'l^^^^H^ ^.
notJjmtyofPerfon, So that piantat, ti^ qui rigat umm
ijoe tatioer ana .^on are une ^^^^ ^,^^^^^^ ^^.-^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^
Ihmg, by Jgree?nent a?id rum PW^/w, non eundem arq^
Love! The Apoftle Paul alfo Y"""^ ^P'^^' v^^'^^^^ & ^x^- takes notice of this urnty of - Agreement.^ with a Difference of Perfor'.s, He that planteth, faith he^ and he that water- eth, are One, [Oiie Thing.~] Now every ho- dy knows ^ that yet Apollos was One Man^ and Paul another^ and not Paul and Apollos One and the Same Mafi,>
N° 27.
John XII, 41. Tbefe Things /aid Ifaias,in the when he faw bis Glorj^ and /pake offjf^'f' Him. N» "^:,
In the An*
When^r""^-
jt^S A Commentary
When Ifaiah in his Vifion faw the Glo- ry of God, he forefaw the Glory wherein Clirift was to be revealed : And the Glory ir felf which he Then faw, being the V/Ji- lie Image of the Invifibk God^ was (in the unanimous Or>inion of All the Ancient Fa- thers) the Son refirefenti?ijT the Perfon of the Invifible Father. S^e my Scripture-doc- trine ^ Fart I. No 557, c^ 616.
Againfl This, (which is very plain ^nd intelligible, as well as the conftant Doc- trine of the Ancients,) your learned Friend alleges neither Arguraentg of Reafon, nor the Authority of Antiquity. He adds on- ly a remote and very obfciire Difcourfe, con- cerning Chrift's having a Name and Power and Glory of his own^ as well as his Fa- thers :, which is very true^ but not to the pw'pofe : Conc^Ymng 3. perfonal^ but not realy difference of Glory -^ which is a Diftindi- on very dark and obfciirc : Concerning a Name derived from the Father with the Perfon of the Son, referred to in the Form of B'iptifm 5 as if, being briptifed into the Name of Christy was not being baptifed in- to the VrofeJJion of hh Religion^ but into the Name itfelf taken (as they fpeak) technically ^ inaterially ^ or cabbaliftically : Concerning an Unity of E (fence inferred from an Unity of Effential Glory^ and an Uiiity of Glory from an Uiiity of Effence ^
which
en John 12^ 41. 157
which is a p^rt of Metaphyficks very hard to be underftjod, and which the Scrip- ture never meddles with : Leflly, con- cerning Two Perfons reprefonted by Ojte Glory or Appearance ^ (which yet is not the Cafe, but, on the contrary. One Per- fons being the Glory or Reprefentation of Another^ the Vifible reprefenting the In- mfihle \ ) which, he fays^ 'tis natural to conclude is with this Defign, that we fliould believe the Two Perfons to be One Being j Which, I think, is a manifeft Contradidion in Terms.
iVnd here therefore at length your Friend joyns iffue with me. The mo[i refnarkablepg-i^ thing (he fays) in the Learned DoBor's Note upon the Text^ and which I take to be the Key of his whole Book^ is his confounding Individual Being and Perfon, as if they were Terms of the fame Import *, ayid then ranking thofe among the Folloivers ^/'Sabellius, who hold the Father and Son to be One and' the fame Individual Being. Well then : If a Perfon be net an Intelligent Agent ^ and an Intelligent Agent an "^ Individual Intelligent Beings (which is the common and natural
Notion
^Resfingularis perfe fubfiftens, in rebus intelleftu prar- dicis, idemefl quod pcrfona : An individual Thing [or Be- ;n^,] fuhriHing by itfelf, (fays the learned Bidiop Bull,') is, in things- indued with Vndei'lianding, the fame as Perfon, De- fenf. Sdi, 2, cap, p, §. n , See alfo a large PafTage of
Juflin
158 A Commentary
Notion All Mankind have of a Perfon -^ will your Friend tell us what a Perfon^ in His Senfe, is \ and what the Scripture means, when it continually reprefents the Son to us as an Intelligent Agent .<? Will he tell us what Such a Person is, which is no Being •, or how Modes of Siibjiflence^ mere abftnd Notions, can be Intelligent Agents, without having fo much as any real Ex- iflence 2it all > Or, of what Benefit can it poffibly be, to make Ufe of words which have ?w Sigyiification .<? Your Friend cannot here reply, that thefe things are a My fiery. For we are not now fpeaking about the
Jui^tn Martyr in the latter part of liis Dialogue with Trypho ; where, fpeakirlg againfi cho(b, who taught that the Son
yj^V' ovTTi^ T^'mv 77> T %\KV6 ^ATi (?«? c^T yv\i <^vaj. cirun' rev }^ i)(^uex^ov oi'T©- r Mh ht tjJ >i^ySy id oTztv eTu'cnf, (n/rciTTO^sfHTW/ TO (^coi'] was only a Foiver emitted from the Father^ jo as rot to be realty d'lfiincl from him, in Hl^e manmr as Menhy the Light of the Sun is upon Earthy yet fo as not t$ be a real Difiin^c thing from the Sun in the Heavens, but, vohen the Sun fets^ the Light alfo goes arvay wich it j he, on the contrary, explains his Own Opinion to be, that as Angels are permanent Beings, and not mere Fevers, fo the Son, whom th(
^^ )^ dei^uu iTipJv 77 s^J w "of, tike ^^^^ Ligf)t of the Sun^ a mere K\ime for Power,] but a. really difii.^ Being, begotten f mm. the father by his Forver and Will •, not by Divi- fjon, as if the F,itheis Subflance could be farted, as all cor- poreal things are divided and parted, and thereby become dif- ferent from what tbev ivere before Part was tal^enjrom them; but as One Fire i\- lighted from- anrither, [fo as to be really diRinft from it,] and yet the former juffcrs thereby no Di- minutioiu
Words
oft John la •, 41. i5>»
Words of God^ which are the Expreffions of Scripture , but about the words of Men^ who can never be commended for fpeaking myfterioufly. Not to fey, that fla'in Con- tradictions are in reality no more myfieriom than the plainefl Truths.
We muft then be content to hear what your Friend, without having any diilinct , Notion of his own^ what a Ferfon is '^ has to object againft My Notion of it, which is the common and natural Notion of All Mankind who never learnt the Jargon of the Schools. Why ^ " if God (faith he) P^^i- 74. " be \o o!)v]Bei7ig^ and G^^/be individual- " ly One^ and Being individually One-^ and " the Son, no lefs than the Father, be " True God^ as has been already proved ^ " then muft the Father and the Son be Otie " and the fame Individual Beings that is, " there muft be Tv:>o Per fans in One and *' the fame Individual Being "• The Con- clufion^ \fTzvo Perfofis in One and the fame Individual Uncompounded Being^ is an exprefs Contradiction -^ and therefore the Premifes muft of necellity be Faulty fomewhere. And indeed the Fault is very evident. God is not only [g SiQ indivi- dually One Beings but alfo \_o aiu'] indivi- dually One Intelligent -Agent or Perfon^ as has been ftiown above, N^ i. And there- fore if the Sojis being True God^ proves
him
i6o ^ Commentary
him to be o* ci'r, it will prove him to be, not only the y^;;^^ hidividiial Behig^ but alfo the fame individual Per [on with the Fa- ther. Which is more thin your Friend in- tended to inf:r. And therefore the Sons being True God^ muft not be underflood to lignify that he is o wV, but that He has True Divimty (which Falfe Gods have not,) communicated to him from Him who is Alone 0 &>?• But your Friend proceeds : pg. 7$» " Since (faith he) the One True God is " but One individual Being •, and the Fa- " ther is This One True God '^ the Son, if " he is a diftindl individual Being from " the Father, muft be diftincl from the " One True God^ that i?, be no True God " himfelf at all j Which is contrary to " I Joh. 5, 7o'\ (And This alfo is D^ JFells\ chief Argument: Letter f<?D'' Clarke, pag. 59.) I anfwer : That palfage of S"^ John^ is not fpoken of the Son ^ as I have ihown above, N^ 14. But if it was, ftill it would follow, that the Son was True God, not by being himfelf the Father^ the Self- exiftent Bein^; ^ but by having True Divi- nity and Dominion communicated to him from Him, as I before faid.
No
m A<^5 7 ; 30, 31, 37, i^i
N° 28.
A c T s VII •, 30, 31, 32. T/;^;'^ appeared m the ri? /^;w— ^r? Angel of the lord, hi a Flame f^tf^
of Fire hi the BuJJj. A?jd the Voice n° 6i6.
of the Lord cajne ufito hhn, f^f^^g, lam ^^J^^^^' the God of thy^ Fathers^ the God ofAhra- i^^'^y^* ham.^ and the God of If aac^ and the God of Jacob.
jufthi Martyr atid all the Antient Fa- thers obfetve upon this place, that the fame Perfon is here filled both an Angel and God. From whence they infer, that the Perfon here appearing was Chrifl^ (the Afi- gel of the Covenant, Mai. 3, i , t\\c Angel of Gods pre fence. If. 63, 9 \ and hi who?n the Na?ne of God [the Authority and Power of the Father] was, Exod. 23, 21 ;,) fpeak- ing in the Perfon of the Invifible Father. Thus Gen. 16, 10, The ANGEL of the Lord faid unto her, I mil multiply thy Seed exceedingly. Again, Gen. 31511,13, The ANGEL of God fpake unto me in a
Dreaw, faying, / am the GOD ofBe-
zbel^ where thou twwedfl a Vow unto
me. And ch. 48, 15, Jacob bleffedjojeph^ and /aid '^ GO D, before tvho?n my Fathers Abraham and Ifaac did walk^ the GOD
f 62 A Commentary
which fed me all my Life long unto this • day^ the ANGEL which Redeemed me from all Evil^ blefs the Lads. [^And Rev. II 5 I, 3, even an inferiour Ajigel is in- troduced fpeaking in the Name or Perfon
of God 5 77;^ Angel flood^ fv^^^^g •> ^
will give Rower imto M Y two wit?iej/es'^
What your Friend alleges upon this
Head -^ viz. that Chrift is not excluded
from being the God of the Patriarchs^ (pag.
76 :,) that Chrift is the God of Ahraha?7i^
and the God oflfaac^ and the God of Jacob ^
(pag. 76 0 ^hat Chrift is the Perfon who
[pake to Mofes^ and called himfelf the God
of the Patriarchs^ (pag. 77 ;) that Chrift
is ftiled Jehovah^ in diftindion from the
Perfon of the Father, [^which yet may be
controverted/J Gen. 19, 24, (p^'^g* 78 7)
All This is in no wife contrary to any
thing I have afTerted. But then the Infe-
rence he draws, viz. that therefore the Sofj
with the Father is the Vece(fary Being it
felf'^ This, as it is an exprefs Contradidi-
on, fo it is alfo diredfly contrary both to
the Text^ and to the Opinion of all the
Antient Fathers : See my Scriptwe-docinne^
fart /, Is^ 597 c^ 616. I llrill mention
here but one place, which exprclTes the
5enfe of all the reft • The Son, (fays the
Synod
on A^s. 7; go^ gi^ 52. i^^
Synod of ^?2ri<?cyE^,) is fame- J^ot^ nif tSt £fytK©-, ^. times called an Angel, fame- tJ^X^^S^ ^.t^ times the Lord^ jometimes j^ ^ih iHv oa.^,/ dj^^u God. For it is Impious to 'y>Jf/ »'''^=^'j»a^«^-/ 'o i7nagine that the biipreme vil^ k<^v. ivii^ yjjet©- j^ God of the Ufziverfe^ is any ^^^^^y"- JT^^^^ttto/ )>) Mg^ where called an hk^d. Bra ^lit'^ :^[rtn:oU^f' the Angel [or MepngerJ of the Father^ is the Sow^ who Kimfelf is Lord^ and God. For it is written -^ Ilie Angel of his Great Counfel [or Covenant7\
The only Arguynent your Friend alle<7es for his Opinion in this place, is, that the Name Jehovah is incommunicable to any Be- ing but^ the True God^ (pag. 79 €^83.) Which is very True, if thereby be meant that it cannot be given to any Falfe God. But that it may be and is given to Him who is the Meffenger and Reprefentative of the Only True God, (who confequently is Himfelf True God, and yet not He who upon account of his Selfexiftence and Su- preme underived Dominion is filled by way of Eminence The One True God -^ is ex» prefsly affirmed in the Text, Exod. 23, 21, My Name (or Authority) is in Him. [Yet it may perhaps be worth taking Notice of in this place, that though the Name Jeho- 1^'ah is in the Old Teftament given to That vifble Perfofi, who appeared as reprefenring the Perfon of the invifble God -^ yet in the New Teftament, where Chrift appears in L 2 his
1 6/^ A Commentary
his otvni Perfon, That Name [the Triic Rendring of which, feems to be, o m' ^ o %v ?^ 0 ip^jj.iv®^^ He which is and was arid is to come^ i? never given to him, any more than the Title ['mi'foxeaWf] Suprefne over All'^ but he is ftiled only y,h^©^ and 6gof, which are the words by which the Septuagint render ^Ji5t< and ci:'n'7i<, which they always read and tranflate inftead of the Proper Namen^n^*]
What he further offers upon this Head, Cp^g- 79 0 ^hat the Vame Jehovah^ or the Divme Virtue of the Vame^ did not lodge in the Word^ as in a diflinSi SiihjeB^ but was the very Word itfelf'^ That f/?^^. 8iJ the So?t revealing the Father^ is the very 'Name^ &tnd not the hare SnbjeH in which it dwells ^ That (pag. 8 2, J faice the Apoftle tells Its there is none other 'Name wider Hea- ven (but the Name of Jefus Christ) given among Men^ whereby we mufl be faved ^ iind it is certain the Name by which the Church is to be faved decor ding to the Pro- phecies of the Old Teftajnent^ is the Name J-ehovah \ it follows therefore that the Name Jefus^ and the Name Jehovah^ are One : Ail This, is to Me utterly unintelligible.
Page 8o. The father and the Word (he fa}^s) are the One Object of Jewifl) Worjhip^ vr the Lord God ir ho is but One^ Deut. 6, 4. But I think the contrary is plain in the Texts now before us; %'iz. that the Father
only
on ABs 7; 50^ 5 '^32. 1^5
cnly was the Objeft of the Jews Worfhio, manifefting himfelf unto them by his Son* the Angel of his Covenant.
^ ^age 81 d^ 82. The Son rnanifeflhi^the lather^ k (he ftys) the fame ObjeEi of Di^ vhie Worfiip to the Chr'iftians^ as God the
Creator was to the Gentiles : Otherwife
the^ Chrijlians in their New Bifpenfation^ 'which is a plain Improve?nent of the State of Nature, would have a Name to Trufl in^ oflefjer Efficacy^ than the very Gentiles. As if Chriftians did not truft m God the Fa- tber^ the Creator of all things • as well as the Gentiles^ who knew him much more imperfedJy : Befides that Chriftians have moreover, (whom the G^;/zr/7cx knew not,) an Advocate with the Father, Jefiis Chrift the righteous^ who is their Saviour^ Redeemer^ and Interceffor.
Laftly, he fums up his Argument, (pag. 82 ^ J Therefore the Son manrfe fling the Fa- ther^ is One with God the Creator^ fince the True God is but One : And (pag. 83,^ If toen Jehovah be incornmnni cable to any but the True God, and the True God is but One^ and Jefus Chrift is Jehovah • Jefus Chrift is the True God. To which I anfwer, as before: Chrift is, and is rightly called, Tme God, by having True Divinity and Dominion communicated to him from the Father • not by benig (what your Friend's ^rguiiient would prove, if it proved any L 3 ' thin§,)
i66 A Comment ary
thing,) Himfelf That Perfon, who Alone is ftiled in Scripture by way of Supreme Eminence and unoriginate Dominion, J he True God.
N° 29.
In die Rom. XIV;, 9, 10, 11, 12, That He d^JrlT [Ch^ift] ^^^ght he the Lord both of the
N= 62 1 T^ead and Lwi?ig. We Jljall all Jland
^ 623. before the Judgment-Seat of Chrift : For
?^^V,y^.'. ^'f ?^ tiPrhten ^ As I live, faith the Lord^
83,' every knee fiall bovp to me, and every
tongue f mil confefs to God : So then every
one of lis, fiall give account of himfelf
to God.
How the Scripture is to be underftood, when it declares in fome places that God will judge the World, and in others that Chrift fiall judge the World ^ appears (I faid) from fuch PafTages, wherein Both are mentioned together. As Acts 17, 31, God hath appointed a day^ wherein KB will judge the World in Right eoufnefs, B T that Man whom he hath ordained : And Ro?n. 2, 16, God (ball md^e the Secrets of Men by jefusChrifte ^
Your
onKom. 14; p^ 10^ ir, 12. i6j
Your learned Friend alleges, that, not only God will judge the World bjf Jefus ChriFt^ but Jefus Chrift himfelf alfo is both Lord and God. I acknowledge, and have ftiown at large, that he k fo. But your Friend, not content with This, laboureth further to introduce an unaccountable Con- fufion of Perfons ;> by arguing, that when St Paul fays, ver. 6, He that eateth^ eateth to the Lord, and giveth God thanks -^ and He that eateth not^ to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks -^ it Seejns^ and it is Reafonahle (he thinks) to Suppofe^ that the word, God^ in each of thefe Sentences, figni- fies Chrisi. But This is fo diredly contrary to the whole Style of the New Teftament, that he is not very Confident of his Aifer- tion : And therefore he tells us it is yet more probable^ if we confider, that when S^ Paid faith of a weak Brother, ver. 3^ of this Chapter, God has received hi?n -^ he afterwards expreffes the lame thing thus, ch. 15, 7, Chrisi alfo has received us to the Glory of God ^ " putting Christ (fays your " Friend) in the place of God^ as if He " were comprehended in that Name ". Whereas indeed, had S^ Paul written on . fiirpofe to prevent that Confufion of Per- fons which your Friend here labours to in- troduce, he could not poflibly have expreft himfelf more diftinBly^ than m thefe very L 4 words .;
l6S A Commentary
words ^ CHRIST alfo has received us^ to the Glory of GOD. But he proceeds : What 5^ Fatilkys, We jlmllallftandbeforQ the Judgment-Seat cf CHRIST -^ is ex- preffed by Ifaiah thus, evc>y To?igue fiall confefs to GOD '^ and immediately after by S^ Paul alfo himfelf, Everj; one of us fijall give account of himfelf to GOD: And what follows from hence ? why, ei- ther that CHRIST and GOD are o?ie and the fame Perfon ; (which though your Friend feems not to mean, yet he plainly infers it, pag. 87 :>) or elfe, (which one would think fhould not be hard to under- ftand,) that giving Account to Christy hy whom God judges the WorhJ^ is the fame thing as giving Account to God^ who judges ■the World by Chrift.
The Paifage your friend here cites out
of Ire7i(£tp5^ I cannot forbear tranfcribing ^
becaufe it is as direBlj againp him^ as 'tis
poffible for words to be : That every Knee
^ ,, ^ . , (faith Irenmis) of things in
J - / <S«.V y' ^.T??.; v^ '^Z Heaven ana in harth and
r A«, K^i^-'^ Tiw ivJbyJdP T« u?jaer the Lartb^ might how
^^'jtL'xpcnc^v^)i7:^m.yKtS(r- God^ andoaviozir^andAnig^ oAi^ofioxoyyianiuictvTrJ.lib. according: to the GOOD
''''^' '"' PLEASURE of the Invi-
fibk Father -^ and that every Tongue might ^pnfefs to hitr.,
en Hcb. 13, §. \6()
H E B. XIII, 8. Jejm Chrifl^ the fame Te-in the fierday^ and to day^ and for ever. ^VnV-^^^^
N'' 662.
That the Verfon of Chrifl, is the /^w^l^j'^^f" Tefierday^ arid to day^ and for ever ^ is cer- a^t'^' tainly True, but not the Meaning of This Text. For the Apoftle is here fpeaking, not of the Verfon^ but of the DoBrhie of Chrift.
Of the Two Arguments your Learned Friend alleges for underftanding thefe words pncerning the Verfon of Chrift, the /r/Z is the Context or Connexion of the words. The Apoftie in the preceding Verfe, in- courages Chriftians to imitate their own ^ag. s?: Pajhrs in the. Conjlancy of their Faith '^ the OhjeEi of which was Jefm ChriB^ who was no Perfon of a modern Date^ kit the fame Teflerday^ and to day^ and fir ever. Thus your Learned Friend. But Where now is the Force of This Argument > Imitate your own Paflors^ becaule' the Perfon of ChriH is always the fame. The Context, I think, plainly (liows the other tq be the True Senfe : Adhere to the, Faith of the Apo files who firH inftriiEted you^ and be not carriec\ about with div^ers new Dociri?ies ^ For the pfifirme, of Chrift is always One and th
fame.
I JO A Commentary
fame^ cm J cannot be changed by Men. This is a very Clear, and a very good Argument, I fet down the Words themfeives, and leave the Reader to judge which is the Truer In- terpretation : Refnember (fays the i\poftle) Tbe?n which have the rule over you ^ who have fpoken 7into you the v^ord of God ^ whofe Faith follow^ confidering the End of their Converfation : Jefus Chrisi^ the fame ye [I er- day^ and to day^ and for ever : Be not car- ried about with divers and (irange BoElrines* Thtfecond Argument your Friend urges, to prove that the Perfon of Chrift is here meant, and not his BoEirine -^ is a new ren- dring of the Words of the Text, which he
yng. 88. thinks fhould rather be tranflated thus , Je- fus Chris! ^ yefterday^ and to day^ and for e- ver^ He. For the Cabbahftick Jews (he
tag. po. fays) placed {yC\T\ He'] Afnong the Divine 'Barnes. As to the Cabbahftick Men, I ac- knowledge there is no Arguing with Them : For who can fight with a Shadow .<? or who can reafon with the Phrenzies of a myftical Imagination .<? But to your Friend himfclf I anfwer , that the Words of the Original cannot poffibly bear His Tranllation. For the Word is not [^7i$] He^ but [_o imir] The Same ^ Which Two Words, are never put one for the other. And therefore bis jifendrmg, in the two Paflages which he cites out of Or/gen^ the Word^, 2u o* cuul^s e, Thou art He^ inftead of, Ihou art the
fame^
on Mark 13^ 32. 17 1
^ame, was a E)efed of Skill in |;he Greek Language.
N'
n
I.
Mark XII I, 32, &^2r ^/ T/:?^r .^/^j/ ^nd^^ ^,^^ /?<?z/r hioweth no Man^ no^ not the Angels Scnprne- which are in Heaven^ neither the Son ifj^^^^> iut the Father ^ ^ [but my Father only, m the An- Matt. 24, 26.1 M^K-
I think the Intention of our Saviour in this PafTage, is to declare, that, as the Fa- ther Alone is \'Aunji^i©7yGod iinoriginate and ofBimfelf-^ and ['AyToa>a^i,V] ThQ Alone Underived Fountain of Goodnefs ^ up- on which account it is affirmed in Scrip- ture, that There is No?ie Good^ kit One^ that is God the Father^ as almoft All Primitive Writers unanimoufly cite That Text, (fee above ^ No i, at the latter End : J And as He is alfo the Alone Fountain of All Potv- er^ infomuch that our Lord fays concerning himfelf, The 6 on can do nothing of hinifelf Joh. V, 19 d" 30 : So He is likewife the Alone Fountain of All .Knowledge^ info- much that no one knows any thing, no not even the Son hi?nfelf but by communi- cation from Hi?n.
Your
17? ^ Commentary
Your learned Friend difFers not much from me here. He owns that Iren^its and even Bafil underftand this Text, not of the Humane Nature of Chrift, but of his whole Per/on : And he explains it thus ^ that *^ the Father is the Fowitain of All Kjww- " ledf^e^ ivbkh is derived to the Son with his " E fence'' [that is, with his Being,] ^* from the Father.
f:".f^i'= ToH. XIV, 28. My Father is Greater
N"' 850.
K'pjr When any Perfon affirms Another to be
p<5. Greater than Htmfelf he muft of necedity
mean. Greater than He Himfelf is in his
CreateJi Capacity. Othenvife ]yazia?ize7is
Obfervation takes place : Tq
f 6)K, cLKyy^,^ fMp, K yiht,. A- 37 ratuer is ureater than Lbrtft Sb :^v^^<^a:, ei //f^'^^r aV-^f dy- confidered in his Humane Na-
tiire^ IS I rue indeed^ Out of no great Moment : For zvhat wonder is it^ that Godfioidd b^ Greater than a Man .<?
Your Friend has nothing; to object againft yi]is : But himfelf fairly interprets the
en Phil. ^ ; ^^ 7. 172
Text thus ^ The Father is Greater^ as He is Father. Which being once declared , That which he adds in the next place, that yet the Divhie Nature is the Same in Both^ muft of neceflity (if he will fpeak confid- ently) be uilderftood to mean fo the fa?ne^ as That which is derived^ can be the fame with that which is underived-^ and that tvhich is Begotten^ can be the fame with that which is ^nbegottm.
Phil. II ^ 6, 7. Wloo being in the Form op^ fiie Gael thought n^^^^^ to he equal^^^
with Ljod ^ [Who, though he was in the n- 954. Form of God, yet did not take upon ?"/^^^ ^''^ him to be equal with God, or^ was ^^5?'^^^' not greedy of being honoured as God •,] But made himfelf^ of no repttation^ [lyjt- f«a?, devefted himfelf 01 the Glory he before pofTefl •] and took upon hiin the Form of a Servant^ and was made in the Likenefs of Man^ [took upon him the Form of a Servant, bei?7g made in the Likenefs of Man.]
Your Learned Friend allows the Necef- lity of amending our Tranllation in this place J and, as to the Interpretation of the
Words
1/4 ^ Comment diry
Words of the Text itfelf^ he differs not much from me.
His Comment upon it, is nothing but an Inquiry, in eight very dark and obfcure Pages, what the particular Manner was of Chrift's devefting himfelf of his former Glory. The Circumftances whereof not being revealed to us, 'tis in vain to indea- Vour to explain them by Philofophical Conjectures, and uncertayi Metaphyfical Speculations. Sufficient it is, that the Thing itfelf is revealed very clearly and intelligibly -^ that That Divine Perfon , who had before appeared as Lord of All^ exercifing the Dominion of the Invifible Father, and being thereby in the Form of God -^ in the fulnefs of time conde- fcended, in Obedience to the Good Plea- fure'of his Father, ' and with his own Free Will and Confent, to take upon him our Humane Flefli, and appear for our fakes in the Form of a Servant^ as a Man of like Infirmities with Other Men, mean and humble and fubjecled even to Death.
N^
on Col. I J 15,
75
C o L. I, 1 5. Vfloo is the Image of the In- 1" «''«
vifible God, the Firji-bom of every Crea-^;!^
ture. N° 937.
In the jirt'
Againfl my Interpretation of This Text, {04'' ^''^* your Learned Friend alleges nothing : But only entertains his Reader with a Colledi- on of ftrange and (I think) unintelligible Notions, out of certain ?nyftical Authors ^ v/hofe manner of Writing, having no relav tion to Reafon and Argument^ but depend- ing entirely upon Imagination only ^ there can confequently be no fuch thing as Ar- guing with them : And therefore I fnall content myfelf with barely tranfcribing two or three Inftances, for the Reader's Sa- tisfaction.
Some of " the Antients (he tells us, pag, 105,) thought that T>avid fpoke of the " Produclion of the Son, in the following words, Py: 45, I, iWy Heart is inditing " a good Matter ^ox^ a good Word: Which if it be True, it muft be concluded, that David confidered the Son as Light of Light, or as the Word and Truth concei- ved in the Mind or Heart of the Father: For fo the Heart is ufed for the Princi- ple of Thought by the Jewifli Writers:
'' And
<.(.
ij6 A Commentary
" Ana then it is no wonder that the word " tpn^^ rendred Endhing^ was ufed by the " Prophet, as probably exprefling the ri- *' /^H^ "^^P ^f ^ Thotfght in the mind or un- *^ derftahding %6i with Contemplation^ '' But again : wh^U the Scriptutes (peak of *' him as the prober Son of God^ who is *' his proper Father • it may R E x\ S O N A- *^ BLY be concluded, that the Sacred " TFriters confidered him as the Fritit of " the TPlmle Perfon and Nature of the Fa- '' ther, or as the Off-fpring of his Love •, " and therefore expreiled his colnir^g forth " by the Term Generation^ as fignifying •f -Vetgc- *' ^'^^ Production of a f Being in the Pow- neraiiyour" er of Love^ of the fame Nature and Per- doesnoc " ft^ions witl|.,the Parent ;>— the Sub- allow the " ftantial Fruibahd Produft of His Love^ Son to be " Qj. Qf his ^hole Nature through Love,— ^^'''^' " Which if it be True of his RELA- " TIVE Exiftence^ is ?mich 7tiore fo of his '\ ABSOLUTE and Eternal", [jnat Relative and Abfolute ExifJe?ice is^ 1 under- (land ?iot : I leave it to the Reader to con- Jiderr]
Page 107, He inquires: " If the Son, *^ as Eighty proceeds from the whole Glory " of the Father , Is there any reafon why, " as Holy, True, jull, Good, Mighty, " Life itfclf, and True God, he diould not " proceed from th^'Tfljole Holinefs, Truth, '-' Juitice, Goodncfs, Might, Life, arid
" Godhead
on Col. r^ 15. 177
*^* Godhead of the Father, and be the Fruit " and OfF-fpring of his Whole Nature > '* [Here he talks as if every one of the Attri- butes of God ^ were real Beings^ or Parts of the Dhi?2e StihflanceJ^
Laftly, He tells us, pa^. 109, .110, III, (out oi Atbenagoras^ Theophilus and Tatiaji^ the Antient Founders of Sabellia- nifpt^) that Gocl the Father is a?i eternal Mind'^ and becaufe an eternal Mind can never be fappofed to be void oi Thought^ it was eternally Thoughtful, or the Thought co-exiftent with the Mind : That this eter- nal Thought came forth as a Voice^ uttered and fpoken forth m order to create j and is the Son of God : That fince the Thought of fuch a Mind, muft be the Offfpring of the Whole ? erf on of God the Father -^ there- fore the Thought or Word coming forth to create^ mitsi have been as Real and Perfonal a Subfiflsnce before^ as it was after the coming forth y and after his coming forth^ when he was doubtlefs a Perfon^ he was ftill the very fame Thought, that eternally exifted in the Mind of God -^ which evidently infers him to have been a Perfon before. Now All This is, in reality, nothing elfe but play- ing with the equivocal Signification of words^ For, of Neceflity, One only of thefe Two Notions can be True : Either the Term [/\^y©-y the T'Tord,'] fignifies in Scripture QThat ?^fo; which is firft ipSici^eT@^y and
M then
ijS A Comment ary
then 'cj^q;)oq/.'^C\ the internal Reason of God, ?iXi^\\\% external Word spoken forth ^ re- prefented only figuratively as a Perfoii '^ and then, in reality^ it is No perfon at all, but Chri?l will be only (according to the Soci- man way of Explication) a wd7'^ 71^^/^ in whom dwells iht WifJo?n of the Father j (Which Notion was of old condemned in Fhothim at the Council of Sirmmn^ and amounts in the whole to the very fame with the Sabellian Herefy :) Or elfe, on the other fide, the Term \_?^y>^^ the IFord^ fignifies in Scripture a real divine Perfon by whom God ads and reveals himfeif to his Creatures, reprefented only figuratively as the Word or Wifdom of the Father -^ and then, in reality^ he is not at all [the me- taphyfical ?^y<^^ ovhoi^i\@. or itN^^oe^KPs] the internal VAfdom of the father^ or his Word fpoken forth, hmthe PERSON by whom the FatherV Commmds are exemted and his Wifdoin and Will is Mamfefted and Revealed-^ Upon which Account, his Name is J ailed the WORD of Gad, Rev. 19, 15* Your Learned Friend joyns thefe two No- tions together^ making that which is lite- ral, to be at the fame time^/^^n-^^rit.'^ ^ and that which is only figurative, to be at the fame time literal •Mo : Which is a'manifeft Confufion and Impoflibility* The latter of the Two Notions I now mentioned, is (I think) the more agreeable to the Nem
Te[la7nent^
on Col. r^ 15. 17^
Teflament. The Soji of God is That Divine Perfo?ij by whom the WifJom of the Fa- ther is manifefted, and his Will revealed to all his Creatures *, And upon That Ac- count (as I obferved,) His Fame (fays the Scripture) is called The WO RD of God^
Rev. 19, 13. Anil f the Gcfpel of Sf John was written after the Revelation^ (as is not improbable :,) then the Reafon of Chrift's being called The Word^ or That Word^ in the firft Verfe of that Gofpel^ is the fame with regard to this- palTage in the Revelati- on ; as his being fo frequently ftiled in the Gofpels, The Son of Man^ or That Son of Ma?i^ is with regard to the perfon fo ftilcd and defcribed in the prophecy of Daniel^ ck 7, 13. Now becaufe the word [^?^y@-'} happens alfo to fignify, Reafon , hence the Authors your Friend cites, conclude, that Chrifl: is literally the Reafon or Wifdom of the Father^ and, by Confequence, 710 Per- fon at all. There are feveral other Pallages in the New Teftament, wherein Chrift is called likewife the Power and the Righteouf nefs of God : Very elegantly and ^emphati- cally 5 becaufe by Him is manifefted the Pozver^ and by him is fet forth in a moft confpicuous manner The Righteoufnefs [cTx- H9^o^v7)\ npi'i, The Mercy \ of the Father. From hence the fame Authors might hav^ M 2 argued.
i8o A Commentary
argned, in like manner as in the other cafe, that the Son of God is literally That Attn- bate which is called the Power ^ and That Attribute which is called The Mercy of God. And by the farae Argument that they infer in the other cafe, that the Father confidered dillinclly without the Son, would be [a;\p- . y^. ^ aG9©0 ^ Bei?ig void of Reafo?i a?id WifdofH 5 by the fame Argument they might here likewife have inferred, that the Father confidered diftinftly without the Son, would be a Being void of Power and Tjoid of Mercy. And then all Men would have plainly feen the weaknefs of their Reafoning,
In the Matt. IV, i. Then was Jefmledup of Scripture' ^]j^ ^p'^^j^ j^^^^ ^j^^ Wildemefs.
N' 99S.
In the In your Learned Friend's Comment
pa'gTn^. upo^ This Text, there is nothing ma- terial wherein we differ. See above^ No
33-
No
on Lnkc 4^ i8. 181:
L U K E IV, 18. The Spirit of the Lord is in the
upon Me, bee ait fe He hath a^iointed me to ^fl^\'''^- preach the Gofpel to the Poor. n^ 1005.
In the
Your learned Friend fays not a word p^^'^\^^ upon this Text -^ but only unfortunately cites one palTage out of Ire?imM ^ upon which he makes a wrong Obfervation. Re- quiefcehat Spiritm Dei fuper Eum , The Spirit of God (faith Iieni^us) refled upon hiin^ viz, upon Chnsi. " E U M, (lays " your Learned Friend,) the Ma?i^ not the " Word ". He had forgot, it feems, that he was citing a Latin Tranflation j and that Iren^us wrote in Greek^ in which Both the words [_?[gP3- and c6v\^e^7n>i] are equally Mafculine. But This is of no great Moment : For in the whole paf- fage, he does indeed reprefent Irenmis's Senfe rightly ^ though he miftook in judguig where the Emphafis of the Expref- jlon lay,
M % W
i82 % Commentary
N^ 57-
ifl the Act s XXVm, 25, 26, 27, ^^^^^ j?^^^^ Scripture- ^Jjg Holy Qhoft by Ifaiah the Prophet unto N^ 105k ^^^^' Father^ ^ f^ji'^ig-y ^^ 0 imto this people^ In the An- and fay ^c, a7iJ I jhould healthe?n.
fwery pag 115
The Meaning of This Text, I faid, feem- ed to Me to be This : Efaias^ by the Re- velation of the Holy GhoH, faw Lod fitting upon the Throne of his Glory, and heard him faying ijo c^c. Efai. 6 \ i, 9, Thus 8?^ John in the Apocalypfe, being m the Spirit ^^ (Rev. i, lo-) faw G^^/ fitting up- on his Throne, and beheld ChriH in his Glory. And the words which Chrisi him- felf fpake. Rev. ch. 2, d*^ ch. 3,) are in the very fame Chapters faid to be what the Spirit faith unto the Churches. So here likewife, what Efaias in the Spirit heard God fpeaking, is faid to be fpoken by the Holy GhofL Whatever God fpeaks, may very properly be faid to be Ipoken by the Holy Ghof}^ becaufe God always fpeaks to his Prophets by the Infpiration of his Holy Spirit : And whatever is fpoken by the Holy Ghosi^ may no lefs properly be faid to be fpoken by God^ becaufe 'tis fpoken to the Prophets by That Spirit v/hich God ' has
on ASts 28 : 25:, 26^ 27. 183
has given them. In the Revelation^ cK II, ver. I, 5, even an infenoiir Angel h introduced as fpeaking in the Perfon of God ; 77:?^ Angel ftood^ f^v^^^g i I ripill give Power unto M Y two Witneffes^ (^c.
Your learned Friend fairly acknowledges, that the Glorj; which appeared to Ifaiah^ ch. 6, is the Glory of the Father ^ even the fame which appe ired to St John^ Rev. 4 j 2, 8. But the fame Glory (he fays) is alfo called the Glory of the Son^ Joh. 12, 41 : How That Text is to be underftood, I have fliown above, in my Note upon the place, No 27. And the fame Glory, (your Friend goes on^) is, in the place now be- fore us, faid to be the Glory of the Holy GhoH : That's very wonderful , for there is not one Syllable about Glory ^ either in the Text or Context. But he adds his reafon for what he affirms ^ For the Glory or Lord^ (faith he^) which fpake to the Prophet, is called here the Holy Ghoft : But That cannot be ^ becaufe neither in the Old Teftament nor in the New, is the Holy Ghoft at any time ftiled Lord , but, on the contrary, the Prophets are always reprefented as feeing thofe Vifions by the Infpiration of the Holy Ghoft^ in which Vifions they hear God ox the Le?ri^ fpeaking. However, from hence your Friend coUefts with great Probability, (fo he exprelfes M 4 himfelf.
184 ^ Commentary
himfelf, much more modeftly than many Writers,) the Unity or Ichittty 0 feature of ■ the Three Perfo?is. But the Confufion that appears in This Exprcflion, fliows there is not That Ciearnefs there fnould be in his Notion, For though between Two Indi- viduals there may be an UN ITT of Na- ture^ as Two Men are (ojjlovgioi) of the fame Common humane Nature -^ yet Two Indi- viduals cannot, without an cxorefs Conr tradiaion, have an IDENTITTofNa- tttre 5 as Two Perfons cannot be (joLvrnvmi or fxovo^crioi) of the fame Individual or I- dentical Nature, becaufe Then One of thofe Two Perfons would be the fame Per- fon which the Other of them is.
The PaiTages he cites out of the Jewifh Rabbles^ (if they prove any thing,) prove either that thofe Rabbles took the Holy Ghnft to be only another Title fcr God the Father himfelf or elfe that they underftood him to be a Perfon fpeaking in the 'Na7ne of God the Father. And if there be any places in the Smptwe itfelf wherein the Spirit of God feems to be put figuratively for God himfelf in like manner as the Spirit of a Man lignifies the Man himfelf-^ yet fuch places do notat all favour your Frun^d's Hypothcfis, but much rather the Sabellian pr Socinian Notion , 'till, by being compa- red with othe;* parallel places., their True
JVlea^iUig
on k(ks a8 5 1^^ 16^ 27. 1S5
Meaning appears to be That which I have already fet forth in my Explication of the Text at prefcnt before us.
The Texts in the feconJ and third Chap-^ ters of the Revelation^ where the words of ChrifT are faid to be what the Spirit faith unto the Churches^ are thus explained by your Friend : Becanfe (faith he) the One;^^. 12. Glory of the Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghost ^ ivas ?nanifejled in the Huma?ie Nature of Chrift^ though the Word only was perfonaU ly united to it '^ are the words of Chrifi attributed to the Spirit, To Me^ the Rea- fon of This Expreflion [what the SPIRIT faith imto the Churches^ feems rather to be This ;, that 'twas by being in the Spirit^ (ch* I, 10,) 'twas by the Infpiration of the Spirit^ that S"^ John faw lliat Vifion, wherein Chrifi was reprefented as fpeaking; to him thofe words. Which of thefe two Interpretations is the more reafonable and intelligible, muft be left to the Reader to judge.
The Teflimonies of Fathers, which your Friend alleges to confirm his Explication of the Text before us, QS 0 ME Antient Writers^ he calls them ;,) the Reader muft not fuppofe to be Citations out of Antient Writers indeed. For they are only two Writers at the Latter End of the Fourth Qntu'y* The jnore Antient Writers, al-
'8(5 A Commentary
"Oiz^PT^f ^^ci^ r^p ^. y^^y f i^ • different
cr«^» ait^HT?, At>? dTTAVT^y Dianner. 1 bus /^//?/;/ 3Iar^ -T^v^ iUTnTrnv^f^^m, A4>.ca^ r^;* .. When hi the Writinp-s
T(!5- rtt'T«f ^f^H A,>^' [^- ^/ ^/^^ rropbets (faith he) 9?T77x^ -sri'fej/^T©-, «r ^/2aA:.] J! Oil find a Perfo7i introduced
S;«^;tf4i:K fPf^^^"^g. do not then think A6>«, OTOTS J^' f d-m «s«- w<?? f/j^ things are fpoken by
^«x,tJ J)^w. raV^,^' jf/^^ I„p,,^ p r J -^
^' ^id7mr!^-a'7niT^-^ejL76' y^^'^^J*, /^^^^ nj the Divine itc.Apoiog.1, '- wordliliQ Prophetick Spirit
he calls it prefently after,] which moves them. For fofnetimes it [viz. the Prophetick Spivlt] direSly foretells things to come ^ Sometimes it fpeaks^ as in the Per^ fon of God the Supreme Lord and Father of All • And fometimes it [peaks ^ as in the PerfonofChriff.
In the Jo H. Ill, 5. Except a Man he born of
foa^L'e'' ^^^^ 'Spirit ^ he cannot enter into the Kijig- N- 1075. dcm of God.
In the.- /r-
124? ''^* To be Born of the Spirit^ is, according to the fame Evangelift, to be Bom of God : It is probable then, (fays your learned Friend,) that God and the Spirit were be- lieved by Him to be One. But the Scrip- ture alwavs fpeaks more diftindly, and
without
on John 2, ^. ,§-,
without any fuch confufion of Perfons. Rom. 85 II, 14, If the Spirit of him that raifed up Jefiis from the dead^ dzvell in you j he that raifed up Chrift from the dead^ flmll alfo quicke?i your mortal Bodies^ by his Spi- rit that dwelleth in you : For as many
as are led by the Spirit of God^ they are the Sons of God. I Joh. 4, 12, 13, God dwelleth in iis^ and his Love is perfeBed i?z us 5 hereby know we that we dwell in him^ and he in us^ becaufe he hath given us of his Spirit. This is very diftinct and intel- ligible : But, according to your Friend's Argument, the Spirit of God will be the Spirit of Himfelf '^ Which is hard to be un- derftood.
The Paffage of Nemefianus a Thuhunis^ which your Friend cites upon this occafion, is (what He was not aware of) a Corrupti- on introduced in the Latin Church into the Text itfelf of the Verfe next following That which we are now upon. Joh. ^^ 6 : That which is born of the Flefo^ is Flefi 5 and That which is born of the Spirit^ is Spirit 5 For God is the Spirit^ and fuch a Perfon is therefore born of God. Thefe are the words your Friend cites from Nemefta- nus : But they are indeed (what He did hot perceive,) the very words of the Text itfelf, as it was corruptly read by l^emefia- nus and Tertullian^ and fome other Latin Fathers* Arnbrofe^ with fome very remark- able
S8
A Commentary
de Spirit n, Spirit us efl-^QVlA VFVS SFIRITVS EST. Ambrof. de Spiricu Sanfto, ib. 3, cap. II .
able Circumftances worth your Friend's No- tice, cites the corrupt words a little other- wife : For He reads the Text duod nafum ejl ex Came, in the following manner :
^tumct.'^'Et qtd^Z7m% Th^^ whkh is born of the
- FlefljJsFlefi', BECAUSE
IT IS BORN OF THE
FLESH ; And That which
is horn of the Spirit^ is Spi^
rtt ', BECAUSE THE SPIRIT IS
GOD. So Ambrofe in his Comment un-
derftands the interpolated words. For Thus
he argues : This place (fays
Quern locum ira e^prcfse he) 7^ Ariajis do fo exprefsly
Ariani teftificamini elfe de teklfy tO he fpoken of the spiricu, uc eum de veftris CO- rv -"l ^7 ^ ^ i -/
^ ' " • - ■ bpirit^ that ye take it away
out of your Copies ^ And I wiJJj ye flriick it out of your own Copies only^ and not out of the Books of the Churchy
[the Church of Mdan7\
And perhaps ye have done the fame thing in the Eafi too. But though ye have he en able to take away the Words ^ yet ye cannot take away the Faitk Thefe words of Ainbrofe demonftrate, (quite con- trary to what He imaghied,) that there had been indeed a Corruption of the Text, not by the Arians taking away any words, but by Others (cither carelefly, or in the over- heat of their Zeal againfl: the Arians,) ha- ving added tot\\Q Lstin T^^xt^ words which
in
dicibus auferacis ; Acq-, uti- nam de veftris, 6c non eciam de Exclefiae codicibus tollere-
jjc, Ec forcafsc hoc eciam
in Oriente fcc'iflis. Ec liceras quidem pocuiliis abolere ; fed fid em non potuiftis auferre. Wid,
on Matt. 12^ 31. 189
in the Original never were there. And 'tis a ftrange Inftance of the Ignorance of that great Man, and of the Latin Church at that time ^ to be impofed upon fo far, as to receive even into the publick Books of the Church, lb manifeft an Interpola- tion.
N^ 39.
Matt. XIT, 31. The Blafphemy ao^ainRm the the Holy Ghost, fial/ not be forgiven untofj^^^" Men : d^c. N- U2r.
tn the Jn-
By thQ Holy Ghofi here. Was meant (l-^^^^-"^* faid) not the Perfo?i, but the Works of the Holy Ghoft : For no reafon can be given, why Blafphemy againft the Perfon of the Spirit of God, fhould be more unpardona- ble, than Blafphemy againft the Perfon of the Son of God, or than Blafphemy againft the Perfon of God [the Father] himfelf But thtWorks of the Spirit, being the great- eft and laft Means of Convidion that God ever mtended to afford Men *, the rejeding of Th :m, was confequently the Higheft Aggravation of Guilt.
To this, your Friend replies : Where This ^^^^ ^^^^ VoBrine, [that Blafpherny againTt God the Father^ and the Son of God, are pardona-
hie,-]
1^0 A Commentary
ble^ is to he found^ is hard to tell '^ The Text does jiotfeem to infer it^ nor the parallel places in the reft of the Evangel? ffs. I aii- fwer : 'Tis to be found in the Words im- mediately going before the Text : ALL manner of Sin and BLASPHEMT fiall he forgiven unto Men *, [In S'^ Mark it is. All Sins fiall be forgiven unto the Sons of Men^ and Blafphemies wherewith foever they fball blafpheme :~\ But the Blafphemy against the Holy Ghosi fiall not be forgiven unto Men.
fag, 125. But he proceeds : Blafphemy agaiiiH the Father (he fays) is unpardonable^ accord- ing to Levit. XXIV, 1 6, He that blafphe- nieth the 'Name of the Lord^ fiall fiirely be put to Death. I anfwer : A Capital Crime, is one thing :, and what our Saviour fays fliall 7iever be forgiven^ is another.
tH' I '^. Your Friend replies : The Jewifi DoBors were of another Mind : They had a Tradi- tion among them^ that there ivere certain Cri?nes^ that exchtded the Sinners from ha- ving Any Portion in the World to come : A- viong^ which ^ was pronozmcifig the Na7ne Je- hovah according to its Letters : Now they looked upon the Egyptian to have cwfed God^ by fuch a Pronunciation of the Sacred Name : The Confequence of which is^ that his B.af phemy zvas irremiffihle in the World to come. But this their Reaioning was grounded up- on
en Matt. 12^ 31. i^i
on fo weak a Superftition, that he does not think fit to infift much upon it.
He goes on therefore to another Argu-^,.^^, i,,^ ment : If Any Crime is impardonahle^ Blaf- phemy doitbdefs against the God of Heavejt^ or the P erf on of the Father^ is fo • as being - an AB of open Defia?ice and most provoking Ltfolence. I anft^^er : Though no Crime is, m its own Nature^ greater than Blafphemy againft God , yet a Crime may, upon ac- count of certain Cir cum/lances^ become more unpardonable, as being more remote from Re- pentance. Of This liind is Elafphejning the Greatest and Last Means ofCo?iviBion ; afcribing the moft beneficial^ as well as moft powerful Works, to an unclean Spirit -, and thereby taking away ail pofiible means of diftinguiihing Good from Evil: Which therefore our Saviour does accordingly in exprefs Words here declare to be 7nore^mipar- donable than Any other Blafphemy what fever.
The Texts he alleges out of the Epiftle to the Hebrezvs^^ and out of Sc John^ are by ahnoft All Divines underftood, not of a Sin abfohttdy unpardonable^ but of a Sin exceedingly dijficult to be amended and par- doned 5 namely Total Apoflacy from Chrifti^ anity. And if it was indeed abfolutely 'un- pardonable; yet it would be upon the fame Account as the Sin in the Text is declared to be fo 5 namely, becaufe it is blafphe?nczf- ly renouncing the last Means of ConviSion iund Amend??ient^ N^s
ip2 A Commentary
K 40.
intKe 2 T o R. III. 1 7, 1 8. The Lord is That Scripture^ Spirit^ and where the bpirh of the Lord N* 1 1 32. ^^t there is Liberty. In the An- But we All with open Face^ beholding
ixu ^^^' ^^ ^^^ ^^ Glafs the Glory of the Lord^ are changed into the fame Image from Glory to Glory ^ even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
For the clearer Underftanding the True Meaning of thefe Words, it will be proper to confider the whole Scope of the Apoftles Difcourfe in this Chapter. The Holy Ghoft having been poured forth upon the Apoftles at Fentecosi in fo very lingular and plentiful a manner, as that, before that time, it is faid comparatively, 7iot to have been given at all^ Joh. 7, 39 :, hence S^ X^aid in the 8^^ Verfe of this Chapter, ele- gantly ftiles the Gofpel, by way of Emi- nence, The Miniftration of the Spirit. And from That Confideration, throuo;h the Whole Chapter, magnifies the DoBrine of ChriH^ as being more clear and plain, more power- ful and efficacious, more illuftrious and glo- rious, than the Law of Mofcs. Ver. 5. Te are (f lith he) the Epiflle of Chrift^ mi- ftijlrcd by Us^ written not with Lik^ but nntb
the
on 2 Cor. 5 ^ 17, 18. 195
the Spirit of the Living God , 7iot in Tables of Stone ^ hut infiefljly Tables of the Heart : That is 5 The Power and Efficacy of the Gofpel^ is as much greater than that of the Law^ as can be expreft by comparing that which is written in a Book^ with that which is imprinted inwardly in the very Heart and Soul itfelf The &me Argument he purfues, ver. 6, God hath fnade us able Mi^ nifters of the New Te (lament^ not of the Let- ter^ but of the Spirit \ for the Letter killeth^ hut the Spirit giveth 'Life : That is ^ The Gofpel gives us thofe Spiritual Precepts, whereof the Legal Ordinances were but Types and Shadows ^ and teaches us the way to eternal Life^ whereas the Rigour of the Law could end only in Mens condemna- tion. And from hence he proceeds to mag- nify the glorious Manifeftation of the Gof- pel, by comparing it with the Glory that fhined in Mofes\ Countenance , which, though fo bright that the Children of Ifrael could not ftedfaftly behold it, yet was but temporary and tranfient, and only a Type or Figure of That permanent Glory of the Gofpel, which was to continue for ever : Ver. 7. If the Miiiifiration of Dtith, writ- ten and engraven in Stones^ was jrloriom^ fo that the Children of Ifrael could not fledfaflly behold the Face of Mofes, for the Glory of his Countenance^ which Glory was to be done ^away j How fo all not the Minifration of the
N Spirit
^^ A Commentary
Spirit he r/ither glorious .<? For if the Af///i- {lrationofConAt\T\n?Xion be Glory ^ 77iuchmore doth the Mifiijiratioji of Righteoufnefs, (of Jztllification^ it Ihould be rendred,J exceed in Glory :- — • — For if That which was done away zvas glorious^ much more That which remaineth (that which is Perpetual) is glo- rioits. And hereupon he takes occafion ele- gantly to defcribe the Blindiiefs of the Jews after our Saviour's time, in not feeing^ -' through the Types and Figures of the Old Teftament ^ by comparing it to the Veil which Mofes put upon his Face to conceal the Brightnefs of it : Ver. 14, 15, 16, Their Minds (faith he) were blinded -^ For until this day remaineth the fame Veil imta- ken away^ in the readifig of the Old Tefta- ment ^ which Veil is' done away in Chrift : But even nnto this day^ when Mofes is read^ the Veil is itpon their Heart : Neverthelefs when rt [^when the Heart of the People of the Jews] fall turn to the Lord [(hall be converted to CbrisiJ] the Veil fall be take?i away : As he had faid juft before, ver. 14, which Veil is done away in Chrift.
And then he fums up all, and concludes his whole Difcourle, in the Words of the Text now before us : Ver. 17 *,
Isow the Lord is that Spirit.'] The Lord ^ that is, Chrift^ in or by who?n, in or by whofe Gofpel, (he had faid, ver. 14,) the Veil is done away , and to whom^ (he had
faid,
on 2 Cor. 3 J 17^ 18. ip5
faid, t'^r. 16,) ^/^^ y/fT^j fljoiild be convert- ed : This Lord, even Chrijl^ is T/?^? 5^f- r/Y which the Apoftle had been fpeaking of through the Whole Chapter. His Mean- ing therefore is : The Go/pel or DoBrhie of Chrift^ is the Spirit^ the End and T^efign of the Law, which giveth hife^ or (hows Men the way to Juftification ^ in oppofition to the dead Letter and to the Rigour of the Law^ which leads only to Condemnation.. 'Tis that Sprit or final Intent of the Lax^^ which is to continue for ever , in oppofition to thofe mere Types and Shadows^ which were foon to be done away. 'Tis that Sfi- fit or full Meaning and Signification of the 1 Law^ which is oppofed to the Veil of IgJio-- ranee and partial Under (landing of it.
[Chrift^ or the G of pel of Chrift^ is here faid to be the Spirit -^ after the fame manner of fpeaking, as he is affirmed in other places of Scripture to be The Way^ The Truths The Life^ The Wifdom or Power of Godj Our Righteoufnefs^ and the like.]
And where the Spirit of the Lord is^ there is Liberty^] That is : Where this Miniflration of the Spirit^ (ver. 8 ,) this Manifeftation of the Truth ^ (ver. 2, of the following Chapter,) prevails ^ where the Gofpel is received and embraced ^ There is Liberty. Liberty^ from the Bond.ige and Yoke of Ceremonies 3 Liberty^ from the N 2 Domi-
1^6 A Commentary
Domnion and Slavery of Sin ^ Liberty^ from the Rigour and Terrour of the Law, from the Mmtftrauon of Condemnation^ ver^ 9, from the Mini (Ir at ion ofDeath^ ver. j , But moft immediately, Liberty from that Veil of Igjiorance arui Obfcurity^ which re- mained upon the Hearts^ and perplexed the Under (landings of the unbelieving Jews^ when the Old Teftament was read to them: In oppofition to^whicb, the Apoftle argues, ver. 1 2, that WE ufe great plainnefs of Speech^ and not as Mofes vAnch put a Veil o^ %;er bis Face^
, But We All with open FaceJ] This is not faid in oppofition to what went before, but by way of Explication of or Inference frcm^ the Words immediately fore-going. It flaould not therefore have been rendred \BVT;\ but [J^^D.] Where the Spirit of the Lm'd if^ where the Gofpel prevails. There is Liberty -^ AND We all, or, A?jd Jherefore we all, all true Chriftians, do with open Face ^ not through an obfcu^e Veil^ as did the Jews, behold the Glory of the Lord.
With open Face.'] That is, clearly, plain- i}\ and diftinBly : Not in Types and Sha- dows, not in obfcure Glimpfes ^ni feint Re- prefeyitattDns, not in remote Hints and dif- tant ProfpeSs • but with a fidl and direEi View, an immediate Intuition, as of the Sfdjlance and reality^ of things prefent and
aclnally
m 2 Cor. 5 j 17^ 18. ip7
ti?lually before us. We behold the My fiery pi* God in Chrift, not as the Children of If rael faw the Brightnefs of Mofes's Counte- nance through the Ve'A^ (which is what the Apoftle here alludes to 5) /^z/f with open Face^ as Mofes hhnfelf is defcribed to have feen the Lord, when the Lord fpake unto him Face to Face^ as a Man fpeaketh unto his Friend^ Exod. 35, ii.
Beholding the Glory of the Lord."] ^ That is ; the Clear and Glorious Manifeftation of the Will of God by the Gofpel. For fo the Gofpel is ftiled, The Riches of Gods GLO- Rr^ Rom. 9, 23 ^ the Riches of the GW- RT of this Myfery, Col.i, 27-, the GLO^ RT as of the only-begotten of the Father ^fidl €f Grace and Tnit\ Joh. i, 14; the Light of the GLORIOUS Gofpel of Chriji, who is the Image of God^ 2 Cor. 4, 4 ^ And ver. 6, The Light of the Knowledge of the GLO- RT of God, jlming in our Heart. The Words of that whole Verfe, are very re- markable: God, who hath commanded the Light toflnne out ofDarhiefs, (that is, who manifefted his Glory originally in the Firft Creation of Things,) hath flnned in our Hearts, (that is, hath manifefted his Glory the fecond time no lefs confpicuoufly in our Rede?nption,) to give the Light of the Know- ledge of the GLORT of God, in the Face of Jefus Chrift. And thefe two laft Exprefli- ons 5 Chrifi's being the IMAGE of God ^ N 3 ^^^^
1^8 A Commentary
and the Light of the Knowledge of God^s Glory flnning upon us in the FACE (or in the Perfni) ofChrift'^ open to us the Ground and Meaning of that Similitude^ which the Apoftle here interpofes *,
Beholdi7]g^ as in a GLASS^ the Glory of the LordT] That which he hereby intend- ed to exprefs, is *, that in Chrift^ who is the Image of the Invifihle God^ and the Great Revealer of his Will^ we clearly and plainly behold the whole Fleajiire of Cod towards us. For the Father^ no Man hath feen at any time -^ no Man Hath feen, nor Can fee ^ but the only-begotteji Son^ which is in the hofom of the Father^ He hath declared him '^ And hath declared him fo plai7ily^ that he who hath feen M £, faith our Savi- our, has feen the FATHER^ Joh. 14, 9. There is a Phrafe very like to this in the Text before us, ufed in a contrary Senfe by ththmt Apoftle^ i Cor, 15, 12, Now we fee through a GLASS darkly^ hit Then Face to Face. In which Paffage :, feeing THROUGH a GLASS, fignifies feeing dark^ ly or ohfcitrely, in oppofition to beholding plain- ly. Face to Face : But here, in the prefent Text, beholding as IN a GLASS, fignifies on the contrary, feeing clearly or plai?ily ; and is the very fame as, beholding Face to Face^ The Words in the Original, are in Both places more expreffive, than in the Tranflation j and (how plainly the Reafon
of
m 2 Cor :; *y ly^ i8. ipp
of This different Signification. In 0?ie place, the Word, which we render, Glafs^ fignifies a FerfpeBive-ghfs^ [/SAf'^jocsr/ S'l Imirlp's '^'] which brings diftant things into the Reach indeed of our Sight, but ftill ve- ry obfcurely^ imperfeEll}\ and hidiflincily ^ and does therefore very elegantly, and by a moft proper Similitude, exprefs Tfhat View of a Future State, which we have by Fahh and not by Sight* But now in This Other place, the Word which we render, Glafs^ C>(^TO'cj7£/C^Vsro' ] fignifies a Mirroir or Looking-glafs^ which on the contrary repre- fents things plainly and diftinSily^ Face to Face 5 and therefore no lefs elegantly re- prefents that clear Light of the Knozvledge of the Glory and Will of God^ which fimes to us rftith the Apoftle) i?i the FACE of Jefus Chri?t.
Are cha?iged into the fime lmage7\ That is : As ChriH is, by Nature, the perfed- hnage of God \ fo We^ by communication of hight and Knowledge from him, and by the Praclife of Right eonfnefs and true Holi- nefs in Obedience to him and Imitation of him, are transformed into the fame Image. As Chrifl is, by Nature, the Son of God ^ fo We^ by Adoption and by the Fruits of the Spirit dwelluig in us^ have This Love he- flowed mon us, that ?r^ 7i\{o flmdd he cal- led The Sons of God : For of his Fulnefs have we all received^ and Grace for Grace ^
N 4 "^ , Joh.
Qoo 'A Commentary
Joh. I, 16. See Row. 8, 29 ^ Ephef.
4, 23 5 &/. 3, 10 5 Rom. 12, 2 5 7^/:?. 17, 22 ^ I G?;'. 15, 49 •, C(9/. 3, 4 ^ PM.
5, 21 *, c^ I y^I'. 3, 2.
J?^/?j G/f7r); zr^ G/^^r)'.^ That is : Either, by Coiiimanication of Glory to TIs^ fronii the Glory of Chriji -^ according to that ex- preffion of our Saviour, Joh. 17, 22, Ths Glory which Thou gave si Me^ I have given Them • and that of the Evangelift, of His Fiihefs have we all received : Or elfe, the Phrafe may fignify, fro7n one Degree of Glory to another , In like manner as Pf 84, 7, They pall go from /lre?igth to ftreiigth \ And Rem. i, 17, Therein [in the Golpel] the Right eoiifnefs [or Mercy^ of God is re- vealed from Faith to Faith , from one de- gree of Clearnefs of Revelation, to another, from a lefs clear Difpenfation under the Law, to a clearer one under the GofpeL
Even as by the Spirit of the Lord."] That is, (if the words be rightly thus rendred ,) All thefe .things are accamplidied in fuch a manner, in fo wife, fo effedual, fo glori- ous a manner, as becomes the Dignity of the Great Agent, and are worthy the Ope- ration of the Spirit of God. But the words \^ifcf,^'7np ^ Ti/j^H 7rvsvfJi^(^'] may no lefs properly be rendred, as by the Lord who is the Spirit :, namely by Clorifl^ who in the fore-going verfe is affirmed to be That Spirit the Apoftle was fpeaking of, in the Senfe "■ ' which
on 2 Cor. 3-5 17^ 18. ^01
which has been before explained. Which of the Two, is the Truer Interpretation of thefe laft words , muft be left to the Learn- ed Reader to judge.
Your learned Friend, contends for quite another Interpretation of this whole Text j and thinks that the word, Lord^ in the 17th verfe, fignifies not Chrift, but the Holy Ghofl : So that when the Apoftle fays. The Lord is That Spirit^ his Meaning will be, The Holy Ghofl is that Spirit. The rea- fons he gives for this Interpretation, are very dark and obfcure , and make the whole Text very intricate, by a ftrange Confu- fion of Perfons. That the word, Lord^ in that place, cannot poffibly fignify the Ho- ly Ghofl^ is ( I think) very evident from the following confiderations,
1. The whole Scope and Connexion of the Apoftles Difcourfe from the beginning of the Chapter to the End, is very clear, natu- ral and elegant, according to the Explication I have given of it above , taking the word, Lord^ in the 17 th verfe, to fignify Chriji^ according to the general ftyle of the New Teftiment. Whereas, according to your Friends interpretation, the whole is made intricate and obfcure, by a confufed Tran- fition from one perfon to another.
2. The Context immediately going be- fprc and following, neceiTarily determines
• the
202 A Commentary
the word, Lord^ in the 17^^^ verfe, to fig- nify Chrif}. For in the 14^'-' verfe^ the Apoftle had faid, that the Veil of igno- rance, which is upon the Heart of the un- believing Jews when the old Teftament is read, is done away in Chrifl^ that is, is re- moved when by believing" the Gofpcl they are inftructed rightly to underftand the ty- pical expreffions in the old Teftament. In the 16th verfe he repeats the fame Senfe again in thefe words. When it [the Heart of the People of the Jews'] fijal/ turn to the Lord J the Veil JI3 all be taken away : To turn TO the Lord^ that the Veil may be taken away '^ evidently means, being converted to Chrifl^ [or emjbracing the Gofpel, ] in or by whom, he had faid juft before, the Veil is done away *, And therefore when he goes
on, ver. 17, Now the I.ord , it is mofl:
manifeft that the word, Lord^ muft mean that very fame Lord, who is fpoken of in the i6th verfe ^ and who in the i^^^^ verfe is expresfly called Chrifl. Wherefore 'tis very wonderful your learned Friend (hould af- iirm, Qa^g* 134?) ^^^^ Nothing occurs in the whole Context to determine the word to this Senfe ^ when the very words immedi- ately fore-goings do by mofl: necelfary and evident confl:ruction fo determine it. And as to the words next following *, far from confirming your Friends Interpretation, as he fuppofes , they alfo evidently fliow it to
be
on 2 Cor. 3 ; 17, 18. 203
be impoffible to be true : For when the Apoftle adds, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty *, if the word, Lord^ in the fore going words, had fignified the Holy Ghoft^ then the Spirit of the Lord would here have been as inuch as if he had faid, The Spirit of the Holy Ghofl, or the Spirit of the Spirit itfelf-^ which is mam- feftly impofTible.
3. Laftiy ;, Were there no other Argument, it would be fufficient to allege, that your Friends underlianding the word, Lord, in this place, to mean the Holy Ghoft , is en- tirely contrary to the whole Language of the infpired Writings, and tends to intro- duce the utmoft confufion. For neither in the Old, nor in the New Teftament, is there any one place, where the Holy Ghofi is ever fpoken of under the Title of Lord, but always diftinctly under his own proper perfonal Denomination, the Spirit of the Lord^ or the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit. There are only Two Places (and thofe your Friend feerns not to have been aware of,) v/herein Bafd, contrary to all the Writers in the Ages before him, un- derftands the word, Lord, to mean the Ho- ly Ghoft, The One is, i Thef. 3 , 12, 13, The LORD make yoiito increafe and abound in Love, — ■ — • to the end he may ftablijij your Hearts unblameable in Holinefs before God even our Father, at the coming of our Lord
Jefus
2 ©4 -^ Commentary
Jefus Clirifl-. The Other Text is, 2 Thef. 5, 5, The LORD direB your hearts into the Love of God, and into the patient wait- hig for Chrift. But how vpeak a thing it was in that Father, to think the Word, hord^ in thefe Texts, fignifies xhtHoly Ghoft j may appear by coinparing thefe Texts with Tliat other palFage, i Cor. i , 7, 8, where- in the Name Jefus Chrift is expresfly ad- ded to the Appellation, Lord^ in Both parts of the S:mtence : — Our Lord Jefus Chrift^ voho fall alfo confirm you unto the Ejid^ that ye may he blamelefs in the day of our Lord Jefus ChrijL
?r! th;
N° 41;
Y^l^'f Matt. XXVIII, 19. Baptising thejn in N' 1^2 1'r. the 'Barne of the Father^ and of the Son^ u the An- andof the Holy Ghoft.
How This Text was univerfally under- ftood in the Primitive Church, cannot be doubted '^ there being ftiU extant a profef fed Paraphrafe upon it, even the Jposfles Creed '^ v/hich from the earlieft times of "Chriftianity, was, with very little Variati- on in the feveral Churches, the Baptifmal Creed.^ or Frofejfon of Faith^ which all ^Chriftians were taught on Purpofe that they ^ mighf
on Matt. 28^ I p. 205
might underftand what it was they were Baptifed into.
To be baptized therefore in the Pame [or, into the 'Eame^ eis g ovofj^r\ of the Father^ aiid of the Son, and of the Holy Ghojl ^ is, to be baptized into the Profeflion of our Belief,
In One God^ the Ahnighty Father^ {jnrx,^ nk^ "si^oiL^To^j Supreme over All,] the Maker of Heaven and Earth : And
In One Lord Jefits Chrift^ the only-hegot- ten Son of God^ who was incarnate^ and di- ed for our Sms^ and rofe again for our Jiif tification^ and 7iow fitteth at the right Hand of God to ijitercede for us^ and f:all come a- gain at the End of the World to judge all Men according to their Works : And
In the Holy Spirit of God^ the Infpirer of the Apoftles and Prophets^ the Comforter of good Chrijlians^ and the SanSifer of all Hearts,
Nothing can be more prai^pofterous, than, inftead of thus comparing this Text with the antient Baptifmal Creed, and with other Texts of Scripture -^ to reduce, on the contrary, the Words both of the Text and of the Creed, to the Standard of New Scho» laftick Hypothefes.
Your Learned Friend fays nothing at all upon this Head, but barely alleges Two PaJJages out of x\ntient Writers : Neither
of
f^o6 A Commentary
of which, have any the lead relation to This Text ^ And One of them^ is only a fpurious LatiJi Sentence of Cleme?2s Alexan- drinus^ v/ho v/rote in Greek. If it was ge- nuine, there is nothing very remarkable in it ; But what Regard is to be had to fuch hat'in Scraps of Greek Authors, the Reader may judge from the very laft Sentence of the Book, \J)im Dives d^cr\ to which This Fragment is annexed. For, the concluding Words, [_S> 2/^ tS <7TZLi^i Imo-3 :ye>««r?«» ^
2J[^ dyly mvivfj^i^^ an tJb^a,"] To who7tt^
THROUGH his So7i Jefus Chrift, and through the Holy Spirit^ he Glory ^ are in the Latin Tranilation thus rendred, [Cui cum Filio Jefii Chrifto^ To who?n^ WITH his Son Jefiis Chrift^ &c. And the like Tranflations are to be found in almoft eve- ry Page of the Latin Verfions of Greek Fa- thers.
N° 42.
In the
ScYlptHYC'
dotiiine, I J Q H. V, 7. For there are Three that
In the ^n- h^^r Record iii Heaven^ the Father^ the
iwer^ pag. Word^ and the Holy Ghoji j aiid thefe
^^'^' Three, are One.
I obferved that thefe words could not have any ftrefs laid upon them in Ar-y Con-
troveify 5
on I Job. 5^ 7. 207
troverfy •, Firft^ becaufe in the Original the natural fignification of the words , thefs three are One^ is, that they are One agree- ing Teftimony , (as very many Orthodox Divines among the Moderns, both Luthe- rails and Calvhiifts^ freely acknowledge :) And Secondly^ (which is much more mate- rial,) becaufe the Whole Text itfelf does not appear with any Certainty to have ever been found in Any Manufcript Copy of the Original Greek at all.
The Learned D"^ Mills alle2;es indeed, that the Text has been found in OneMa- 7mfcrtpt in England^ in feveral of the moft Antient Mariufcripts in the Vatican Library^ and in Seven of Robert Stephens's Manu- fcripts : But a Judicious Reader wiileafily perceive, that Every One of thefe are Mif takes.
How the Miftake arofe concerning Ste- phens^ s Manufcripts, I havefhownat large in my Letter to D^ JFeUs^ pag. 43 , and D'^ Mills himfelf fully acknowledges it, in his Prolegomena^ pag. 11 j.
As to the Manvifcript in England^ it is only a Book mentioned by a Foreigner^ but which no Man in England ever heard oh And Eraf?nus himfelf, who is the only per- fon that mentions it, declares at the fame time, that he did not believe there was any fuch thing.
Concerning
ao8 A Commentary
Concerning; the Vatican Vaticani antiqalOimi & e- Manufcripts,Dr7W//7j^s words mendacifTimi aliquoc, ad quos ^^^ ^\^^^q^ Several fnosi an- Hifpani Theolcgi ediderunc . in c-t n/r
Teftamentum Complutenfe, in ttent and nwft correct ManU' QU9 habecur hxc pericope. fcripts in the Vatican Library^
according to which the Spa- niJJj Divines puhlifloed the Complutcnfian TeHament^ in which £viz. in which Printed Teftament, 7iot^ in which Manufcripts] this verfe is fowid. Now, befides that D"^ Mills himfelf obferves, that the Text is wanting in That moft antient Vatican Copy, from which Sixtiis Qiiintus''s Septuagint was publifhed ^ and that nobody elfe could ever find in the Vatican Library Any MS which had this Text, (as appears from Caryophilus^s ^ various Ledions collected
by
^Totus fepcimus verfus hujus Capitis denderacur in 8 MSS
CodicibusGrxcis. Sed quia cicacur a CypriatWj &
ab Athanafio in Difputatione cum Ar'io N'icaa habitr'}, his ver- bis, TaaVvaf f)jtV;c«, i^ ot Tfe^f ri h etTi, idcirco vcrfus integer in Texcu Gra[:co relidtus eft, juKta VERITATEM LATINiE VULGATi^ edicionis, & IMPRESSOS cr-am Co- dices Gra?cos. Caryophili varU Le^. aifincm Catenje in Marc.
i. e. The yvh(y(e feventh Verfe of this Chapter (faith Cary- fiphilusj is watifmg in Eight Greek Manufcripts^ But becaufe ^tis cited by Cyprian, [which I have ftiownro be a Miftake,] and by Athanafius in his Difputation with Arius at Nice, [which is a fpurious Book, and cites, not this Verfe nei- ther,] in thcfe Words, John faith, and chefe Three are One ; therefore the whole verfe is \ept in the Greek, Text [of Cary- ophiJus's intended Edition,] according to the TKVTH of the Vulgar LAI IS Edition, aud alfo the FRINIED Greek Co- ?^^^« Noce^
on I John 5^ 7. 20;^
by order of Pope Urban the Eighth 5, and as Erafmus has fhown in his Note on the Text, and in his Controverfy with Stunica ^ who, though himfelf concerned in the Comphtte)ifian Edition, yet alleges not a- gainft Era/mm Any Greek Manufcript, but appeals from the Greeks to the Latins and to Jerom ;) an unprejudiced Reader would prefently guefs from the marginal Note in the very Coniplutenfian Edition itfelf, that the Editors put in this Text upon the Au- thority of 5^ Thomas Aqitmas^ who knew no Greek , and not from their Vatican Ma- nufcripts.
Note : The Eight Greek Manufcripts, in which Caryophilu^ fays This Text was wanting, were ALL the Copies which had This Epiftle in them. For fo he cells us in his Preface ^ [Con- quifitis juffu SanftifTimi Domini noftri Urbani VIII, MiiS co-
dicibus venerandx Antiquitatis, e Vaticana pocifTurium ^
evangeliorum, decern •, Aftorum & Epiftolarum omnium, OCTO\ Apocalypfeos, quatuor-] / coUe^ed^ faith he, by the command of our moji Holy Father^ Pope Vrbati the Eighth, Manufcript Copies which were of the mofl venerable Antiquity, fdrtkuLirly out of the Vatican Library ^ of the Gofpels^ Ten Copies ', of the A^s and all the Epijlles, EIGHT Copies j of the Revelation, Four,
'Tis alfo very obfervable, that in a CoIIertion of various Readings from Sixteen Mauulcripcs, Eight of which were out of the King of Spain s Library, there is no mention made of This Text •, though it was a Colledlion of fuch Readings, zs mofl hvoured zhe Vulgar Latin, in order to ccrreft the Greel^ Text by the Rule ot the Latin. [Varij: Le^ioncs Mar- chionis Velefii, Petri Faxardi, fa^a collat'-one ledecim ex- emplarium, in quibus erant Ocio ex bibliotheca. Regia beati
Laurent li. FlurimA illarum favent impense interpret ationi
Vulgarx: r,oflr£. — Magno labore ccmparatA ju.nt a Vho Sa' pientijimo, ^ emendatus Grxcus Textw ad Normam Valga- li InterprM.'] De la Cerda Adverru'la Sacra, cap. ^i.
o Add
2 1 o jTLommentary
Add to This, that the Text is wanting in all the A?itie?it Verfwns ^ and moreover is never cited in the genuine Works of any Greek Father, either during the Time of the Avian Controverfy, or before or after that time ^ though many of them cite the words both immediately fore-going and fol- lowing this Text„
2g. 137. All This, your learned Friend (like a very fair and reafonable Adverfary) readily allows. But then, as " it ought not (faith " he) to be concealed, that This paflage ^^ does not certainly appear to have been " found in the Text of any Greek Ma- " nufcript • fo it ought alfo to be told, " that it appears to have been found in " the old Latin Verfwn that was ufed in " the African Church : Elfe how could , " Cyprian and Tertitllian have cited it ? " I anfwer : p^ Mills Oiows, that the old La- tin Verfion had it not : And therefore neither before Cyprian'^ time, nor for a long time after^ was it cited by Latin Writers, any more than by Greek ones. Tertiillians Words, \_Qui tres Vmm funt^ are plainly the words of that Author him- felf, and not a Citanon of This Text. The Author of the Book, de Baptifmo B^reticonnn^ (allowed to be contemporary with Cyprian^) cites S> Johi's words, agree- ably to the Greek Manufcripts and the Anti-
ent
on T Joh, 5, 7. 2 1 1
cut rerfms, thus: S^John Ji^^^^X^^^";
teaching IIS in his Lp^Jtle con- docen?, I/k eji qui venit per
cerjnnp- our Lord, faith : afum & fauguwem Jefus
__.^ ^j. 7 7 ChriftiH '-, Non in aqua tantum,
. *' This is He rpho came by y-^^ ^-^ ^^^^ ^ \aHum ^ ^ *" Water and Blood, even Je- sphHus efl quipftmmum
,. r. ^T .^7 -XT 7 TJy''^^^ perhibet. quia Spintus eii vert'
" /«5 C&7f/ .• IV^ot l>j> Water ^,^,_ a^'il „•,. ,ei};m»«i»m ?«-
" only but hy Water and hibent, spiritus ir ,iqtia is
« Blood', And r^ the Spi- s^'!"'"' ^ ''^' '^" """"'''
" rit which beareth Witness,
" becaiife the Spirit is Truth : For there
" are Three that bear Record, the Spirit^
" and the Water, and the Blood •, and the fa
" Three agree in One ". In which PaiTage
'tis obfervable, that not only the whole
fh Verfe, (as Dr Mills takes notice,) but
the words V?>^ Earth) in the 8^^ Verfe, are
omitted alfo : Which muft be underftood
to be the Cafe, in moft Books that want
the fK From this manner of reading the
Apoftles words, both before, in, and after
Cyprian's time, it is very improbable that
Cyprian alone fnould have found the 7^^^
Verfe in His Copies* The Queftion then
is •, How comes Cyprian to fay. It is written
concerning the Father, and the Son^ and the
Holy Spirit ^ thefe Three are [Umm'] One ^
Of This, we have a clear Account given
us by Facimdus : John the ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^j^^ .^ ^p,^
Apoftle (faith he) in his t- f^ola Tua, de Pacre & Filio
ptftle th^ /peaks concerning - ^^r^^fSLlL.^'^rj
the Father and the bon and ,•„ ^j^,.^^ sfMtm, Aq«a, (fy
the Holy Ghofii There are s^^is -, & hi tres m,m f,r.t . O 2 Three
pic,
211 A Commentary
[n Spiricu fignificans Patrem, Three tliat bear Record ill ;-^i^in7;ya Earth, the Spirit and the f ilium. — Qiiod joaimh A- Water and the Blood -^ By ^:"SS";i« ^i^SpirK 'neanin. the F.-
Martyr, in Epiftola five libro thet ^ /^ the Water ^ the
guemdeTnnitacefcripfic,d^ Holv Ghoft : md hv the
Patre ^ Filio be Spiritu San^Q -pj ^j , ^ ITH ■ IT' a-
diftum intelligit: Aic enim, nlood^t be boll. IVhlcbleJtl-
Vint Vominus, Ego <lfX Pater ^^^^j^y (^f f;]jg Apoflk Sf Tohn,
Yatrehmio^sputu Sanih the Bkffed Cyprian Bi^iop of
fcriptu?n eft, Et hi tres Vmm Cavthap-e^ and Martyr. 171 his
run,. Lib. .. Defenf. tr. O- _g^^.^;/ ^^ _g^^^ ^^^.^j^ j^^
ivrote concerning the Trinity^ mderjlands to he meant of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft : For thm He writes -^ Our Lord faith, I and my Father are One , and again. Concerning the Fa- ther and the Son and the Holy Ghoft it is written, x\nd thefe Three are One : Thm Facwichis, The Teftimony of Fulge?itiii<s ,iifually alleged on the other fide, proves only that the Text of the 7^^ Verfe began to come into the Latin Copies in His time, about the Beginning of the Sixth Century, which yet Facimdns^ vwho lived nearly at the fame time, never heard of.
Thus have I gone through your Learned Friend's Bookj not in the manner He went through mine, choofing out a Few of my Texts to difcourfe upon, and leaving tlie Reft untouched :, but I have confidered J!l the Arguments He alleged, and in the fame
-Order
on I Job. 5^ 7- 213
Order that He alleged them , without omitting any thing he offers, that Any Reader can think of importance.
I received at the fame time a Second Reply from D^ Wells ^ wherein he fo wholly refers himfelf to other Modern Authors, whofe Arguments I had fully obviated in iny Firfl: Book ^ and forbears entring Him- felf into the Merits of the Caufe at all ^ and writes moreover in fo particular a Style, and Manner •, that 1 am perfwaded a Man of Tour Candour and Fairnefs, and that underftands True Reafoning fo well as Tou do, will not think me under any Obliga- tion to have any further Controverfy with Him.
SIR,
Tour AffeEiionate Friend and Humble Servant,
Sam. Clarke.
ANSWER
T O T H E
REMARKS
O F T H E
AUTHOR
O F,
Some Conjideratiom concerning the Trinity^ and the Ways of managing that Controverjy.
^y SAMUEL CLARKE^ D-D. Reftor of S'^ James's We/lminfler^ and Chaplain in Ordinaiy to Her Majefty,
LONDON^
Printed for James Kimptoji^ at the Crozv?i in St P^w/'s ChurdvYard. 17 14.
\
317
A N
ANSWER
T O T H E
R E M A R K S ^^.
F T E R the fore-going Papers were finiflied and ready for the Prefs, there came out a Book entituled. Remarks up07i D^ Clarke's Scripture-DoBrine of the Trinity y by the Author of Some Confide-' rations concerning the Trinity^ and the Ways of managing that Controverfy. In which, though, after the moft careful Examinati- on,! could find little more than a Repetition of the fame Objeftions which I had already anfwer'd in the fore-going Papers *, yet be- caufe thofe Objeftions were again fet forth tp particular Advantage, by the Skill of a very Able and Learned Writer^ and by being propofed with a reafonable and good Spirit^ I thought it proper to lay them before my !ljeader briefly, with the refpedive Anfwers to them.
. In
ai8 An Aftfrver to the Author
In the First place, I obferve in general, that This Learned Author alleges 07ily foi7ie FEW Texts in Favour of his Hypothefis, and takes no Notice at all of the greater part of thofe much more nurnerous Texts which are diredly AgahiH it;, Not fo much as attempting to fhow, how thefe latter Texts can be reconciled with his Hypothe- fis : x\nd yet at the fame time hd is fo can- did as to declare concerning the Method / pg, 113. took, that " the trueH way of under ft and- " ing the treanhig of Single Texts relating " to the prefent Controverfy^ is to conftder '^ them ALL together in one vievp '*•
Secondly^ 1 obferve that All his Argu- ments through his whole Book, if they were conclufive, would prove direftly, that , the Son of God is God the Father himfelfj ' and confequently that Chrift Our Media- tour is only a mere Man, in whom God the Father dwelt after an extraordinary man- ner : From whence it follows, that all the Worfhip paid in the New Teftament to Chrift our Mediatour and IntercelTour, is either direded to God the Father dwel- ling in him, (which is fuppofing the Su- preme Father to mediate and intercede with himfelf ♦,) or elfe it is direded only to the Man Chrift Jefus, (which is no lefs contra- Prcf, ry to this learned Authors Hypothefis.) He h^&' '• complains that he did not fully comprehend
.nd/le- ^ - MV
of Some Confidcrations &:c. 21^
My whole Scheme : In what part of My Scheme, there is Any Difficulty of being un- derftood, I am not yet aware ^ But This, I am fure, is an obvious^ and, I think, an im fiver able Difficulty in His.
But to proceed to Particulars.
OBJ. Be objeSs (Pref. pag. 2 ^ and Re- marks, pag. 92,) that D^ Clarke fitppofes ' the
* Divine Nature fupplied the place of the
* Humane Soul in Clirift.
ANSW. On which fide foever That Chieftion be determined, it makes no Al- teration at all in My Scheme. And there- fore, to avoid all needlefs Difficulties, I neither affirmed nor fuppofed any thing, )vhich will not hold equally true upon Ei- ther Hypothefis. His inferring from thefe Words in my 38^^ Propofition, \jhe Divi- nity of the Son was personally and infepara- bly united to the FleJIj^'] that I denied Chrisi fag, 9: to have a Humane Soid ; is a wrong Infe- rence, unlefs the fame can be inferred alfo from the like Words of S^ John^ The Word ivas made FLESH ^ and of S^ Paid^ was fnafiifesi in the FLESH ^ and of S^ Peter ^ Chrifi has fiiffered for ifs in the FLESH '^ and from his OWN Words, (pag. 98,) ChrisTs appearance in the FLESH
OBJ.
^20 An Anfwer to the Anthpr
Pg. 3. OBJ. ' ft is very confiftent with Char
' rity and Truth , to rank Dr Clarke in ' SOME Arian Clafs ^ becaufi in five and ' fifty Propofitions there is but One Ex- *- preffion, which any of thofe who now •' profefs themfelves Arians, would refufe to *• fobfcribe to.
ANSJK It is eafy to demonftrate, that this Suggeftion is by no means reafonable or well-grounded. The Bodj of Chriflia^is in the Primitive Ages, kept ftedfaft to that Form of Sound Words, the Baptifmal Creed , which contained nothing in it, but what both Arians^ and almofl all other SeBs I 'whatfoever,were forced to acknowledge was
the true and undoubted Dodirine of Chrift: Is it from hence reafonable to fuggeft, that the Chrjftian Church in the Primitive Ages ivas. juftly to be ranked under Some Arian Clafs, or under any Clafs of any other Seel whatfoever? This Learned Author will not fufpect that it was. He therefore only is an Arian^ who himfelf maintains, or im- ^^ofes upon others, the particular DoBrines of Arhfs ^ Not he, who defires to adhere to thofe AnUe?it and Scriptural Forms of Soimd Words ^ which being from the Begin- ning unanimoufly received in the Catholick Churdi, had aftervv^ards different Additions made to them by Men of diff r:nt Seds an4 difi:erent Opinions, whereby endlefs Dilutes were brought into the Church.
But
of Some Confiderations &c. 221
But after all, VVh^t is being ranked in SOMEAriari Clap ^ Nothing but a Name df Diflike, without Any determinate Sig- nification. Should /afiirm, that This Learn- ed Writer might with Truth and Charity be ranked ni SO ME Socinian Clafs^ I think I Ihould by no means act well in fo doincr : And yet His Scheme is lefs different from the Notions of Soclms^ than Mine is from thofe of Jrim. ^
OBJ. ' Three Divine Beings — •— mufi P-'^- »• ' needs be conceived as Three'^Gods, not- ' withftanding any Subordination of the ' Second and Third Being to the Firft ^ or ' elfe we muft free the Pagan World from ' the^ Abfurdity of Polytheifm, and the • ' Guilt of Idolatry • thefe being generally, "- if not always, founded upon a Siibordina- ' tion of many Deities to the One Su- * prerae.
JNSJF. The Difference between Chrifli- anity and ?dganifm^ is This, The Pagans acknowledged majiy FALSE (fictitious) Gods^mAmany FALSE (fictitious) Lords: On the contrary, Chriflians acknowledge only One TRUE God^ and only One TRUE Lord or Mediatcur. There are (faith S^ Paul) that are called,^ (that is, there were feigned by the Heathens,) Gods manv^ and Lords many -^ But to Us [Chriftians"] there is but One God, [viz.] the Father, Of j Cor. g,
whom ^'
212 An Atifvoer to the Author
whom are all tlmigs ^ a?ici Oiie Lord^ C^i^-l Jefits Chrjf}^ By who?n are all things. Now to fay, thqt beiides the Ojie True God^ there cannot be alfo One True Lord or Mediatour ^ is an Argument, not againfl 7ny Scheme in particular ^ but 'tis the Argument which Deifts ufe, (with what reafon, I have elfe- wlaere fliown,) againfl: Chrifl:ianity in ge- iieraL Or to fay, that there is alfo indeed One Tfue Lord or Mediatow\ but that That One True Lord is the fame Individual with the One True God ^ What is This, but to affirm in other words, that the One Lord^ Jefus Chrif}^ B T whorn are all things^ is the One God^ the Father^ 0 F whom are all things .<? Which is overturning the Apofl:Ies whole x\rgument, and introducing an abfo- lute Confufion of Perfons. Our One God^ fays the Apofl:le, is the Father : If then the One Lord^ J^fi'^ Chrifl^ be That 0?ie God^ whom the Apoftle defines to be the Father^ of whom are all thi?igs ^ is not this exprefs- ly affirming that the Son is the Father .«? Than which, nothing can be more hard to underftand, or to reconcile with the whole Doclrine of Scripture.
But why mufl: Three Divine Beings, of Neceffit)' be conceived as Three Gods ? Oiie God^ the Almighty Father -^ and One Lord^ the Only-begotten Son of That Almighty Fa- ther ^ and One Holy Spirit of God^ the Spi- rit of That Ahnighty Father ; are in our
Creed
of Some Gonfiderations 8cc. ^ii':^
Creed reprefented to us as Three diftinEi A^ genrs : And yet they are no more Three Gods^ than they are Three Ahmghty Fa- thers^ ^ which is (according to the Creed) the Definition of God. 0?ie God^ to whom Mediation is made , and One Mediatoitr^ making Intercefiion for us to That One God, (which is S'^ P^rzJ's manner of fpeak- ing 5) are no more Two Gods ^ than an Advocate with the Father^ and the Father with whom that Advocate is^ (which is Sc 5^/?^w's manner of exprefling.the famethuig,) are Two Fathers. One Spirit^ One Lord^ One God atid Father of all^ who is above all I, are by the Apoftle reprefented to us, as Three difthiH Agents : And yet they can no more truly be faid to be Three Gods^ than Each of them fingly^ (or than All of them together^ can be truly faid to be The God and Father of All^ who is Above All ^ Which is the Apoftles Definition of the One Supreme God. Three perfectly co-or- dinate^ and eqitally Siipreine Verfons or A- gents, (whatever DifiinBnefs^ or whatever Unity oi Nature be fuppofed between them,) muil of Neceflity be conceived to be Three Gods^ that is. Three Supreme Independent GovernGiirs of the U?iiverfe ^ becaufe the proper Notion of God in Scripture^ and in natural Reafon alfo, as to all jnoral and re- ligious Regards, is his being abfolutely « TsccvTQicfciTwpj Suprcf/ie Ruler over All^
and
224 ^^ Anfrvtr to the Author
and 0 <uTa.TT\p *7nivT6iv^ (Eph. 4, 6,) the Father or Author of all things : But, This Characler being preferved entire, no other Pov/er v/harfoever afcribed or communicated to other Agents or Perfons, can juftly caufe us to conceive more Gods than One. How and in what Senfe the Soji, though he be not That One God and Father of All^ who is above All^ may yet truly and properly be ftiled God -^ has been largely explained in the fore-going Papers.
But now on the other fide, if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be conceived to be All but One Individual Beijig ^ it fol- lows of Neceflity, that the Son and Holy Spirit have 7io Being at all , Which is an infiiperahle Difficulty in This learned Au- thors Scheme. For if each of thefe Cha- raclers belong to One and the fame Indivi- dual Being '^ and the Father Alone be (as is acknowledged) That Whole Bei?ig -^ it follows evidently that the Son and Holy Spirit, either are Themfelves The Father^ (which he is not willine; to allow ,) or elfe have 710 real Beings no Exiflence at all, but can only be Modes ^ Powers^ CharaEiers or different Deiiominations of That One Su- preme, that One Simple and Uncompound- ed Being, which is the Father of All. The pl'im Confequence of which is, that our Mcdiatour and Redeemer is only a Mere Many iu whom Gcd the Father manifefted
himfelf
&fSomQ Confiderations &c» 22 ft
himfelf after an extraordinary manner j and that the Holy Spirit is nothing but a mere T'ertue or Operatioji of the Father. Which Notion, how much foever it may be de- fended, as an Hypothefis, by bare Reafon^ (as may be feen in the Soci?iian Writers ,) yet I can by no means fee how it is to ba reconciled with what is taught in ^^cripture^ Befides : Since this Learned Writer always fuppofes his own Scheme, to be the fame with That which from the Time of the Fourth Century has been ftiled OHhodox ^ it deferves to be remarked on the contrary, that by his plainly m.aking the Son to be, not o/>coH(7/©-, but TOLv-TL^cnQ- with the Fa- ther, that is. One and the fame Individual Being -^ his x^ifertion in reality appears to be the fame with That, which from before the days of fhotinus to the Times of the Schoolmen^ has by the Council of Nice ^ and all following Councils been condemned as Heterodox.
OBJ^ * If the Power &c^ of the Son and hH 9
* Spirit, be itfelf the Power &c^ of the ^ ^"^^
* Father ^ then D^ Clarke mull be ob-
' liged to own, that Father, Son and Holy
* Ghoft, are only Three Names of God j
* becatife there is no other Perfonal Di- ' ftinclion allowed of by him, but that of ' Three Denominations, or Three B E- *INGS.
P ANSW.
'2^6 An Anfvper to the Author
ANSW. That is to fay : If the Jutho-^ rhy by which the only Son of a Monarch adminifters his Fathers Kingdom, is itfelf the Authority of his Father, and not ano- ther Authority -^ then the Father and his Son are but One and the fame Perfon un- der Two Denominations -^ there being no other Perfonal Diftinclion conceivable be- tween them, but that of their being Two Men. The Argument is exaBly the fame in every part.
M- ir." OBJ. ' Whatever is Eternal, muft enter ' into our Notion of God: — Could Matter ' be Eternal, I (hould conclude it belonged ' to the Nature of God.
ANSW. Length of Duration^ makes no Alteration in the Nature of any thing. God^ is ,not only Eternal^ but yiecefjanly and in- dependently [o. Y{?A Matter httw produced by the eternal Operation of the Will and Power of God^ it v/ould not thereby have been a whit more Neceffary or Indepejident ^ than it is when produced by the temporary Operation of the fame Vo^ver and WilU
png, II. OBJ. ' There may be Emanations Ne- ' cefjary^ though not indeed Self-exiftent, * from the One Self-exiftent Being.
ANSW. This, (befides that it is not well confiftent with this Learned Author's ozmi Hypothefis concerning Jndividml Being,)
can
of Some Confideratioiis Sec: 217
can very hardly be cleared from being a Contradidion. For whatever proceeds from any Being, otherwife than by the TTill of that Being :, doth not in Truth proceed from That Benign but from fome other Caufe or Iseceffity^ extrinfick to and independent of That Being. Neceffary Agents are no Caufes^ but always Inflnmieiits only, in the hand of fome other' Power. For which reafon, the Antient Fathers both before and after the Council of Nke^ do almoft una- nimoufly affert, that the Son was begotten of the Father^ not by Veceffity of Nature^ but by the ineffable Power of his Will : As I have fliown at large in my Scripture-Doc- trine^ Vartl\ §. 17. See alfo above, /?^^. 113.
OBJ. nVhateveris IN ANY MAN- P^i- ^^ ' N E R eternally derived from the Self- ' exiftent Being, • — muft be NecefTary.
ANSW. Not, if it be derived by his Eternal Poiver and Will
OBJ. ' Every thing that is, muft be ei- pag. ul 'ther God himfelf, or be MADE by * him. ,^
ANSW. It has generally been thought very Orthodox to fuppofe, that fomething maybe BEGOTTEN of Him, which yet neverthelefs will not be He himfelf, of whom it is beeotten.
P 2 OBJ. %.
ai8 An Anfvper to the Author
P&^ II- OBJ. ' There can be no middle Beings, ' between the Creator, and the Creature.
ANSW. This, if it be true, proves evi- dently the Iinpoflibiiity of this learned Writers own Scheme. For, the Creator fignifying (in Scripture-phrafe) the Father of all things^ who created all things by his Son ♦, if now there cannot poflibly be any thing betiveen the SiJSpreme Father of All things^ and That Syftem of Beings which we call The Creature •, it will of Neceflity follow, that the Son of God muff be either the Supreme father himfelf or elfe a 7nere Creature. To avoid this confequence, he is forced to fuppofe (pag. 129 J that the Son is fomething more than a 7nere Name^ and yet not a real diftinB Being ♦, that is to fay, that he is fomething between a Be- ' 7ng and ?wt a Being : Which is an undeni- able Contradidion. I cannot but wonder, fo learned a Writer fhould complain of My Scheme, for being what^ after the moji di- ligent Fentfal^ he cannot fully comprehend j and at the fame time fet up One iiroppofi- tion to it, which of Neceflity terminates either in a ma?iifeft ContradiBion^ or elfe in a Doclrine which of all others has al- ways been efteemed the mofl Heterodox*
f^. 12. ^ OBJ. ' The Nature of That Being, who Ms Sclf-exiftent, may be communicated ^
^ though
of Some Con/idcrations &:c. a 2p
though the CharaBer of Self-exiftence ' cannot : Which is no more than to fay, the Nature of the Father may be commu- nicated, though the Paternal Character ' and Relation cannot.
ANSVV. Self-exiftence is not an External and Relative Character, as Paternitji is ^ but *tis an intrmfick^ ahfolnte^ and of all others the moft ejfential Quality of the Sub- ftance or Being to which it belongs. If therefore the CharaSer of Self-exiftence cannot be communicated, it follows necef- farily, that neither can the Isature of the Self-exiftent Being, (properly and ftrictly fpeaking) be communicated , Self-exiftence being the principal Conftituent of That Na- • ture, or That which makes it to be lliat Nature which it is.
OBJ. ^Self-exiftence — is not properly the ^/>^f. i2«
* Nature of God, nor a primary Attribute
* of his Eflence 5 but only a Mode of Sub-
* fiftence, applicable to all the Attributes of
* God, as well as to the Divine Nature in
* general. The Knowledge and Power of ' the Father, are Self-exiftent as well as •' his Nature , and therefore, by the Doctor's
* way of reafoning, cannot be communica- ' ted, any more than the Self-exiftent Na-
* ture can.
ANSW. Self-exiftence^ and Exiftence it
felf properly belong to Siihflances^ not to
P 2 - Powers
230 An Anfwer to the Author
Povpeys or Attrtbutes. Self-exifience there- fore is a primary^ nay The primary and 7?wfl ejfential Attribute of the Divine Siibftance. The Knowledge and Power of God, are not properly faid to be Self-exifle?jt^ but to be Attributes of Him who is himfclf Self-ex- iftent. The reafon why the individual Knowledge or Power of God, cannot be communicated any more than his individual Exiftence^ is becaufe they are individual ^ and nothing that is individual^ can ever be communicated from any one thing to ano- ther. Could the individual Knowledge of God^ or the individual Knowledge of a Man^ be communicated to another ;> there would be no Knowledge left in Him, from whom it was communicated. But the World well underftands what is meant by Communica^ tion of Knowledge^ Power ^ and the like : Could this learned Writer (liow as well how Self-exiftent Nature Qor Jhe Self-ex- iflejit Naturel^ can be communicated, with- out an exprefs Contradid:ion ^ this would be of great importance to him indeed.
-pai. 1^, OBJ. If, by Self-exiftent , be meant Neceifarily-exiftent, ' then the fame thing ' may be affirmed both of the Son and Holy ' Ghofl; I, and confequently Self-exiftent, in * This Senfe, can be no peculiar Character ^ pf the Father,
ANSW,
(f Some Confiderations See. a 3 1
ANSW. The contrary to This, I have fliown above, fag. 113 & 227, and in my Scripmre-DoBrhie^ fag. 280 , both from Reafon, and alfo the ahuoft unanimous con- fent of all the Antient Fathers.
OBJ. ' Tis evident to every fincere M- '4- ' Reader of Scripture, — that the word, God^ ' is applicable to the Son and to the Holy ' Ghoft in thtfame Senfe as it is to the Fa-
' ther ^ there being no one Expreflion
' in the whole Bible, that is apt to miflead * a common Reader in this matter.
ANSW. What Ground there is for this Affertion, and how little there is indeed in Scripture to miflead a common Reader m this matter, may appear from hence •, that the Holy GhoH is not once m the whole Scripture ftiled either G^^/ or L^ri at all j that the Son, in the very fame places where- in he is ftiled God, is Yaid to be With God, and to have been anointed by His God -^ but the Father, is ftiled by way of Emi- nence, S-go.' 0 mzivToycpdrTwp, God Supreme over all, the Lord God Abnighty, the One God, the Only God, the God and Father of our Lord Jefm ChriH, He that Sejids and Gives \{i^ Son mAVA^ Holy Spirit', And, m more than three Hundred places, wherem he is joined with the Son and Holy Spirit in one and the fame Sentence, he is ftiled abfo^ -.. P ^ luteh
^^2 An AnftPer to the Author
luteh, and by way of Contradiftindion,
fag. 15. OBJ. * Did the Ifraelites worpip Mofes, "^ becaufe the Lord iaid unto him, 1 have * inade thee a God unto Pharaoh ?
ANSW. Ho7iour or Worfbip is always due in proportion to the Authority and Power^ the Dominion and Dignhy^ of the P erf o?i to whom it is paid ; And where there is wo proportion between the J)o?mnion or Dignity of Two Perfons at any time compared to- gether, there is alfo confequently no propor- tion between the Honours due to them. The Ifraelites honoured Mofes^ as being what he was^ not as being what he wa^ riot : They honoured him^ as a Servant^ not as the Son^ of God : as a Man authori- zed from God to lead the People, not as be- ing himfelfa Divine Perfon. Chriftians like- wife worfhip Christ, as being what he w, not as being what he is not : They wor- {hip him as being the Son of God, not as being God the Father hijtfelf : They wor- Ihip him, according to his real Powers and Attributes^ as being That Divine Perfon, who having been originally in the Form of God^ voluntarily took upon himfelf the Form cfa Servant^ and was therefore highly exalted of God^ and had a Na?ne given him above every Flame ^ that at the Name ofjefus every knee fiould bow^ C^very thing (hould be
fubjed
of Some Confiderations &:e. ? 5 j
fubjecl to His Dominion,"] of things in Heaven, and things in Earthy and things' under the Earth , and that [^accordingly, in acknowledgment of That Dominion,] every tongue fiould confefs that Jefus Chrift is LORD J to the Glory of God the Father^ Phil. 2, 9.
OBJ. 'The SAME Attributes which ^t^. i^,
* dijiingitiflj the True and Only God from ' every thing elfe that is called God, are ^ EVERY WHERE in Scripture ap- ' plied to the Son and the Holy Ghoft, in
* the SAME manner as they are to the
ANSW. Not only not EVERY WHERE, hut indeed not fo much as in ANY ONE PLACE of Scripture, is Any One of thefe dijlifigitiflnng Charaders, viz. The Oiie God^ the 0?ily God, the Lord God Almighty, 6 'mvTozeptTa)p, with others of the like import, ever given either to the Son or to the Spirit ^ but they are Al- ways ufed as Synonymous to the God a?id Father of All, or the God and Father of our Lordjefm Christ: As I have fliown at large in the fore-going Papers, and in my Scrip- ture-doEirine, by citing every one of the Texts in particular, wherein Any of thefe Terms aye ufedo
0B%
^34 ^^^ Anfrver to the Author
pag. 18. OBJ. The Father's being ' in the High- ' eft, StriS:, and Proper Senfe, abfolutely
* Supreme over AW -^ and "his being, abfo- ' lutely fpeaking, the God of the Univerfe ,
* are Titles expreffive of AbftraEi Metaphy- ^ fical Attributes, which iiever occur in the
* Sacred Writings, and have no Relation ' to Us.
ANSW. To be Supreme abfolutely over till^ is the Englifh of the word *^i(py.pcL^p , which does occur often in the Sacred Wri- tings, and has relation to Us and to all Creatures. To be, abfolutely fpeaking^ the Cod of the Univerfe^ is the Enghfh of ^sos ^ •zzraT«3 r^irccvTooPy o 'On m^vTctiv^ the Goa and Father of All ^ who is above All-^ which does alfo occur in the Sacred Writings, and Jfas Relation to Us and to all Creatures. And they are not abflraEl metaphyseal At- tributes^ but Attributes which exprefs rela- tive Domiiiion and Power ^ which are the Foundation of Morality and Religion to- wards God our Supreme Governour. Whence this learned Writer could be led into fo ftrange a Miftake, I cannot imagine.
f.ig. ic,. OBJ. ' The Notion of God was fully
* fettled both by Scripture and Reafon, be- ' fore die Doctrine of a Trinity was re- ' vealed.
ANSW.
<?/Some Confidcrations &c. g^i-
ANSW. The Notion of God, fo fettled, was this, that He is the Father and Lord of All Things^ the Author and Governour of the Univerfe. In which Notion, the re- vealed Dodrine of the Trinity has made no Alteration, nor made any other Addition to it but this, that tht faine God^ tht fame Father and Lord of the Univerfe^ is now made known to us to be alfo in a particular and eminent manner, the Father [or the God and Father'] of our Lord Jefus Chr'nL This Obfervation therefore proves the di- recl contrary to what the learned x\uthor alleged it for.
OBj. ' The God of the Jews, is like- pag, 22,
* wife the God of the Chriftians , and
* where-ever the word, God, is ufed in the ' New Teftament, it is ufed in the fame
* Senfe that it had in the Old.
ANSW. This Obfervation proves alfo diredly the contrary, to what it is alleged for. For the God of the Jews, the God of our Fathers^ QisS^ Peter ftiles him, A&s 3, 13,) is the fame who in the New Tefta- ment is ftiled the Father of our Lord Jefis Chris}. And therefore unlefs the Three Perfons can be faid to be the Father of our Lord Jefus Christ ^n^ixhtx can they be faid to have been The God of the Jews^ That God of our Fathers^ who (S^^ Peter tells us in the place now cited) glorified his Son Jefus.
QBJ,
2 3^ -An Anfwer to the Author
V^g. 23; OBJ. ' In all the PalTages of the New ' Teftament, where mention is made of the ' One or Only God , or where the Word God ' is ufed abfoliitely^ without any Title at all
* annexed , or where the Word God is men- ' tioned with fome High Title, Epithet or ' Attribute ; (excepting only the Title of ' Father, or fome other Word that implies
* a relation to the Son or Spirit,) we are not
* to underftand the Perfon of the Father j ' but the Divine Nature abfolutely taken,
* without any regard to the perfonal Diftin- ^ aions of Father, Son, and Ho y Ghoft^
' And it is begging the Queflion, to
' apply all thefe Texts to the Perfon of the ^ Father, where God is mentioned abfolute- ^ ly '^ becaufe the Queftion is, whether the
* fame God who is here mentioned, is not '- Son and Holy GhoH as well as Father.
ANSW. There are in the New Tefta- ment ma7iy places, wherein it is exprelTed at length ^ 3^go$, o ^m^inip, God, 7M?nely ths Father : And there are many more, wherein, though the Word Father is not exprelfed, yet by the Conftrudion (as this Learned Author himfelf acknowledges,) the Word God is of ncceflity determined to fignify the Father only, becaufe contradiftinguiflied (in the Words of the Text itfelf ) from the Son or Spirit. The Texts of this fort, in the New Teftiment, are more than 500, as they ftand collefted in my Scriptitre-doSrine.
But
of Some Confiderations &c. 237
But now on the other fide, where the Word God is by the Conftruftion neceffarilv deter- mined to fignify either ri£^^ Perfons or three^ there is 7io one Text to be found. Which then of thefe Two, is begging the Quefti- on ? To fuppofe that the Word God^ when it occurs abjokitely^ is to be underftood in the Same Senfe, wherein it is acknowledged that of neceflity it muft by the Conftruftion of the Text itfelf be underftood in more than goo other places of the fame Book ? Or, to underftand it in a Senfe, wherein there can- not be fliown to be any Ground for under- ftanding it in Any One Text .<? Befides : if the Word God^ which always fignifies an hitelligent and Powerful Agerit^ were ever made ufe of in Scripture to fignifie what this Learned Author calls the Divine Nature^ viz. the whole Three Perfons^ who are each of them alfo in Scripture always fpoken of as Intelligeiit Agents ^ it would follow un- avoidably, that the Divine Nature was a Fourth Intelligent Agent^ difl-ina from, and conftituted of, thofe Three Intelligent A- gents. Which is the utmoft Confufion ima- ginable.
OBJ. ' Had Chrift fliown himfelf to M' 3^^
* the World, with all the fame Divine Cha-
* raders which the Scripture afcribes to
* him, but without the relation of Son ; \ we muft then have concluded that the
' Godhead
^3^ ^^^ Anfvper to the Author
* Godhead dwelt in him truly and fully j
even That Godhead^ ' whkh was nia-
' nifefted f J?^;;/. 1, 20 J by the things that
* are feen.
ANSW. The plain Confequence of This is, that Chrift would have a[>peared only as a mere Man^ in whom God the Father manifefted himfelf after a miraculous man- ner.
M. 38. OBJ. '^ If Chrift is to be direftly wor^ ' Jfjipped with any Divine Honour or Wor-
* fliip whatfoever^ I muft conclude from ' hence, that He is The One Supre?ne God ^ ' becaufe there is no Kind ox Degree of IFor- ' fiip to be paid to any other. As to
pag. 40. * all other Beings, we are ignorant of
* their Nature, we cannot tell the extent ', either of their Knowledge or Power, and ' we know*nothing at all of their Inter- ' courfe with us ^ And confequently we are
* not able to judge what Honour is due to pag. 42. t them.- If no Worfliip was to be paid
' to Chrift upon Earth, hew can we fup- ' pofe him a more proper Obied of Wor-
' fiiip in Heaven ? Every Ad of TVor-
' fiip^ Honour^ or Refpeci^ which is paid by ' Man to any other Being befides Man, ne- ' celfirily implies That Being to be The
ng. 45. ^ One Sitpreine God. If God command-
^ ed us to worftiip any other Beings below ' him, — he would at thefame time reveal to
' us
of Some Confiderations Sec. a jp
us the Nature and Perfedions of thofe Beings, and acquaint us with the Manner and Degree of Worftiip due to them. We ought certainly to know what jhare they have under him in the Government and Direction of our Affairs ;> which way our Addrelies may be communicated to them • and what Ailurance we can have of their being received and anfwered. — - — There is not the leaft Ground from Scripture, for any fuch DiftincT:ions as Primary and
Secondary Worfliip. Suppofing there- p.t^, 44:
fore Chrift to be God, and not Ihe One " Supreme God -^ in what Manner muft we worlhip him ? and in what Refpecis will the Worfliip paid to him, difler from that . we pay to the One Supreme God > x\NSW. All This is argued, juft as if the New Teftament had never been written. For the following Texts, without any Com- ment, are a direEi and exprefs Anfwer to e- very part of this Objection.
All Pawer is GIVEN unto me in Heaven
a?id in Earth. Matt. 28, 18.
The Father jud^^eth no Man^ but hath
COMMITTED all Judgment imto the
Son. Joh. 5, 22.
Thefe Texts exprefly reveal to us, what
Share Christ has under the Father^ in the Go-
vernwent and DireBion of our J (fairs. The
following Texts lliovv as expr^lly, 7phat
Kind
^4^ -^^^ -^^/rrer to the Author
Kind and Degree of Worfljip is to be paid to him, and upon what Accounts,
The Father hath committed all Judgment unto the Son : That all Menjhould ho- nour the Son^ even as they ho?iour the Father , He that hojioureth not the Son^ honoureth not the Father which hath SENT hifn. Joh, 5 ^ 22, 23.
God hath highly exalted him, a?id given him a Name which is above every Name -^ that at the Name of Jefus every Knee JJmdd how^ C^very thing ftiould be fub- ject to his Dominion,"] of things in Heaven^ and things in Earthy and things tinder the Earth ^ And that [^accord- ingly, in acknowledgment of That Dominion ,3 every Tongue jhould con- fefs that Jefm Chrifl is Lord, TO THE , ' GLORT OF GOD, THE FATHER. Phil. 2 -^ 10, II.
When he bringeth in the FIRSTBEGOT- TEN into the World, he faith, Afid let dl the Angels of God WORSHIP him. Heb. I, 6.
XInto him that loved us and wafljed us from our Sins in his own Blood, and hath made us Kings and Priefts unto God and his Father, \jtvJ Ge^ ^ fTPx.le} oiuiS, unto HIS God and Father ^] to Him be Glory and Do?ninion for ever /ind ever. Amen. Rev. i ; 5, 6.
Fell
of Some Confiderations &c. 241
Fell down before the Lamb^ P^y'^^g-^
Thou art worthy -^ — 5 For Thou waH . SLAIN^ and haft redeemed us TO
GOD by thy Blood -^ and haft 7nade
m UNTO OUR GOD, Kings and Priejis. Rev. 5 ; 8, 9, 10. Saying with a loud Voice ^ Worthy is
the hamb that was SLAW^ :
And every Creature which is in Heaven
and on the Earth. ^ heard I faying ^
Bleffing and Honour and Glory and Vow- er be unto him that fitteth upon the Throne, [^vi-z,. unto the Father ;,] and unto the Lamb [^ftanding in the midft of, or before the midft of the Throne, chap. 5, 6 J for ever and ever. Rev. 5 * . 12, 13. Salvation to our God which fitteth upon the Throne, AND 10 the Lamb. Rev. 7, 10. In all thefe Texts here is a Worfiip paid to Christ, either as God, or as Man. If it is paid to him as God, yet it is not as Supreme ^ becaufe it is exprefsly faid to be TO the Glo- ry of God the Father, and FOR his having redeemed us to His God and Father^ But if it be paid to him as Man j then it is ftill more direclly contrary to this learned Au- thors v/hole Hypothefis exprelTed in This Objedion.
2A2 An Anjrver to the Anthoif
■pag. 4^ &: OBJ. ^ Unoriglnated and ahfolutely ^^" * Supreme^ — are Metaphyiical Attributes ' which we 7iever meet with in Scripture^ - ' and which are never made ufe of by Men *• in their Adarejfes to God. — ■ — - Chrift is * to be honoured and worfhipped as the ' One Supreme God, whatever becomes of ' thofe perfonal Diftinctions of unorigina-
' ted and abfolutely Supreme.
ANSW. Abfokitely Supreme^ is not a me- taphyfical^ but a relative Attribute. And it is Often met with in Scripture ^ For it is the proper Englifli of the Word, ^rc^ox.^- Twp. And it is Always made life of by Men in their Addrefjes to God , For, both in the Creed and in Prayers, it is that which is meant by the Word, Almighty •, which is an imperfecl rendring of the Word, fmv- ^o-)cpocTa^p. And to fay that Chrifi is to be worjhipped as the One Sitpreine God^ what- ever becomes of the perfonal Di/linBion of Supre7ne , is faying that ChriH is to be wor- fhipped as the One Supreme God^ though the Father Alo?ie be Supreme : Which is an ex- prefs Contradiction in Terms.
Pi 45. OBJ. ' If Chrift be our Maker, our
* King, and our Judge , if he knoweth all ' our Thoughts, and can anfwer all our
* Prayers : The fame Worfhip is to be
* paid him as to the God over all^ the ab-
[ foluts
^..^j^
of Some Con Mcrat ions &€. 045
^ folnte Supre??te God of the U^iiverfe : ' EXCEPTING only the Ufe of THESE
* and 1 HE LIKE EXPRESSIONS.
ANSW. That is to fay : The SAME Worfliip is to be paid him, EXCEPTING only that it is NOT THE SAME.
OBJ. *- How does it confift with our W* 4^* ' Notion of the One Supreme God, — — • ' that he fhould fet up another inferiour
* Object of Worihip, when he allows us to ' addrefs ourfelves upon all Occafions IM- ' MEDIATELY TO HIMSELF, and He ' is able to do more abundantly for us than ' any other Being, though never fo per- ' fed >
ANSW. This is indeed the chief Ob- jedion, which Deifls^ (with what reafon^ I have elfewhere confidered,) bring againft Chriftianitym general. But how it can be urged by fuch as believe there is alfo One Mediatour appointed by God, as well as that there is One God to whom Mediation is made *, I underftand not. For if the /ir- gument concludes at all, it concludes that there neither is nor can he any fuch thing as a MEDIATGUR.
OBJ. ' There feems to me to be great pag. 47.
* reafon to fuppo^e the humane Soul of ' Chrift to have exifled before the World. « , jjjj flncc We have no diftinft Nc-
Q. 2 - ' tiou .
$44 ^^ Anfrver to the Author
*■ tion of any Perfections BETWEEN thof^
* which belong to GOD, and thofe which
* he hath imparted to MAN , therefore
* 'tis very poflible that a Human Soul might ' be fo formed, as to be more perfed than
* Any x\ngeL
AN5VV. The Creation of a Hunmi Soitl^ before the Creation of the World, before the Creation of Human Khid -^ is a mere Fidion without any Ground. A Human Soul formed more perfect than x\ny Angel, is a Hwfian Soul created of a Higher Species than Himiaiu The Notion itfelf, if it is at all intelligible, is perfectly the Arian • Notion : The only difference is, that Th^t which the Ariaiis call a mojl excellent Crea- ted Spirit^ is here ftiled, much more impro- perly, a Human SouL And to fay we have no cpflinB Not/an of any PerfeBions BE- TJFEEN thofe which belong to GOD, ami thofe which he hath ?mpa}teJ to MAN-^ is an Objection which (I humbly prefume) needs no Anfwer.
P^f 49^ OBJ, \li tlie only reafon of worfliip- '^' ' ping Chrift, be, that the ^ec^s of the Fa- ' ther, his Divine Power, Dominion, Dig- ' nity, Authority and other Attributes are ' communicated to him ;,— — there is no ' Occafion to multiply either Natures or
* Perfons, but Chrift may be efteemed as ' n>cre Man exercifing the Power of God.
ANSW-
of Some Confiderations 8<:c. 2 45
ANSW.' The Reafons of worfhipping Chrift, are thofe which are afligncd in the Texts I jull now cited. And the Qiieflion is not, what OCCASION we may fancy we have, to multiply either Natures or Perfons ^ but, what the Scripture does hi faB reveal to us concerning that Matter.
OBJ. If the Honour of Christ is founded p-H- 5 r. upon This only^ that "- the Father manifefls ' his Glory in and by the Sen plenarily and ' WITHOUT MEASURE : It may ' be objeaed, HOW fliall we then be able ' to diftiiignijJo between the Father and the ' Son ^ when all that we know of either, is ^ -by what is manifefted of them >
ANSW. We are taught to diftinguifli them by This ^ that Chrift every where DECLARES himfelf, not to Be the Fa- ther^ but to come forth fom hiin^ to be fnt by him^ to fpeak Ly his Authority and Com- imffion 5 to do nothing 0 J^ Himfelf but every thing by the Power of the Father • nothing TO his own^ but every thing f«? his Father^ s Glory.
OBJ. 'This Notion, [^viz. that ChriFr-P-'i- 'i^'* i fzvas the Vifible Perfon who under the Old c Teflament reprefented the Invifibk God^ c it muft be owned, v/as a Notion that < fome of the Fathers had , But they did « not argue from it the fame way thit our QL 3 \ Modern
a/^6 An Answer to the Author
* Modern Writers concerning the Trinity ' do.
ANSW. \Oiir Modern Writers^ is a Phrafe of uncertain Signification. But that the Antient Fathers argued from this Noti- on the very fame Way that / did, I proved by many exprefs Teftwtonies in my Scrip- ture-doBrhie, N^^ 597 & 616. That they argued from it that Other way which this Learned Author fuppofes, he does but fitp- pofe^ becaufe he thinks thtyJhouUfo argue. But he cannot allege o?ie Tejltmony to prove they did fo.
j,^^ ^^^ OBJ. ' If thefe words, \Exod. 23 ;, 20, '21, Behold^ I Jend an Angel before thee , — •
* obey his Voice^ for my Name is in hi?n^
* were the w^ords of God the Father ^ then ' God did not always fpeak by his S071 in ' the 'Old Teftament. If they be the words
* of Christy then the Ajigel there fent by
* Him, was the Per/on in zvho?n the Name *■ of God was '^ and the God^ whofe Name
* was in Him^ was Chrift.
ANSW. The words are fpoken by God the tather: Not that the hivifible God and Father ofaU^^^t^irti^ (whok fhape no Man bath feen at any time, nor hsard his Voice ^) but the father fpake by his Son , that is, the Son fpake in the Perfon (or as the Re- frefentative ) of the Father: And xht Angel there mentioned, is the Son himfelf It is
the
of Some Confiderations &c. o, 4.7
the fame manner of fpeaking, as occurs in AH Writers, when Any One is introduced fpeaking as the Reprefentative of Another, and mentioning Hmfelf (as Grammarians fpeak) i?i the Third Per fen. There is no great Difficulty in the Expreffion , and yet Mr le Clerc (in his Notes upon the Place) urges it as an unanfwerable Difficulty jurt in the fame manner, though not with ex- adly the fame view, as this Learned Am- thor has here done.
OBJ. * Is it poffible for us to imagine, t^^- H-
' that all the Antient Patriarchs
^ fliould be miftaken in their Notions of ' God ^ and that God himfelf (hould lead ' Mankind into this Miftake, by allowing * the Son to take upon him the Style and ' Charader, and to accept the Honour and ' Worffiip that belonged to the Father ' only ?
ANSW. The Jews and Patriarchs were under no Miftake in this matter. For they worffiipped, not the Son^ but the Father. The God whom the Jews and Patriarchs worQiipped, S^ Peter ftiles (ABs 5, 13,) the God of Abraham and of Ifaac and of Jacob ^ the God of our Fathers : And This God^ he fays, glorified his Son Jefus. If then Jefus was the Son of the God of Abraham^ Ifaac and Jacob -^ it follows neceffirily that the Qod of Abraham^ Ifaac and Jacob ^ was CI 4 ^h^
248 An Anfn^er to the Author
the Father of our Lord Jefits Chrtfl. And if fo :> then the God of Abraham^ Ifaac and Jacoh^ was not the Son , unlefs the So7i was the Father of our Lord Jefus Chr'ift : Neither was the God of Abraham^ Ifaac and Jacob ^ the whole Three Perfons ^ un- lefs the whole Three Perfofis were the Fa- ther of our Lord Jefus Chrift. 'Tis True, the Perfon which appeared v?fibly to the Patriarchs, reprefenting the mvifble Cod and Father of All^ was the Son : But then he is therefore called, both in the Old Teftamentand in the New, the ANGEL of the Lord : And in Him appeared the Glory of The Invifible God^ whom the Pa- triarchs worfhipped. If this was not the cafe 5 then it will follow of neceffity, ei- ' ther that the htvifble Father himfelf ap- peared vifibly^ and v/as ftiled an Angel of the 'Lord^ A(Ss 7, 30, and elfewhere ^ Which I prefume this Learned Author will not affirm : Or elfe it was an ordinary An- gel which faid to Mofes^ Acts 7, 32, / a7n the God of thy Fathers -^ And then his Ob- jection returns with double force upon him- felf. Would God allow an Angel to take up- on him the Style and Characler^ and to accept the Ho7iour and Worfjip that belo7iged to the Father only ^
pas- $4- OBJ. ' If, when the Jews worfhipped ^ the Son who appeared, — they had noNo-
^ tioii
of Some Confiderations &:c. 24^
* tion of any other God but the One Su- ^ preme God, or God the Father , why ' may not Chriftians then worfliip the fame ' Perfon when manifeft in the Flefli, with
* the fame Opinion of him that the Jews ^ had >
ANSW. Becaufe the Chriftians have a Revelation concerning him, which the Jews had not. Chrift in the Fleih, does not ap- pear as representing the ferfon of the Father^ but as a Perfon fent forth from the Father to be our Mediatoiir^ Saviour and Redeem-- er 5 and who, diftind from the Father, Jias^ Name given him which is above every l^ame ^ that at the l^ame of Jefus every knee fimtld bow ^ [all things ihould be
fubjeft to His Dominion,] and that
every tongue fljould confefs that Jefiis Chrijl is Lord J to the Glory of God the father*
OBJ. ' If he only perfonated the Su- m- 55?
* preme God, and aded in his Nam.e in the '0/iTeftament • v/hy MIGHT he not ' appear and ad under the fame Character m ' the l>Iew r?
ANSW. He MIGHT, no doubt, if God had fo pleafed : But that he DID not, every page in the New Teftament is Witr nefs. For he nowhere fpeaks, or is fpoken of, in the New Teftament, as being God the Father, but as being the Son of that
God
2^0 An Anfwer to the Ant hoy
Godivho is the Father of All^ and as being Sent forth by him*
pag, $$* OBJ. ' There is no true fatisfaflory ' Anfwer to be given to This, by any One ' who denies that Chrift is the fame God < with the Father. For 'tis certainly a
* much fafer, and a more Rational Praftife,
* and better warranted by the Example of ' the Jews, to worfhip the Father iri and by
* Chrift: appearing to us in the Fleih, than
* to worlhip any other Being diftind
* from God the Father.
ANSW. That there is any thing in it — felf not Rational'm This part of this Learn- ed Author's Scheme, (fuppofing the Father and Son to be nothing but Two Names of One and the fame Individual, or that Chrift was only a mere Man in whom the Divinity of the Father manifefted itfelf ,) I cannot indeed affirm. But there is This difficulty in it, that it is evidently contrary to the J^oBrineof the New Te (lament. For there is exprefsly in the New Teftament a Wor- fliip given to the Son^ which cannot poffibly belong to the Father -^ a Worihip given to one Perfo?i^ which cannot poffibly be given to another^ any more than one perfon can he another. For inftance •, When S^ John Fev. I •, fays, Ujito him that loved us and wafied us ^' ^* from our Sins in hifi own Bloody and hath made us Kings and Priefs unto God a?id his
Father^
of Some Confiderations &:c. ^i-|
Father^ to hiin he Glory and Dominion for ever and ever ;> Is it to the Father in the Son, that Glory is here afcribed, for ma- king us Kings and Priefts to God and HIS Father. ^ Again : When the four and twenty
Eldtrs fell down before the Lamb^ f^J^^^g, ^R^^- 5 i
7hou art worthy ^ for thou waft Slain^ ^' ^'
and haft redeemed its to God by thy Blood • Is it the Father in the Son, that is here glorified for being Slaiit^ and redeeming- us TO GOD by his Blood .e And when the innumerable Multitude ftanding before the Throne, faid. Salvation to our God which ^z^,^^\^ fitteth upon the Throne^ AND to the Lamb-^ Is the Meaning of it, Glory be to The Fa- ther fitting upon the Throne^ and to the Fa- ther in the Lamb ? 'Tis very wonderful to me, that fo Learned an Author fliould ar- gue, juft as if the New Teftament had ne- ver been written at all.
OBJ. ' But the Truth of this whole p^^. $5.
* Matter, according to the Orthodox Doc-
* trine, is This. When Chrift appeared to
* the Fathers in former Ages, he appeared ' not in the Perfon either of the Son^ or ' of the Father^ but as God abfolutely, as ' the Almighty Creator of the World ^ as the
* God of Abraham.^ Ifaac and Jacob ^ aud
' the God of his people Ifrael , without
' any regard to thofe perfonal Diftincl:ions
* of Father and Son^
ms\\\
252 ^^ Anfwer to the Author
ANSW. 'Tis foraewhat hard to call That the Orthodox Doctrine, which (I believe) no one Chriftian Writer, for a Thoufand Years after Chrift, ever taught. But (which is more material) 'tis alfo directly contrary to the New Teflaroent. For Who is the AhnightyCreator of the World^ but He whom
gph. 4,^. SrPaid calls The Father of All f? And Who is the God of Abraham^ Ifaac and Jacob^ the God of our Fathers-^ but He who (as 5^ P^r^r affirms, -^5^3,19,) hith glorifed his So7i Jefm ^ and whom our Saviour him- felf thus defcribes to the Jews, Joh. 8, 54, My Father^ of whom ye fay that He is your Cod .<? If therefore the God of Ifrael was tlie Father of All^ and particularly the Fa- ther of our Lord Jefiis Chrift^ as both S^ Veter and our Lord hiwfelfex'pYckly teftify , how can this Learned Author affirm, that
m- 23. ^he God of Ifrael was (wiiat he calls) the Divine Nature abfolutely taken^ without any ^/ega'rd to the perfanal Diflinilions of Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi ^ unlefs he will affirm tJiat the whole Three Perfons^ Father^ Son^ ^ ajidFIoly Ghoft^ were the Father of all ^ and~ in particular the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrijie
Pk'j^- ^^7* * From what is Now difcovered to ' us, we collect that it was the So?i^ and * not the Father^ who appeared as God in ''the Antient Times, and was warjlnpped ^s
*the
^jf Some Gonfiderations &c. a 53
* the 07ie Supreme God^ by the Jewifh ' Nation.
ANSW. According to thefe words, the Jews did not vvorfliip God the Father at all, but the Son only. Yet This feems, not to be this Learned Authors meaning : Only he introduces every where a Total Conftifwn of Perfons, The Truth is ^ the Antient Jews did not worfhip the So?i at all, but the Invifihle Father oiily^ appearing by his Son who is ftiled the Angel of his prefence.
OBJ. ^ We may Now fpeak the fame p.ig. sji ' things of Chrift, afcribe the fame Titles ' to him, and worfliip him with the fame ' worfhip, as the Jews did of Old -^ adding ' only thofe perfonal Characters and Di-
* ftindions which are revealed to us, and ' were not known to them*
ANSW. That is to fay : We muft not worihip Chrift, as being our Mediatoiir and Advocate with the Father ^ We muft not worfhip him, as we find him worfhipped in the New Teftament, for having loved us and walhed us from our Sins in his own Bloody for having redeemed us to Cad by his Bloody and made us Kings and Vriejls unto God and his Father : But we muft worfliip him, as the Jews worfhipped God under the Old Teftament , we muft worfhip him as being the Qod and Father of all ^ only we muft not call him by the tiame of Fa- ther^
2^4 -^^ Anfwer to the Author
ther^ but by that of Son. All This, is very hard to underftand, and more hard to reconcile with the Dodrine of the New'^ Teftament.
M- 58» OBJ. In that paflage, Joh. lo, 33, Thou^ being a Man^ ?nakeft thyfelf God^ ' 'tis plain the word God is taken ahfolutely^ ' and yet it cannot mean the Father^ be- ' caufe the Jews knew very well that Chrifl ' did not pretend to be the Father^ but the * Son of God 5 and therefore when God^ in ' Other places, is taken abfolutely^ it can- ' not be confined to the Perfon of the Fa- ' ther.
ANSW. As the Jews knew very well, that Chrifl did not pretend to be The Fa- ther '^ fo neither did They nor his own Dif- ciples then underfland him to affirm him- felf to be the Son of God ^ in any fuch Senfe as Chriftians now underftand it: As ap- pears evidently from his Difciples afking him even after\\\^ Refurreclion, ABs i, 6, hord^ zvHt tkou at This time reflore again the [temporal] Kingdom to Ifrael .«? But, be- caufe he declared himfelf to be the Son of God^ [the True Meffiah^ in the Senfe which he himfelf explains in the following Verfes ^ therefore the Jews maliciouflv ac- cufcd him of making himfelf God, juft as Men fay to an arrogant and prefumi^tuous Perfon, jd?z/ make y our f elf King. See this
whole
of Some Confiderations &:c. 055
whole matter largely explained in the fore- going Papers, pag. 132, 144, &c. The Jews, whenever they mention God^ always mean the iV2:r/:?^r.- Joh. 8, 54, My Father^ of zvhom ye fay that he is your Go J. And if in the prefent palTage the word had been ufed otherwife, (as it plainly is not :,) yet it would not at all from hence have follow- ed, that the word God in Other places fig- nified any other than the Father -^ particu- larly in thofe Three Hundred Texts, where- in (as has been before obferved) it is of neceffity by the Conftrudion itfelf confined to the Father ojily^ as being exprefsly con- tradiftinguilhed in thofe very Texts from the Son and Spirit.
OBJ. ' The more likelihood there was pag. 57
* of miftaking Chrift for the True God, 58, $?> ' the more Reafon there is to fuppofe he — -
' would have miniftred no juft occafion for
* fuch a Miftake. But our Saviour, 'tis
* plain, — did nothing to prevent his being
* thought God. — • — ^When Chrift was ac- ' cufed of Biafphemy for pretending to fuch ' Characters and Powers as belonged to God ' alone, no other Anfwers are given, but ' what plainly allow the charge, if he were ^ not truly God, Mar. 2, 9-, 14, 64. Joh.
* 10, 33.
ANSW. That Chrift is (and in what Senfe he is) Tn4yGod^ i have largely fliown
in
25^ An Anfwer to the Author
in the fore-going Papers. But what LIKE-^ LIHOOD there was, the Jews fliould mi- ftake Chrift for the True God in this Learn- ed Author's Senfe , 1 cannot imagine. Our Saviour, far from doing riothhig^ did almoft every thing in fuch a manner, as efteftually to prevent his being confounded with God the Father. For he perpetually declares himfelf to ht fent forth from the Father^ to fpeak and aB by his Cojnmiffion and Authori- ty •, to do nothing of hijnfelf but every thing by the Power of the Father -^ and no- thing to his own Honour^ but every thing to the Honour of his Father. And when he was accufed of Blafpheiny for pretending to be the Son of God^ the True Mejfiah ^ the Anfwers this learned Author refers to as plainly allowing the charge^ if tTie Son were not the Same with the Father , thofe very Anfwers (I fay) which this Lermied Author alleges, do moil evidently difallow the Charge upon quite another foot. The Anfwers themfelves are : Mar. 2, 10, The Son of Man hath Pozver^ [Power from his Father y iiot^^ Power by being himfelf the Father,] on Earth to forgive Si ?is. Mar. 14, 62, I a?n the Chrift^ the Son of the Blejfed : He dees not fay, he was himfelf That Perfon whom, the High-Prieft ftiles The BlefjedOne , but the Son of ^he Bkfed One. And Joh. 10, 34, Our Lord, in anfwer to the fame charge of Blafpheiny for
calling
of Some Con fiderat ions Scc^ ^57
calling himfelf the So?i of God^ thus re- plies : Is it not written hi yoiir haw^ I faid [concerning Magiftrates^ Te are Gods ^ If he called Them Gods^ unto whom the Word of God came^ and the Scripture cannot be. broken \ Say ye of Him whom the father hath fanHijied and fent Into the World^ Then blaf phe?ne?t^ hecaufe I faid^ I am the Son of God ^ See this whole Matter largely ex- plained in the fore-going Papers, pag. 132, 144, 149 &c.
OBJ. ' There is no Inftance in Scrip- pg- $5? ^ ture, where the Word God^ when ufed ' in the fecond Perfon, is capable of being ' applied to any other Being, but the True * and Only God.
ANSW. Heb. i, 8, U7ito the Son he faith^ Thy Throjie^ 0 God, is for ever and
ever *, God^ eiyd^i Thy God has anointed
thee ike. In This Text, the Word, 0 God^ is ufed in the fecond Perfon concerning Chrift : Yet furely this learned Author will not afilrm, that 'tis concerning Him who ia Scripture is ftiled (by way of Eminence) The True and Only God, that This Text de- clares that GOD even HIS GOD has a- nointed him. In like manner, in every 0716 of thofe Texts of the New Teftamcnr, wherein Chrift is ftiled God-^ there is fome- thing in the Conftruftion of the Words, which evidently prevents that Confufion of
R . Perfons,
258 An Ayifvccr to the Anthor
Perfons, which This learned AuthorV Scheme every where tends to introduce.
p:tg, 59, OBJ. ^ In thofe very places of the l>^ezv
^^' ' Teftament, which teach us that the God
' who appeared in Times paft as the mofir
* High God, was Chrift the Son of God , *' he is {tiled God abfolutely, in the fame
* mariner as he was in the Old Tefta- ^ ment*
ANSW. In 'None of thofe places of the New Teftament VA^hich refer to Chrift's ap- pearing under the Old, is- he ftiled God-^ but exprefsly on the contrary, the JNGEL of the Lord^ Aels 7, 30, fpeaking in the 'Nafne of God\, and faying, I am the God of ' thy Fathers^ d\,c^ The Paflages this learn- ed Author here alleges in Proof of his Af- ferti-on, are only Thefe which follow :
I Cor. ic, 5, TFith many of them God ivas not well fenfed^ for they were over- thrown in the Wilderjiefs. [The God here meant, (he fry s,) isChrnf-^ becaufe, 'cJ^r* 4^ Chrift is called the Spiritual Rock which fol- lowed tlmn ', and ver. 9, We are admoniih- ed not to tempt Christy as fome of them alfa tempted^ and were dejlrojed of Serfejits.']
Heb. 6, 13. When God ?Hade pro?mfe to Ahrahajn^ hecaitfe he covdd fwear hy no grea- ter^ he fvare hy him f elf.
Heb. II, 5. The Worlds were framed hy the Word of Gol
Heb. ii> 4*
of Some Confiderations Sec. a 59^
Heb. 1 1 , 4« Ah el offered unto God j God
teflifyiiigof his Gifts, y. Noah being Tvarfied of God.
" In all thefe places, (he fays J where *' the Word God is mention'd abfolutely, '^ C/:?r//? is meant ^ becaufe whatever is here *' faid of God^ 'tis owned belongs to Christ '' in the Old Teftament. »
But indeed iii None of thefe places does the Word God mean ChriH^ but r^^ Father^ according to the Analogy of the whole New Teftament ^ as I have (hown at large in my Scriptitre-doBri?!?. Neither do any of thefe: things belong to ChriB in the OW Teftament, any otherwife than as he was the Angel of his Father's Prefence, the Vifible Perfon that there reprefented the Invifible God. And particularly in that PaflTage, Hek 11, 3, The Worlds were framed by the Word of GOD^ it is manifeftiy abfurd to affirm (as this learned Writer does) that the Word [God'] means Cbrisi. For then the Apoftles Affertion would be Tliis, The Worlds were framed by the Word of the WORD : Where- as indeed, in That olace, nou the Word [God^'] but the Phrafe [The V/ord of God^ fignifies Christ.
OBJ. ^ But that which fets this Matter ^^g, ^^ ' paft Difpute, is the plain Declaration of
* our Saviour, Joh. 5, 23, that all Men (hoiild
* honour the Son^ even a^ they honour the Fa-
K 2 ' ther 3 -
aSo An Anf-wer to the Author
, * ther '^ without fuggefling x\ny" Di-
* JlinBion br Limitatio?i thereupon.
ANSWs And does he indeed fuggeft no 'BipinBJoji or Limitation thereupon > 'Tis very ftrang^e, a Learned arid Judicious Wri- t-er fiiould alfert This;, when both in the ve- r)^ Words immediately /6?r(?-^^i;z^, and in thofe immediately /i//^n?i«^, there is* an ey:- prefs DifiinSion or Li?nitduan added, from the Reafon and End of the Honour paid to the Son. The Rsafon or GrmnJ of it, is, that the Father hath COMMITTEDM Judgment to the Son : And the End of it, is, to the Honour of the FATHER which fefit him. The Words of our Saviour arc thefe : The- Father jttdgeth 7io Man^ kit hath COMMITTED all Judgment to the Son: That aUMen JImdd honour the Son^ even as
• they^ honour the Father : He that hojioitreth 7iot the San^ honotireth not the FATHER WHICH HAS SENT him. [The Expreffion is of the fame Nature, as That in eh. 14, 1 ^ Te believe in God, believe alfo i/zMe.] Thus likewife S^Paul, PhiL2,io, That atthe¥a7ns ofjefus ever J Kfiree fioitld bow^ [every thing Ihould become fubjeft to his Dominion,"] mid every Tong:iie \hoitld confers that Jefas Chrin is LordltQ the GLORTofGOD THE FATHER. Befides: The Ward [^^o);, even as^ in S\ John's Stile, never fignifies ;an exa& Equality, but only a geiieral Simi- Utuile^ Thus.^^i'. 17, 11, That they may^
of Some Con/iJeratjons &:c. 2 ^i l^e. One^ as [xaS^&lf] ?r^ are. Ver. 14, T/;^^ are not of the Worlds even as [h^cS^Js] /^;;z 3?^f ^/ the V^orld. Ver. 21, r/?./^r They all may be 0?ie, as {j^^oiP^ Thu, Father^ art in Me, and I in Jhee. Ver. 23, Thou haS loved Them, as [^taS-^^ Thou har^ lo^ ved Me.
If this Text therefore fets thu Matter (as this learned Author affirms) pafl difpute^ I am fare it is pasi dispute on which Side it determines k.
OBJ. * All fuch Titles and Appellations m- ^^^
* which belong to God as Father of Jefus ' Chrijl, Mt excepted out of This Rule,
* and cannot be applied to the So7i, and
* make part of the Honour that we are
* to give him* But then 'tis manifeft that
* no other are excepted ^ and confeqnently
* the meaning of the Rule \j:>onoiir the Son
* even as ye honour the Father''] muft be,
* that whatever Honour you gave to God
* abfolutely, before This Diftinftion of Fa-
* therand Son was made known to you, you
* (hall now give to Him who is revealed to f be the Sm of God.
ANSW. This is exprefsly giving up the • whole Queftion. For the Honour given to God abjolutely, before the Revelation of the Gofpel '^ was not given to a God which was both Father and Son, but to Him who al- ways was and is ahfoktely The One God and
R 3 . FA' ' ^
'p62 An Anfn^er to the Author
FATHER of all, Eph. 4, 6 •, even tli6 God oflfrael. That God of our Fathers^ who (as S*^ Peter declares, A8s 5, 15,) glorified HIS Son Jefm •, and confequentiy was no other, than He who now is the God and Father of our Lordjefm Qorift. Wherefore if that Honour be excepted, and appropria- ted to God the Father^ which belongs to the Perfon of the Father^ as Father , as Now Father of our Lord Jefus ChriH, and both Now and Always Father of All, [m^ ivp rTTDLvrm-^ Eph. 4, 6 ;) I have nothing further to contend for..
Pi' <?3- OBJ. If the Attributes of the Son * are ^ not Equal to thofe of the Supreme God ^ the Father -^ what Rules or Meafures can
* be prefcribed for our Worftiip of him ? i>-^. d^ ^ """"l — ^^^ cannot tell what Worfliip and
* Honour is due to the Son, more than we
* are now allowed to pay to Angels , only
* the giving fome higher Titles to him,— and ^ doing all tJmigs in the Name of the Lord
* Jefiis, for which we -have an exprefs Com^
* mand in Scripture.
ANSW. What Need have we of any o- ther Rules and Meafures in this Matter, than thofe prefcribed to us in Scripture ^ Angels have no Kingdom , no Dominion given them : But to the Son is given All Poiver both in Heaven and Earth, and he is Head over all things to the Churchy and
has
of Some Con/ideratlons &c. 2^2
lias a Na??ie Qan Authority^ above every Na?ne^ that at the Isame of Jefits every knee fhould bow, and that every tongue fidould ccn- fefs that Jejiis Chrift is Lord^ to the Glory of God the Father. Can any thing be more clearly and ^///?/;/(f/^ expreffed than This?
OBJ. ' There is no ground at all, ei- a?^. 660
* ther in Nature or Scripture, for any di-
* red xlppiication to Chrift, upon any other
* Suppofition but that of his being God .^ ^ And if we worfhip him as God, we muft
* worfliip him as the One only True God ^
* That is, we muft honour the Sqik ^^ vpe
* honour the Father* And no other diffe- ^xg, c<, ^ rence can be afligned in the Worfhip we
^ pay to the Son and to the Father^ than
* the ufing fuch Titles in our Addreffes to
* them, as plainly refult from thofe difFe- ' rent Relations.
ANSW. Worihipping Chrift as being the One only True God^ is not honouririg the Son [alfo,3 as [well as^ r^e honour the Fa- ther *, but 'tis honouri?ig the Son^ as being [himfelf] the Father. The Difference be- tween the Worftiip paid to the Son in Scrip- ture, and That p:aid xo the Father , is not . merely nominal or titular ^^ fuch as arifes from the different imaginary Relations which One and the Same Being has to it felf: But 'tis fuch a Difference of Worfiiip, as arifes from the real Difference of their
R 4. Offices .
a6/^ An An^rvtT to tjje Author
Offices and Relation towards Us. Bleffing and Honour is given unto Him that fittetb ufo^i the Tbro?ie, [viz, to the Father^ up- on account of his being yuue/.®^ S-gc^ o tstolv roytpoi^TJup^ the Lord God Sitpretne Rider over /jll : But unto the Lamb, {landing in the mid{lof,[^r before themidftof] the Throne, Glory is given upon account of his having loved us and tvafljed us from our Sins i7i hk own Blood, having redeemed n^ to God hy his Blood, and 7nade us imto cur God Kings and Brie (Is. The Glory given to the Son, is never founded upon fuch a Confufwn of Per- fens, as this Learned Author every where fuppofes ^ but upon his being our Media- tour and Advocate with the Father, and ha- ving a l^ame give?i him which is above every ¥ame. And the reafon our Sayiour himfelf exprefsly gives, why he is t© be ho7ioiired^ as the Father is honoured ;> is, becaufe the Father hath COMMITTED all judgment iintolmn^ Joh. 5 *, 22, 23.
t^g. 66, OBJ^ ' I do not fee which way we can
* warrant our faying, Chrift have mercy upmi
* us ^ without beUeving Chrift to be The
* True God, the fame God with the Fa-
* then »
ANSVV. It does indeed imply our be- lieving Chrift to be Truly God : But that it does not imply fuch a Confufion of Pcrfons, as this Learned Author fuppofes j appears
from
of Some Confiderations &:c. 26^
from the parallel Expreflion, .0 So?i of Da- vid^ have mercy upon us.
OBJ. *The mofl Primitive Writers — call P^i^ ^7% ' Chriil GoJ^ apply the Divine Attributes to ^^* * him, a7id wor-Jlnp him as God^ without ' Any Guard or Limitation.
ANSW. The Primitive Writers he here refers to, are Clemens^ Poljcarp^ Ignatius^ Barnabas and Hernias. Of which Five Writers, Four very feJdom, if at all, ftile Chrift God. Ignatius only, does 'Vi frequent" ly. But both He, and all the reft of them, far from fpeaking without Any Guard or Limitation^ do conftantly and with the utmoft Care confine to the Per- fon of the Father thofe Titles of Supreina^ cy^ Tov S'iom/mv^ tov S'eo'Trhnmv nrcov oAcov^ Toy
^ ^sovy ?iz}V ^eov TO)v oAcovj I^The Supreme Lord^ the Supreme Lord of all ^ xho God over all^ the Lord God^ God Almighty or Supreme Rider over all, the God of the Univerfe^ and the like. And indeed, the plain Truth of this whole jmatter appears fufiiciently from the Very paliages This Learned Au- thor has cited. For, of above Forty Paf- fages which he has alleged out of thefe Writers, not One exprelTes the Notion which he cites them for -^ and feveral of them, exprefs directly the contrary. As Ck?nens 1 when he ftiles Chrift. the HIGH
PRIEST
966 An Anfvper to the Author
PRIEST of dl our Offerings. And ?oly^ carp^ when he thus prays ^ Now THE GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jefm ChriH *, and He hmfelf who is our everlafl- ing HIGH PRIEST^ the Son of God, even Jefits Chrij}^ build you up, d^-'C. And Ig^ nat?us^ when he fays. There is but 0?ie GOD^ who made Heaven and Earth arid the Sea and all that are in Tbefn ^ and Ojie Je^ fm Chrifi^ HIS only-begotten Son. And the Author of Polycarp's Martyrdom, when he hit\~glorifiesGOD^ 'even the FATHER:^ and bleffes our LORD^ the Governour both of our Souls and Bodies^ and the Shepherd of the Catholic k Church which is over all the Earth. And Hermas, when he fays ^ The LORD has fworn by HIS Son, that whofo- ever denieth his Son a7id Him] ^c. It is not eafy to exprefs my Notion more clearly, than thefe mo/i PrifmtiveVJrittns have done it in thefe Very Paifages, which This Learn- ed Author has cited to prove the contrary. In what manner the Orthodox Writers in the following Age ftiled Chrift God, (be- fides the paifages which I have cited from Jiijiin Martyr in my Scripture-doElrine^ Part II, S" 56 ;, and from Irenms^ in the fore- going Papers, pag. 1 1 5) appears from the following Paflages of Ter- Apoflolum fequar, ut fi pa- tuUian ind Novatian. I will
nter ncminandi fuerint Pat:r follow the Apoftk, (faVS Ter^ cc fibus, DEUM Patrem ap- J ... . _^/ '.>. J. _
pciiem, & Jefim chriflum tulltan j) fo that if the Fa- ther
of Some Confiderations &c. ^S'p
ther afiJ Son are to be named dom[NUm nominem : Solum Together, I will jlyle the Fa- direS.~-Nam'&^^^^
ther GODy and JefilS Chrifl Soils feorfum Sokm vocabo.;
T ^.r.n ^^11 J r\T>T\ . P^.f Solera aucem nominans cuius / Will call LORD : But ^^ ^^^-^.^ ^^^ ^^^.^^ ^ ^^^
Chrifl^ when he is me?it?0?ied dium SoJem appellabo. M^
alone, I may alfo ftyle God : ^'^^- ^''^^
For fo I may call a Sim-beam, when it is
mentioned alone, the Sun *, But when I am
fpeaking of the Sun whofe Ray it is, then
I cannot fo well ftyle the Ray the Sun. The
Diftuiftion is very like that which Origen
makes between ^rU and o ^coi , See above,
pag. 6j* Novatian in like
manner ; The fame Ride of E^dem regula veritatis d©:
'T< ^7 /T '^i. i_ \ *^ L^ .:. <^ec nos, credere pofl Patrerti
Truth (faith he) teaches m, „iam in Viiium Dei chriflum
7iext after the Father, to be- Jefum Vomimm Deum mftrum,
lieve alfo in the Son of God J'^^'J ^f ^« J''&«;1'!.^
evenJefmChrifl, OUR Lord Trin. cap. 9.
and God, hut GOD's Son,
even the Son of That GOD, who is the One
and Only God. And again :
6*^ that God the Father (fays
he) is juftly ftiled The God
over all , arid the Original
even of the Son himfelf,
whom he begat Lord of All :
And at the fame time the
Son is The God of all other things, hecanfe
God the Father made all things fthjeB to
Him who7n he begat. It is not poffible for
any thing to be expreifed more clearly.
Uc merlto Deus Pacer amnu wn Dew fir, & Principium ip- fius quoQ; Filii quern Domi- num genuic: Filius autem c^- tcrorum ommum Deus fit, quo- niam omnibus ilium Deus Pa- cer prxpoiuic quem geauir. cap, 31.
OBJ.
a4S An Anfrper to tho Author
p^Z' 77* OBJ. ' Of tliofe Fathers, who lived af- '^- ^ ter the Difputes concerning the Trinity
* arofe, Some talk of the Son as eternal-
' ly exifting in the Bofom, Bowels, or Heart
* of the Father ;, but proceeding forth and ' rnanifeflin^ himfelf as a diftincl Perfon ^ from the Father, juft before the Creation
* of the World. Others fpeak of Chrifl:
* as the Son of God, Begotten before all
* Worlds, much in the fame Language that ' the SCRIPTURES do, without deter- *" mining any thing farther concerning the
* Time or Manner of his Generation.
* SOME of them who indeavoured to enter ' farther into this Myftery than the reft,
* SEEM to affert, that the Son was of the
* fame Nature^ E(fe?ice^ and Subjlance with f the Father.
ANSW. From This Account of ^«f /</«;- r^, I truft the Reader will not conceive that any Inference can be drawn, againft any thing that I have affirmed^
K- 7^ OBJ. 'OTHERS [of the Fathers'] have ' given fuch a Preheminence to the Father^
* by making the Titles of 'Aurofig©* and a ' ^ 'TToiai 6gc>' \God Self-e:;<:iftent^ and The ' Go4oftheUniverfe'] peculiar to him,c^r.
ANSW. Not OTHERS, but ALL of the Fathers unqnimoufly, make thefe Titles peculiar to the Perfon of the Father.
of Some Confiderations &c. ^6^
OBJ. ' All the Antient Apologifts, in- m* H^ ^ fift very much upon the Unity of God -^ — • ' and plainly declare that they have the "- fame God that the Jews had, viz. the ' Maker of the Univerfe, the God of Abra-
* ham, Ifaac and Jacob.- Yet at the fame f^g. gj:
* time they acknowledge Chriftto be God.
ANSW. The Antients do indeed con- Jlantly infift upon the Ujiity of God j and they do as conftantly infift, that That One God is the Father of our Lord Jefus Christ.^ In what Senfe they do at the fame time ac- knowledge Chrzfi to be God^ has been at large explained in xht- fore-going Papers^ and in my Scripture-doElrine^ from nume- rous exprefs and clear Teftimonies of thofe Antient Writers.
OBJ. ' What Origen fays, (B. 8. contr. m ^5?
* Celf p* 586, tpc(. ^eov^ fjiv 'za-ccTi^y ^ *wv
* U'p ^ee^f-Trevo^sv,) We worfljip One God^
* the Father^ and the Son ^ may be looked -' upon as a (hort Summary of the common
' Faith and Pradife of the firft Chriftians^
* with relation to this grand Article.
ANSW. If the Reader pleafes to look back to /?^^. 55, he will find that This Tphole Palfige of Origen^ which I have thero tranfcribed, (and of which this Learned Author has here cited only the fame fcrap^ that the Anonymous Author recommended
by -
270 An Anfrver to the Author
by Mr 'Nelfon had before cited ^ does) moft fully and exprefsly prove the direB contrary .to what Both thefe learned Writers allege it as proving*
tag, 85. OBJ. "- In A^O Difcourfes written \by ' the Ajitients'^ for the Ufe of Believers, ' whether Jewifli or Gentile Converts, are ' there Any fuch Arguments brought to ' juftify the Worfhip of Chrift, as that •
* he was to be worfhipped, only becaufe
* God cofnrnanded it.
ANSW. What Ground there is for This Affertion, may be judged from That paflage of S^ ?aul^ Phil. 2, 9, God hath highly exalted hirn^ and given him a Isame which is above every l^aine -^ That at the Name of Jcfus every knee fioould bow^ [^all things
ihould be fubjecl: to His Dominion,"]
^W 2:"/;/2'i: [accordingly, in acknowledgment of That Dominion,"] every tongiie JljouU confefs that Jefits Chrift is Lord^ to the Glory of God the Father. And from That ^ ^ ^, . „ Declaration of Jnftin Mar-
^ S l:U^S t^ 'r-' ^' (%^ he,) who be- TQv Qih. TAi'ifttj ^ionC'^i in ^ full of true Piety ^ loves >W^«,JWe%... h/,Wc.'a. God ivith all his Hearty and
c/.woi/ £t>77^j;cr>i0£» i.OT- With all his btrengtb^ will AOMENOT. Dial, cum Try. /^^^^^^^^, j-^^ worfbip^\ 710 Other
God :, thcuch he w':ll indred alfo honour [or worpip"^ That M.ffenger of God [viz. Chrift, the Angel of his Preience,] according to the WILL [or Command'] of
God.
^Some Confiderations &cf. 271
G<?i. And from the follow- _..5''A^5^^,/^i!^5''^^?'^ ing paiTage of Iremezts : That every hue (faith he) mi^t hovp to Christ Jefits our Lord^ and God^ and Saviour^ and King, according to the GOOD PLEASURE of the hivifible father. And from the fol- lowing words of Origeii :
We demand (faith he) 9f k«: w?e? 'j^v^>>^i^v [77.«^: Ct\\Ms,c one erningthoje whom t^^th d7:6Aibv mejirsst they worfiip as Gods\ what Proof they have that the Supreme God hath appointed the?n to be worfiipped : And If in reply ^ they put to Us the fame Queflion concerning Jefus -^ we can pow that God hath appoiiited Hijn to be worfiipped : **• That all Men fioidd honour the Son, eveji " as they honour the Father '*. Thus like- wife Cyprian : God the fa- ther (faith he) Commanded that his Son flmtld be wor- JJjipped : And the Apoftle Paitl^ fnindful of the Divine Command^ fays accordiiigly , God has exalted him, and ^^tf:^)^^,
cjoy Tnei t» Iij/ytt, ctTnjcPf*^-
CUiV 077 OCTre -S-fiK J^JhTZtt CCV TOi 70 77^Ctc3-CW, iVO. ^AVn^
7t(Mom rot/ vlbVi y^^i iff^tn TbV TTAjif^,. Cont'r, Celf^ lib. 8.
Pater Deus p-£cepit filiuiri fuum adorari ^ & Apoftolus Paulus, divini prsecepti me- mor, ponit & dicic 5 Deus ex* altavtt ilium:, (^ donavit illi tiometij quod eft fuper omne nO' men, ut in nomine Je'u omne
no Patienciar.
hath given him a Name which
is above every Name , that
at the Name of Jefus every knee fotild bow^
of things in Heaven^ and things in Earthy
and things imdcr the Earth* If it (hall be
- .._ ^ allege rj
^jOi An Anfvpcr to the Author
alleged that thefc things arc fpoken of Chrift^ only as Mafi : Then it will follow, that there is a WorQiip due to the Man Cbrift Jefus^ diftind: and different from the WorQiip of God , or that there are .Two diftind forts of Worfliip due to Chrift, the one due to him in his humane Nature^ the ether in his Divhie , or that the Manhood only of Chrift, and not His whole Perfon^ is our Mediatour and Advocate with the Fa- ther, and to be worfhipped accordingly with this Mediatorial TForjhip. All which things are contrary to this Learned Authors Hypothefis.
t?ig. 26. OBJ. ' How could the Jews^ who were
* fo afraid of Idolatry ^ and the Heatheii^ ^ who were fo addided to it, and fo ac-
* cuilomed to the Notion of 7nany Deities ^ under the One Supreme •, both join in the
* Worfiiip of Chrift^ without the leaft Ap-
* prehention of a Plurality of Gods ^ unlefs
* they had been throughly convinced, that
* Chrift was the fame God with the Fa- ^ there
ANSVV. As to the Jem -^ this Learned Author anfwers himlelf in the very fame page : The Jews (fays he) iii our Saviour^s time had very ftriB Notions of the Unity of God '^ and therefore the Apo/lles^ in their Difcourfes to The?n^ ?iever 7nentio?i any thifig of this firjl Principle of Religion^ but^ ta- king
of Some Confiderations Sec. 275
king It for granted^ infifl wholly upon Chrifts leing the Uejfiah or SON of GOD. What follows from hence, but that the Jews were taught to receive Chrift as the Son of That 0?ie God^ whom they already believed in > and confequently, that the God of the Jews^ was no other than the father of our Lord Jefus Chrift .<? and that therefore there was no alteration made in their Notion of O71S God -^ but only they were further taught, that befides the One God^ there was alfo One Mediatour^ whom they were to honour and worfliip as fuch > As to the Gentiles - what They were taught to believe concern- ing Chrift, S^?aul tells us, 1 Cor. 8, 5, There are that are called Gods^ whether in • Heaven or in Earthy (as there he Gods ma- ny^ and Lords many '^) But to Us there is but One GOD^ the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him ^ and One LORD^ Jefus Chrift, by riphom are all things, and we hy Him.
OBJ. « Thofe of them \_ofthe Followers pag, ggM ' ^/Socinus,] who allow of the Worfhip ' of Chrift, profefs to worfliip the Father^ ' and Him only, as manifefting himfelf i;2 ' and by Chrift.
ANSW. Wherein This Learned Authors own Scheme, differs from that of thefe Fol- lowers of Socifms, whom he here menti- ons 5 is very hard to (how.
S OBJ.
^74 ^^ Anfiver to the Author
pag. 88. OBJ. ' The chief Article of the Sal^et- ' lia7i Herefy, was, that the Father and So)i * were only different T>e7iotnhiations of the ' fame God, and that there was no other ' perfonal Diftinftion between them.
ANSW. The only Difference then, be- tween the SabeUia7i Herefy, and his own Scheme, is this , that What They called different De?wmhiatw?is of the fame God^ Hs calls different perfonal CharaBers of ths Same Supreme Being •• Which is indeed no Difference at all.
M- 8p, OBJ. * The greatest part of Chriflians ^^' * in Tertu]lia?i's time, [the fmpliees quifue^
* qii^ major fejnper crecle?it htm pars ejl^ had
* much the fame Notion of the Trinity tig, 82, * that Praxeas had. And Praxeas himfelf
' was in great Reputation with fome of the
* chief Bifliops of That x^ge. From whence
* it may fairly be collected, that it was the^
* common Language of the Orthodox, which ' gave rife to this Falfe [SabelUan~] Opi-
* nion.
ANSW. The Sabellian Opinion of Praxeas^ is thus cxpreiTed by TertttUian .• Mv.Prax.[yo{}: tempus Pater natus, & Pater paffus* ipfe Deus, Dominus Omnipotens, Jefus Chrifius pra^dicatur :3 The Father was Born in tinie^ the Father fitffered -^ and Jejus Chrijl is preached J as being The Lord God
Almighty
of Some Confiderations &c. 275
Almighty Hiftifelf. Wherein this Opinion really differs from that of our Learned Au- thor himfelf, is (as I now obferved) very hard to (how. But that it was not the Opinion of the greatejl part of Chriftians^ thofe plain and unlearned Chri/Hans in Ter-^ ttilliafi^s time, who perpetually cried out, [Monarchiam tenemus J TFe contend for the Goverjifnent of Ofie God over the Vnu verfe -^ appears from hence, that Tertullian calls Praxeas^s Opinion [novellitatem Prax- es hefterni"] a Novelty of Tefterdaji'^ where- as the Opinion of the then greater part of Chriftians, was what he fuppofes to prevail always among the unlearned, from the Sim- plicity of the Creed itfelf which taught them to believe in 07te God -^ [Simplices quique,
^ quse major femper credentium pars eft ^
quoniam Sc ipfa REGT/LA Fidei a pluri- bus Diis feculi, ad Tliiicim & verum Deum transfert."] What this Opinion was, appears clearly enough in the Writers before and about that Time •, viz. Jufiin, Iren^us^ Ori- gen and Isovatian*
OBJ. ' It may be fairly replied, that p/^^. 94 5^ ' the word God^ in all the paffages cited^^'
* in the Three firft Sedions of D"^ darkens
* Scripture-Dodrine, ought not to be con- ' fined to the Perfon of the Father only j
* but is applicable to the Divine Nature
* confidered abfolutely^ without any di- ■" : S 2 * ftindion
^j6 An Anfvper to the Author
' ftindlion of Perfons •, EXCEFI7NG on- ' ly where the Conftrudion itfelf neceffa- ' rily implies fuch Diftinclioii : Or elfe, ' if we take in the Notion of different Per-
* fons '^ then where-ever mention is made
* of God abfolutely, or the Ojte God^ the ' True God^ or the like , the meaning muft
* be, that the Father^ confideyed ivith his ' So7ia}id Spirit^ is God, the One God, the ' True God 6cc. This feems to be the plain 'natural Conftruftion of all the parages ' cited in thefe l^hree Sections.
ANSW. In the fe€ond Seclion alone of mj Scripture-Doctrine, (befides the Texts cited in the /;y?' and third Sedions,) there are more than three Hundred Texts, where- , in the word God\ by the Conftruclion of the Text itfelf, is of neceflity confined to the Perfon of the Father fingly, becaufe exprefsly contradifiinguiihed m- the very fame Sentence, either from the So7i or the Spirit '(Dt Both. As when S^ Paul fays, i.Cor. 6 :, 4, 5, 6, The hmt Spirit^ the fame Lord, the fame GOT): And Ephef. 4^ 4, 5, 6, Ont Spirit, Om Lord, One GOD ^nd Father of All : And the like. Now to allege, as this Learned Author does, that the word God, in all the pafjages I cited in thofe Th-ee SeBions^ ought not to he confined to the Perfon of the Father f?iglj, EXCEPJ^ ING only where the ConjlruBion itf elf neeef- farilj fo requires ^ What is this, but al-
of Some Confideratlons &:e. ^y
leging, that ALL the Texts I cited, are mifapplied, EXCEPTING only fomewhat more than THREE HUNDRED, ^^4iich the Conftruflion itfelf neceffiiily (hows to be righty applied ? The'Reader will obferve This to be a confiderable Exception ;, eveii though fome Few of the other Texts had been really mifapplied by me 3 as thisLeaji^ ed Author has not fliown that Any of them are. Again : To affirm (as this Learned Author does,) that according to the plain natural ConflriiBion of thofe numerous paf- fages I cited, wherein the Father is ftiled God and the One God^ in exprefs Contradi- ftinclion to the Son and Spirit m the very words of the Text itfelf , tp affirm (I fay) that the meaning of thefe Texts rmtsi be^ that the word God abfolutely; or the One God^ fignifies the Father confidered with his Son and Spirit ,- What is This, but affirm- ing the Father alone ^ to be Father and Son and Spirit .<? Befides : When he fays that the word God is applicable to the Divine l^ature confidered abfolutelj^ without any diftinEiion ofPerfoyis -^ is not This begging the Queftion directly ? For Where does it appear that the Divine Nature confidered ah-- folutely^ ever fignifies any thing elfe, but the Nature of God^ of the Ojie God and Father of all ^ confidered only abfl:racl per- haps from the Relation of Fraternity i Though even That indeed, can hardly ba S 3 abftra6|:edi
StS An Anfwer to the Author
abftrafted. For it feems to be an infepara- bl*^ Chajacler of the Divme Nature^ that is, of Hh2 whofe That Nature is ^ (For Na- ture itfelf^ is nothifig but an AbjlraB Name -^ to be tather of all^ -jcrfltTip fiidymvy Efh. 4, 6.
iR^. 97. OBJ. * If Chrift is Sxtpreme over All^
* though not abfolutely Supreme over All-^ — ■
* wherein is Chrift diftinguifhed from the ^ Father, but only as he is a 5on ? For
* take away the Diftinclions of Father and
* Son^ and Chrift is — ^-Supreme Lord of
* the Univerfe,
ANSW. Chrift is never ftiled either Su- preme over ally or abfolutely Sifpre?ne over all. He is iftdeed over All^ and Lord of all '^ but ftijl always excepthig (as S^ Paid direfts us) Him that did put all thiiigs un- der hi7n. Supremacy therefore, is an Attri- bute of the Father^ abfolutely ijicommimica- ble. And to fay, that, taki7ig away the Diftiuclions of Father and Son^ Chris} is Su- preme Lord of the Univerfe •, is only faying in other words, that the Diftindion be- tween the Father and the Son is inconfide- rable and to be negleded, becaufe the Son alfo is Supreme^ excepting only that he 13 not Supremeo
iH^ 9:] OBJ. * If the word God^ when menti- ^oned abfolutely, is applied to the Son in
[ Scripture,
^fSome Confiderations Sec. 279
f Scripture, then not only the pafTages col-
* iefted in the fecoiid Sedion of D^ Clarke\
* Serif ture-DoBrine^ are very improperly
* ranged under their Title, but tht firji ^ and third Sedions are altogether ufelefs*
* For. if Chrift be God ahfohitefy^ he isalfo
* the Only God^ the Living God^ ^v.
ANSW. It fhould here have been added, by the very fame reafon ; that the Son is idfo the Father of All^ the Ojie God and father of All : And then the Force of the Argument, woutd^i^ve been evident to every Reader. The Truth of the matter, is plainly This : The word^ God^ when ufed abfilutely^ always fignifies the Father : I cited, in that fecond Sedion which this Learned Author here refers to, more than three Hundred Texts, wherein the Con- ftrudion of the words neceflarily and conr felTedly determines it fo to fignify* Were there now any Texts, wherein the fame word, ufed in the fame Manner and in the fame Senfe, clearly fignified the Son ^ it would follow of neceflity, that the Father was the &;?, and the Son the Fatherp But the Cafe is not fo. There are, in all, thirteen Texts, wherein the word God has by fome been thought to fignify the Son 9 \Jdatt. I, 23 ^ Luke I ^ 16 ^ Joh I, i j 10, 33, 20, 28 i A8s 20, 28 J Rom. 9, 5 J J Tim. 3, 16 5 Tit. 2, 13 i Heh. i, 8 j ^ Pet. I, 1 i I Joh. 3, 16 i 5, 20.']^ln S 4 Five
aSo An Anfrver to the Author
fi'y^ of thefe Texts, [^viz. Luke i i6j Tin 2, 13 ^ 2 Pet, 1, I •, i^Joh. 3, 16 5 5C I J^^* 5 5 20 5] it certainly fignifies, not the Sg7i, but the Father. Six of them, [viz. Matt. I, 23 5 y^>!?. 10, 33 •, 20, 285 !^<??J 20, 28;, Rom. 9, 5 1^ 6c I Tim. 3, 16,] are juftly; contefted as ambiguous : That is to fay *, Either it is ambiguous whether the Word [6go^, God^'] was originally in the Text at all 5 ^s,ABs 20, 28:, Ro7n. 9, 5 ; & I Ti;//. 3, 16 5 Orelfe it is ambiguous whether it refers to the Father or the Son 5, and, if it refers to the Son, yet it is then clearly underftood in a Senfe different from what this Learned Author fuppofes ;> as in the Three lafl-cited Texts, and in Matt. I, 23 '^ Joh.^ 10, 33 5 6c Job. 20, 28. The Two remaining Texts, [Job. 1,1, & Heb. 1 , 8 5] wherein the Son is clearly filled God^ do each of them at the fame time no Jefs clearly diflinguifli him from 0 ,^05 the God wbo?n he was with^ whom he came from^ and who is filled His God a7iointi?i^ hi?n^ &c. Which Diflinclion, is alfo (as I now obferved) no lefs evident in every one of the ^(97/?^/?^^ Texts, fuppofing the Read- ing of them to be true, and the Son to be there fpoken of : As may be feen in my Notes upon each of the Texts themfelves, both in the fore-going Papers, "and in my Scripture-DoBrine. Add to this the iiurne- Tous places, wherein' Chrifl declares' that the Son can do nothing ofhi?nfelf\ but lives
an(5
of Some Confideratioiis §^e. ^St
and is fent and aBs in all things by the Will and Authority of the Father. See Scrip- tiire-Docirine^ Part II, ^ 34 c^ 36,
0£j. ^ Had not Chrift been God in the t^i- p5;
* fame Senfe, in which the word was un-
* derftood before his Appearance in the ' Flefli 5 \That is to fay^ had 7iot the Son been^ ^TWLirp -ra^ror. The Father of All J ' it is very reafonable to believe, that he
* would have been ftiled Gqd, (if he had ' taken upon him That Name at all,) with
* fome lower Titles, Epithets, or Attri-
* butes, than the Father was : As,-
* Divifie Ferfon, and the like : Or, at leaft,
* with fome Exceptions , as God^ but 7Wt ' the ?noft High^ &c.
ANSW. This is the Very manner, in which He is ftiled God in the Flew Tefta- ment. For thus Origen^ (in the paflage I cited above, pag. 65, 66^ 67 ;,) (liows that 6co5 in the firft Verfe of S^ John'^ Gofp^l, as there diftinguiflied from 0 Gsdf, fignifies a Divi7ie Perfo?u And Eufebins^ in his Theol'og, Ec cleft aft. lib. 2, cap. 17, does, in a profeifed Difcourfe upon That very Text, largely explain the fame Diftindlion. Now 'tis well known that Origen and Fife- hiiis underflood Greek better, and had more . Learning, than all the other Fathers that ever wrote. Nay, and even Cle7?2ens Alex- andrinits him/elf, who (as I obferved above.
Ct%2 Aft Anfwer to the Author
pag* 67,) fpake in his F/edagogits mot^ confufedJy, mhis, Strom. §, thus expreffes the fame Notion with great Diftindnefs j
^^Ta^« ToV '^ayTDXpcciD^^ cT^Acycas,'] The Scrtpture (faith he, fpeaking of a particular Text,) does not here iife barely the word j0go<, hitt^ hy adding the Article 6 ©eoV, ftg- fiifies that it means Him who is Supreme over AIL
Then as to the Exceptions which he thinks ought to have been made -^ St Paid anfwers, that the Exception this Learned Author wants, is and oitght always to be inade. ^Tis manifefl^ fays he, i Cor. 15, 27, (that is, 'tis Manifeft to comtnon Senfe, .without needing to be often repeated,) that }ie is [^always"] excepted^ which did put all things itnder him^ And our Saviour him- felf, in all his Difcourfes in the Gofpel, conftantly fpeaks of Himfelf with Lower Titles and Epithets, than of the Father • as being fent forth from Him, fpeaking and acting by His Authority, and doing ajji things io His Honour and Glory.
f^i» 99* OBJ. ' So, when it is faid that the FuU
* nefs of the Godhead dwelt in him^ we
* fiiould probably have been told that it was
* not the eternal Godhead here meant, as
* Ront. I, 20 ^ but Divine Power ^ as the
* word 0c57r]f is rendred by B^ Clarke.
ANSVV.
of Some Confidcrations &:c. ^S 3
ANSVV. In That very Paffage it felf, Kom. I, 20, figoW fignifies nothing elfe but Divijie Power or Domifiion ^ not the Siihjiance of G^^, which this learned Au- thor feeins erroneoufly to think the Word Godhead ^ignifit^^ The Words are, tit^cc'i- Si@* oiuiS S'vvocfjLis ^ ^toTYii^ his eternal Power and Divinity or Divi?ie Domimon. &eiQTni^ is as much an Attribute, as Sxivajj^n 5 not the Sub fiance^ but the I)ivine Doinhiion of God. So likewife therefore in That o- ther Paflage, CoL fi, 9, In hi?n dwelleth all the Fulnefs of the Godhead ^ the meaning is, the Fithiefs of Divine Power ^ Doininion and Authority : In like manner, ^s CoL i, 1 9, It pleafed the Father^ that in Him Jljouhl ■ all Fulnefs dwell ^ and Joh. 14, 10, The Father that dwelleth in Me^ he doth the Works ^ That is, not the Perfon^ but the Divine Pewer^ [^ S^goTws^ ^f Ae Father^ dwelleth in Chrift. Thus the Word [flgo- ms Divinity ^"^ Always fignifies •, in the fame manner as aVBpwTroTWf, and all other Words of the like Formation. And 'tis as great an Abufe of Language, to fuppofe [6go- T«0 Ae Deity or Diviiiity^ that is, the Dominion of God^ to fignifie the Siibfla?ice of God ^ as it would be to underftand QaVflf w- •zjtoItis'] Manhood^ to fignifie the Subfance of Man. Where Deity is put (by a mere Idi- om of the £//^/?/; Language) forGodhiva-
felf,
2^^ An Anfwcr to the Author
felf, as Acis 17, 29 , *tisintheGreek^ npt 91 ^eoryis^ but to Baar. Further : 'Tis worth obferving upon this occafion, that not only ^eoryjs^ the Divinity^ or Supreme jyominion^ of God , but even This other Word itfelf, ^eos God^ has in Scripture, and in all Books of Morality and Religiofi^ 2l relative Signification ;, snd not, as in me- taphyfical Books, an Abfolute One. As is evident from the relative Terms, which in fnoml Writings may always be joined with it. For inftance : In the fame manner as we fay, ?ny Father, 7ny King, and the like , fo it is proper alfo to fay, my God, the God of Ifrael^ the God of the Univerfe, and the like : Which Words are expreffive of Do- minion and Government. But, in the meta^ phyfical way, it cannot be laid, My Infinite Subftance, The Infinite Subftance of If rael^ or the like. Which plainly (hows in what Senfe the Word Godhead^ al- ways ought to be underftood in Theological Matters.
102,
l*t ^"^^^ ^^J* ' Where we afcribe the fame ' things to both \_Father and Son^ we are ' to fuppofe them to be ORIGINALLY in * the Father, and by DERIVATION or^ ' Communication in the Son. But none of ' thefe Diftlndions alter any thing in our ^ Notions, either of God, or DIvme Wor- ^ ftiip. For STILL we fay, the Son is God
' in
of Some Confiderations &c. 185
* in the. SAME Senfe, that the Father is ' God ^ and as God, he is to be worlhipped ' with the SAME Worfliip -^ notwithftand- ' ing any fuch Perfonal PREROGATIVES
* as are here afcribed to the Father.
' Having been careful to maintain all thefe ' Perfonal Charafters and DISTINCTI- ' ONS, we think our felves not only at ' Liberty, but obliged, in all OTHER re- ' fpeds to hotiour the Son even as tve ho- ' nour the Father.
ANSW. To Me^ all this appears to be an exprefs Contradidion in the very Terms. I leave it to the Reader to confider.
OBJ. ' Since Chrift is to be worOiipped P^i\ ^^^ ' in ALL the SAME Kinds and Inftances ^ '"^^ ' of proper and 'direct Worfhip, in which
* the Father is v/ordiipped ;, there is no ' Ufe to be made of any of thofe metaphy-
* fical Diftindions before-mentioned, what-
* ever Truth there may be in them. For,
* if we may offer the SAME Prayers and ^ Thankfgivings immediately to the Son, ' as we do to the Father ^ — it is the fame
* thing whether the Perfon we apply to, be ' unortgiiiated or derived^ be abfoluvely Su-
* preme^ or not.
• ANSW. This amounts to fuch a total
Confufion of Perfons, as (I beHeve) never
was heard of before in the Chriftian
Church. Is there then no difference be-
" tweeu
a 36 An Afifvcer to the Authot
tween the Mediatour and the Perfon meJi^ atedto^ Have we an Advocate with the Father and with the Son too .<? Is it in vain that the Apoftle directs us to come unto God hy ChriH^ as by ow great High-Prieft^ Heb. 7, 25 ^ 4. 14 ? Is it in vain th^t S^ Paul exhorts us to give thajiks to God^ even the Father^ b^ChriH^ Col. 5, 17? When we return Thanks to God for fo loving the World^ that he gave his ojily-bigotteji Son ^ would it be as proper to return Thanks to ' the SON for fending his only-begotteji Son ^ When S"^ Paul hlefes the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift^ for having predefti- nai edits by Jefus Chrifl to hifffelf and 7nade Its Accepted in the beloved'^ and praifeth — • the God of our Lord Jefus Chrifl^ the Father
of Glory ^ for the working of his niighty
Power ^ which he wrought in ChriH^ when he raifed hi7n frmn the dead^ and fet hi?n at ■ his own right Hand in heaveiily places^ Eph* ij ^,&c. might ALL the SAME Praifes and Thankfgivings have with equal Proprie- ty been offered to C/:;;'//? ;f?7>?/c?//''<? When in our Devotions we fay, Thou^ 0 Chrisl^ art rnqfl High in the Glory of God the Father j would it have been as proper and as true, to fay, Thou^ 0 Father^ art ?nofl High in the Glory of the Son <? The Third Synod of Carthage decreed, on purpofe to prevent all Confuiion in Divine Worfliip, and agreea- bly to the conftant Praclife of the whole
Primi-
o/Some Confiderations &c. 2^7*
Primitive Church •, [ut ciim ad Altar e afllfti- tur. Semper ad Patrem dirigatur oratioj that when the Priefi (lands at the Altar^ he Jhould Always direB his Vrayer to the Fa^ ther : And can this Learned Author ima- gine, that the Memorial of the Sacrifice of the Death of Chrift, may as properly be offered to the Son^ who was himfelf That Sacrifice , as to the Father^ to whom, and to whom only, that Sacrifice was once of- fered as an Oblation and Propitiation for the Sins of the World > I confefs, I can no way fee, how this Confufion of Perfons can poflibly be reconciled with the Scripture- Notion of Chrift's being our Great High- Priejl^ our Ajiediatoiir and Advocate with- (not what This Learned Author calls the Divine Nature^ but, as S^ John expreffes it,) the FATHER • i Joh. 2, i.
OBJ. ' Whether our Prayers and pag. jogj
* Praifes are offefed primarily to the Fa-
* ther, or to the Son ^ and whether the
* Honour we pay the Son, be underftood
* as finally and ultimately tending TO ' THE Honour and GLORY OF THE ' FATHER, or not : Thefe are Confidera- ' tions which never enter into the Mind of
* the Worfliippen
ANSW^ S^ Paul direclly affirms the con- trary ^ PhiL 2, 11, that evei^y tongue fbouhl confers that Jefm Chrisi is Lord, TO THE
' 2S8 An Anfwcr to the Author
GLORT OF GOD^ THE FATHER. Eph. 5,' 21, U7ito Hm [viz.. the Father of our Lord *Jefiis Chrui^ of whom the whole fwn- Ij hi Heaven and Earth is named ^ ver. 14,] be Glory in the Church by Jefus Chrijl^ through^ put all Ages^ world without end. Heb. 15, /i 5, By Him let us offer the Sacrifice ofPraifi to God jontijiually. i\nd ^^ Peter ^ i Pet. 4, 2, That God in all things may he glorified through Jefus ChriH. And our Saviour himfelf, Joh. 14, 13, Whatfoever ye fjall ask i?i my T^ame^ That will I do -^ \ whatfo- ever ye fiall ask of the FATHER in my Najne^ he may ^ive it you^ ch. 1.5, 16 :>"] that the FATHER ?nay he GLORIFIED in the Son. It ought alfo to weigh fome- thing with this Learned Author, that Bp. &///, (fpeaking exprefsly of Chrift^ not as . Man, butasG^<^,) fays that
/Quod cmnis FiIiihonoF, in jii J rj ^ ■/ ^ ^7
]>eum PATREM, qui ipfum ^^ ^he tLonour paid unto the ,?nuic,redundct. Sell. ^, cap, Son^ redounds to God the ^ *» ^" ^* FATHER. ' who hegat him •
and commends Origen for alleging This ve- ry thing as an Argument, to prove that the Chriftians did not derogate from the Monarchy of the Father : and teftifies that ^ . . the Notion of the Antient
Intelngentes Icilicet, per r>^ -n.- ^1 ^ ^7
Filium Patris gloriam mani- Chriftians WaS, that The
Mali-, omnemq, Filii GIo- GLORT OF THE FATHER
;r DfvinifaJsfrED\i;": ^--^ raanifefed hy the Son ; PARE. se^f. 2, cap. 3, § 6. and that ALL the Ho?wur of
the
of Some Confiderations &c. 280
the Son, Redounds TO THE FATHER^ as
the Fount ai?i ofDivinity.
OBJ. ' The meaning of the Text, (Joh.pag. 105; ' 10, 5O5 / and 7ny Father are One^^ may
* be (unlefs it implies a Contradiction to ' interpret it fo,) that the Father and Son
* are — - — One Being •
ANSW. That Two Perfons fliould be One Beings is (I think) a manifeft Contra- diction ^ and if it were not, yet it would not at all from thence follow, that it was the True Meaning of the Text. See this Text at large explained above, pag* 144,
OBJ. Thefe words, [/ and my Father pag, io6* are One^ ^ are fpoken by the Son, who, if ' he had been a different Being from the ' Father, and confequently inferiour to ' him, would not have expreffed himfelf ' in fuch a manner, as implied ANY E- ^ quality.
ANSW. What Equality is implied in thefe words, has at large been (hown above, pag. J 44, &c.
OBJ. * Why may we not fay, that Fa- pg: 10$: ^ ther and Son are One and the fame Beings ' as well as One and the fame Thing <?
ANSW. Becaufe many things may well and ufuaily be fpoken figuratively, which
T cannot
a 90 An Anfwer to the Author
cannot be affirmed or underftood literally^ iCor,3,8.S'^ ?aul fays of Himfelf and Apollos^ that they were one^ and the fame tbhig ^ But might he therefore as well and properly have faid, they were One and the fame Be- ing ? And when our Saviour prayed, that %oh.i-;,2uHe and His Difciples might htOne ^ could he as properly have faid. One Being .<? I am not aware, that the word 0?ie^ in this man- ner of fpeaking, ever fignifies, in Any Author whatfoever, literally Oiie Being.
tag, 107. 0£y. ' According to This Scheme, God ^ is a word of Office only, as Majier and * King is ^ and fignifies fomething diftinft ^ from the Divine Nature.
ANSW. Tliat the word God in Scrip- ture, is indeed always a relative word of Of- fice^ fignifying perfonal Dominion^ Dignity^ or Government ^ is evident from hence ^ that in like manner as we fay. My Mafler, My Father, My King, and the like ^ fo the Scripture teach- es us toTay alfo, Mr God, The God oflfra- el, and the like : Whereas on the other tide ■ we cannot fay. My Divine Nature, the Di- vine Nature oflfrael, or the like. Which evidently fliows, that the word God in Scripture is always ufed to exprefs a ferfon^ ' and not That which this Learned Author . ftiles the Divine Nature.- .
OBJ.
of Some ConMcrations Sec. 2pi
OBJ. In this pafTage [/ a?iJ my Fa- ^ag. icp,
ther are One^'] ' why may not \ji] fignify
' the fame as [^5,]' viz. Ojie and the farne
GoJ, or, (in D"^ Clarke's Senfe of the
word Peribn,) one and the fame Ferfon^
that is, one and the fame Being ? — If [to
ou auTvi ysvvy)^h^ That which is conceived
in her[ Matt, i, 20,] fignifies the fame
as [0 yevvTi'^etSy He which is conceived -^
and {jro yevvojfjLSvov ayiov^ That holy Thifig
which fjall be born^ Luke i, 55,] figniiies
the fame as Q6 ap^©., That Holy Per/on -fj
and [^S^vo T? v7ro<r'ccai Trpxyf^^m, Two
Things in Suhfiftence^ is ufed by Orige?i
to fignify [two real diJlinB Perfons :^
Why then may not the word [Ij/] in S^
John, mean One and the fame Beings as "*
well as On^ and the fame Thing .<?
ANSW. The Learned Bifhop Bull tells
us, [Defenf SeB. 2, cap. 9, §* ii,1 that
j^res fingularis per fe fubfiftens, in reKus in-
tellectu pr^editis idem eft quod perfona,]
a particular Beings fubfifting by itfdf^ is^
in things ijidued with Under ft and i?ig^ the
fame as Perfon. The reafon therefore, (be-
fides that the whole Thread of his Difcourfe
leads to another Interpretation,) why our
Saviour could not here mean to affirm, that
He and his Father were One Beings is be-
caufe he would thereby have affirmxed that
they were Que Person , Vv^hich this Learn-
I 2 ed .
2j^2 An Anfiver to the Author
ed Author, (though his Interpretation ne- ceflarily infers it, yet) cares not to affirm. As to the critical Diftinclion between S^ and fV, the Truth is evidently This. Be- caufe every Per/on is a Beings but every ^I^^^^IY^ therefore «^, v/hich
' is of the more limited Signification, and exprefles iritelligent Being or Perfon only^ can never poffibly be extended to fignify Being in general : But h^ which fignifies Beijig in general, may alfo be ufed of fuch a Being., as is an intelligent Beings that is^ a Per/on, Therefore ^ yswn'^lv and ti ciyov might properly be ufed by S*^ Mattherxr and & Liike^ as well as o a.yt@^ and oyivvn' ^eii '^ becaufe the Subject mentioned, (be- fides that perhaps to manS'iov is referred to^ was equally both a Holy Thing and a Holy P^erfin. But sV, in this place of S^ John, cannot fignify One Being ^ becaufe the Sub- jecl fpoken of, being an Intelligent Being, it would confequently have meant the fame as eti One Perfon : Which confeffedly not being our Saviours intention to affirmj, it foilowb^ of Necefiity that the words m.uft beunder- ftood figuratively, in the manner that has been above explained at large, pag^ 144,
t^g. 113. OBJ. ' This Text, [/ and7ry Father ^rre ' One^] Cannot be unJerftood of Chrift as * Ma7i y it being, always brought to prove^
^ even
of Some Conffderations &:c. ^pj
even by the Jria?is themfelves, that Chrift
c
IS
Godc
ANSW* This is no Objeftion againft any thing I have affirmed. However, it deferves to be taken notice of ^ that the Reader may obferve, how apt even the moft Learned and Able Writers' fometimes are, to life Arguments which conclude nothing, Becaufe the Jrians allege This Text, to prove Chrift to be G{)J in their Senfe , does it therefore follow, that it Cannot be un- derftood of him as Man <? Do Anms never allege more Texts, than are conclufive of what they allege them for ? And is it not at leaft Poffibk, that Chrift might mean the fame, when he fays, land fny Father are One -^ as when he fays, Thej [the Dif- ^^f'^J'* ciples] maj be One^ even as We are One , / ^' ^^' in Thhn^ and Thou in Me^ &c.
OBJ. "• Since the trueft way of Under- t^g* "?*'
* ftanding the meaning of ftngle Texts re-
* lating to the prefent Controverfy, is to
* confider them ALL together in one ' View ^ I have added— —SOME Palfages « of Scripture, in which the Father and
* Son are mentioned together, in fuch a
* manner as to imply their Equality or ^ Unity.
ANSW. Since the trueft way of under- ftanding the: meaning of fmgle Texts rela- ting to the prefent Controverfy, is to confi- T 3 - der
Q94 An Anftver to the Author
der them ALL together in one View : This Learned Author would have done better, to have accordingly jcbnfidered them i\LL together, and compared them one with ano- ther, as / did 5 and not to have contented himfelf with colkding SOME Paffages 5cc. There are in the New Teftament, (as appears by my Collection in the Scripture- Dodrine,) ma?2j; Hundreds of Texts, where- of he has not thought fit to take the leaft Notice, which do all of them dirediy con- tradict His Notion. And of thofe Texts which he himfelf has here collected, there is not One which expreiles the Notion he alleges them for. Concerning the Form of Baptifm, which is his principal Text, he fdg.iij^. ftys only. We may r.^ell SUPPOSE it to infer SOME Equality. x\nd Ma?iy of the very Texts he here cites, do themfelves prove juft the contrary to what he brings them as proving. Particularly,
Job. 14, I. Te believe in God j believe alfo in Me.
Job, 17, 5. Ttjee tbe Only True God, and Jefus Chrift wbo?n Tboii haft Sent.
1 Th. 5, 18. Tins is tbe Will of God, in Chrift Jefus.
2 Tb. 2, 16. IsoTp <?z/r LW Jefus Chrift himfelf and God even our Father.
I Tim. 5, 21. I charge thee before GoA^ and the Lord Jefus Chrift, and the eled: Angels. [Thefe laft words are omit-
ted
of Some Con/iderations &c. ^5^5
ted in his Citation of this Text : Which they fhould ^npt .have been j becaufe they fliovv that the word, Ani^ upon which he lays great Strefs in the Form of Baptifm, has no Weight in it to prove fuch an Equality or Iden- tity as he there contends for.]
Tit. 1,2. P^^^^ /;w// God, ;^/:?^ Father ^ • and the Lord Jefus Chrift, our Savi- .our.
2 Job. 5. Peace from God, f/:?^ Father^ and from the Lord Jefus Chrift, the Son of the Father.
Rev. 12, 10. The Kingdom of our Qo^y and the Poiper of HIS Clirift.
OBJ-. There being many Pa ffages^ where- h^i* '22^ yi D' Qarke owns it to be ^ doubtful or ' ambiguous whether the Father or Son be ' meant [by the word^ Lord-^ This is a very * good Argument, that it is all one, of ' which thofe palTages are underftood.
ANSW. - The Siibje^-matter of fome particular Texts, is indeed fuch, as makes it ambiguous vyhether Chrift or God the Father be fpoken of in thofe particular Texts. But it does not at all from thence follow, (wliich is the general Inference this Learned Author every where aims at,) that therefore in the whole Scripture there is no Diftinclion made between the Father and the Son. The word, i^ri, T 4 in
2^6 An Anfr^er to the Author
in S^ Paul's Epiftles, generally fignifies Chrisi : And 'tis a manner of fpeaking intirely new in the Chriftian Church, to
p^. 122. fay that thereby is meant The One Sit" preme God^ the God of Heaven and Earthy the God and Lord vpho?n we Chriftiaju are to adore^ without confidertng whether the words refer more properly to the Son or to the Father. It is alfo to be obferved, that One of the Texts he here cites, is by no means ambiguous ^ Tzt^ '^^ ^3, 7"/:?^ glorious appearing of the Great God. For if he had cited the Whole text, The glo- rious appearing of the Great God^ and our Saviour Jefm Chrift j the Reader would naturally have perceived That to be the true Senfe of it, which I have large- ly explained above, pag/^$. Yet This Text, and Luke i, i6, (which is alfo largely explained dbovt^ pag. 119 0 are theOw/v Two amongthe ambiguous Texts, wherein the word God is mentioned at all. The reft have only the word Lord in them. And therefore he had not fufficient ground
fig. 122 >> to fay. The GOD and Lord mentioned in thefe Texts d^c.
pg* ii7i OBJ. Though it is allowed^ that ' in ■ * the very Name of Father there is fome-
* thing of E?nine7ice^ which is not in That
* of Son 5 and fome kind of Priority m I Him whom we call the Firft, in refpedt
' of
of Some Gonfiderations &c. 2^j
^ of Him whom we term the Second Per- ^ fon *, j^et [they are Both but One and the r^s- S, Same Individual Betngr\ no'/° '
' ANSW. This (i think) is an exprefs Contradiaion : Nor does the Scripture a- ny where fpeak of them as of One and the Same Individual Being. The Texts which mention the Diftinftion of Perfons, are in- numerable : Thtftngle Text, \I and my Fa- ther are One^ has largely been proved a~ bove, pag. 144, 289, 291, not to meau One and the Same Individual Beijig*
OBJ. ^ Though Two Men are indivi- m- 127.
* dually diftincl from one another, BE-
* CAUSE they are Finite Bei?igs^ ^c,
ANSW, Two Men are individually dif- tincl from one another, not because they are finite^ not because they are temporary, nor because of any other Quality whatfo- ever ^ but becaufe they are Two. God is a Being infinite and eternal ; Does it there- fore follow that nothing can be difiinEl from him, becaufe his Immenfity includes all Space^ and his Eternity exhaufts all Dura^ tion} This Arguing, if it was ///?, (as in- deed it is 710 Argument at all,) would lead further than this Learned Author feems to perceive.
OBJ. ^ Neither is there any difference ^?i. 12?. * between us^, concerning the proper Ho- " ' ' r.our
2^8 An Anfrper to the Author
^ nour due from Men to Each of thefe Per- ^ fons clifti.nc%, SO FAR AS WE take
* Scripture for our Guide , becaufe all the ^ Forms o? fpeaking ufed upon this Ac-
* count in Scripture, are tranfcribed into ^ our Publick Devotions ;, as appears plaiu- ' ly from Dr Clarke's CoUeftion of PaiTages ^out of our Liturgy, in the Third? art of ^ his Book, g* I, 2, 5, 4, and 5. The Whole ^ Difpute THEN between us, is, concern- ' ing the metaphyfical Nature Sec
ANSW. Thefe words, if I underftaiid their Meaning, are an exprefs Giving up of the whole Qiieftion. For \i there is no difference between iis^ SO FAR AS WE take Scripture for our Guide -^ then Why (hould any of us indeavour to impofe his Opinion upon another, beyond the limits of this agr^eed Rule > And if all the Forms offpeak- zno; ufed upon this Account in Scripture^ are tranfcribed into our Publick Devotions^ in Thofe ? adages of the Liturgy which I cited in my Third Part, §* j, 2, 3, 4 a?id 5 *, that is, in thofe Pailages which I cited as ex- prefling clearly and explicitly the fame Doc- trine with mine : then Why (liould this learned Author be difpleafed with any Man, for defiring that thefe unexceptionable Ex- freffJons, which he allows to contain All the Forms of fpeaking ufed upon this Account in Scripture, were uniformly adhered to ^ without the Addition of Any Others, inqre
difficult
of Some Confiderations &:c. 2^p
difficult to be underftood, and more eafy to be excepted againfl: ? Putting which cafe, the whole remaining Difpute between us would THEN INDEED be only about Metciphyfical Speculations, and by all means to be wholly laid afide as needlefs and of no importance.
OBf. ' That Father , Son , and Holy p.ig. 129,
* Ghoft, are not three Names only, we all
* agree : But that they fliould be Three dif- ' ferent Beings^ I can no ways comprehend.
ANSVV. This (I think) is an expreis Contradiction : For between Bei?ig and ?wC BeiJig there can be no middle. Whatever is not a Behig^ is no Being , and whatever is no Beings can at moft be only a Name or Venomination^ a Mode^ Quality^ Relation^ or the like ^ things which have no Exiftence but in Our Conceptions, diftind from the Exiftence of the Sttbftance to which they belong. The Schoolmen have endeavoured to find out fomething intermediate between Being and not Beings by means of what they call an internal VroduBion : And the Learned Bp. Bull himfelf is forced finally to haverecourfe to this unintelligible Term of Art, {Seel. 4, cap. 4,) in order to main- tain an Explication of the Unity of God upon fuch a Foot^ as can \'ery hardly be reconciled with his own Difcourfe in the fell of that excellent Section concerning
the
goo An Afifn^er to the Author
the Siihordinatton of the Son. For a Sithor* dination of one Perfon to another, neceiFa- rily fuppofes the two Perfons to be diftincly But now the Notion of internal ProduBion^ can in reality mean nothing elfe but to de- ftroy That DiftinBnefs j and confequently ends in an unavoidable Contradiction. For if internal VroduHion was meant only in oppofition to being extrinftck to God -^ in That Senfe 'tis manifeii that internal Pro- duElion belongs equally to All Beings what- foever , becaufe In Him All thi?igs have their ^ei?tg : But if internal Proditclion means fitch a ProdiiBion^ as gives the thing produ- ced no dijlinH Exiftence of its ozvn , (which is what the Schoolmen aim at 5,) then 'tis iTfianifefl: it fignifies zProduEiion of Nothings that is, No VrodiiEiiofi at all. See a remar- kable paffige of Juftin Martyr upon this Head, cited above, pag. 157, 158. Nei- ther can it here reafonably be alledged, that thefe Expreflions are myfterious : For though, if God himfelf had been pleafed to reveal any thing in fuch Words as we could not diftinclly underftand, it would indeed have been very reafonahle to believe firmly that thofe words had a diftinci Meaning, though we apprehended it not : y^^ when Men invent Words , whofe Signification They themfelves cannot diftinclly explain • it is then, on the other fide, 710 lefs reafo-
nabh
of Some Confiderations &c. 501
nabk to believe, that thefe words have real- ly no (igniiication at all.
OBJ. ' D^ Clarke afTures us, intelligent tag. i^^i
* Bei7ig and Per/on are equivalent Terms , ' though he oftentimes ufes the word. Per-
* fon^ as if they were not.
ANSVV. D"^ Clarke No- where ufes the word, Perfon^ as li intelligent Being and Per- fon were not equivalent Terms. In That expreffion, (which is the ofjlj/ one I can think of, to which this Learned Author may here poffibly allude,) that the Son appeared under the Old Teftament in the Per/on of the Father -^ the meaning evidently is, that he appeared and fpake, as reprefenting th^ Per fon of the Father.
OBJ. ' The Diftinclions o? original andf^^* '3-s* ' derived^ make no manner of Difference in
* our Notion of Eternity.
ANSVV. The Queflion is not about Du- ration^ or any other jnetafhjfic al Qn3.\itiQs^ but about Dominion and Authority , which Alone is That which makes God to be God^ (in the moral or religions fenfe of the Word,) 0 'TroLvrnKfolrcispy Supreme over all. For Da- minion and Duty are Relatives between Him that Governs and them which are governed. Metaphyseal and Abfolute Qualities, may be Objects of Admiration ^ but relative Do- mitnan only, is the Foundation of Duty.
ipaca
go:^ An Anfiper to the Author
Space is Eternal^ but it is not therefore God. If Matter were Infinite and Eternal^ ftill it would not at all be our God. And if any other Being had any other Attributes whatfoever, yet ftill if it had not Do7nmion over Us^ Neither fhould We owe any Duty to It. 'Tis Dominion only , that makes God to be God to Us ^ and therefore the Scripture fo frequently ufes the word lo-ar- roKfoiroop^ Supreme over all^ as equivalent to the Title, God. Now in the Notion of Do?ni7iion^ 'tis very evident that original and derived diXt Diftinclions which make a plain and neceffary Difference. Which is all that I contend for.
ptg. 154* O^y. ' As to any unfcriptural Expreffions *• niade ufe of for the Explication of this ' Dqclrine -^ they may perhaps, in fome Re- ' fpecls, be improper , and they OUGHT, ' as much as n:ay be, to be avoided. But
* if this be all tliat D^ Clarke aimiS at, — to "• reduce the Doftrine of the Trinity within *- the bounds of Scripture, and to hold e- ' \'ery body flrictly to this Rule, (o as not
* to allow them to add any Words or Ex-
* preflions of their own, or to draw any
* remote Confequences from thofe of Scrip- ' ture '^ why does he himfelf lay down fuch
" ' Propofitions , and ufe fuch Terms and ' Forms of fpeaking, as are no where to be
. \ found in the Sacred Writings ? Tis
* plain,
of Some Confiderations &c. 505
* plain, that D"^ Clarke"^ s Scripture-doclrine M- J3^» ' of the Trinity, is not the Doctrine of
' Chrift and his Apoftles, declared 'Necelfary ' in their OTFN WORDS. Dr Clarke
* appears to be Self-condemned for ufing 7//z- pag. 157. ' fcriptural Expreffwns^ at the fame time
' that he condemns introducing the like
* iinfcriptural Expreffions into the fublick ' Forms of Faith and VVorfhip.
. ANSW. In expbhiing of Scripture^ it is impoflible not to ufe imfcriptiiral F^preffi- ons '^ but then thofe unfcriptitral Fxprefjions are to be look'd upon only as the private Opinions of Men, and are oi no further Au- thority than what the weight of Reafon and Jrgimie?it gives them. All that is defirable in this cafe, is, that as few nnfcriptmal Ex- preffions as poflible, be ufed in Creeds or in fuch other Forms, as are fuppofed to have an Authority in determining Mens Opini- ons, diftind from that of 7nere Reafon and Argument. The Inconveniences of which, are very largely and learnedly fet forth by Bp. Taylor^ in his Liberty of Frophecying^ and in his Epiftle before it. God forbid that I (liould ever defire any Explication or Opinion of mine, fo far as the Exprejfions are imfcriptural^ to be lookt upon as Necef fary Doctrine. Nothing is 'Necefary^ but what God has made fo : Nothing is Ne- cejjary^ but what Chrift and his Apoftks^ have taught in their own words. Men ought
to
204 ^^ Anfwer to the Author
to indeavour to explain thefe Doclrines to Themfelves and Others ;, and in fuch Ex- plications there is no hurt in ufing (nay^ Men cannot but ufe) unfcriptural BxpreJJions. But then all fuch Explications ought to be lookt upon only as Humane Opinions^ not as oi Authority to determine Mens Faith ^ but as Affift^.nces to convince their Reafon and Jiidgment. And then all Controverfies would either foon be at an End ;, or (which is as well,) would do no hurt to any fin- cere Chriftian.
ixg. 138. 05 J. ' If thofe Expreffions which the ' x^rians firft prefumed to' introduce, are ' unjuftifiable Phrifes : — ^Why may we not ' as well ufe the \j:ontrary\ pofitive Exprefli-
* ons, as condemn the other, when, if the ' former be falfe, (and if they are not, they
* fhould not be condemned,) the latter muft "" needs be true, as being directly contra- ' diftory to them ?
ANSW. Of two contradidory Propo- fitions, one indeed muft of neceffity be true, and the other falfe. But does it from thence follow, thnt if a Mans affirming one thing be juftly blameable, a^ being a prefwmng to be nvfe above what is written^ and an intruding into things which he hath 7wt Jeen ^ therefore it will prefently be right and commendable to affirm and i?npofe the Contrary } Are there not many cafes iu Na- ture,
^Some Considerations &c. 305
ture, wherein it would be prefumptuous to determine with too much affuranoe, on ei- ther fide of a Queftion > and much more fo, to impofe fuch Determinations upon Others >
OBJ. ' We may as well prefume to M* i32i ^ fay, that Chrift is, by an ineifable Com-
* rhunication of the Dm?ie NaUtre^ God ^ 'as that he i^, by an ineflEible Communi-
* cation of Divine Powers and Dignity^ "God.
ANSW. There is This Difference be- tween the Two Manners of Expreflion ^ that the latter is very clear and inteUigible^ the former is very dark and ambiguous. For if by the Divine Nature be meant Df- vim Powers^ Dominion and Dignity , then they are only Two different manners of exprefling One and the Same Thing. But if by The Divine Nature be meant (as this Learned Author feems to underftind it,) individually God himfelf-^ then the Father's communicating the Divine Nature to the Son, is as much as to fay, his communi- cating HIMSELF Ibis individual Self] to the Sen. Which, ftr from being an ■Explication of Scripture, is on thr con- trary infinitely harder to und=rftand^ than any thing we meet withal in Scrip- ture.
306 An Anfwer to the Author
m* i4<?.. OBJ. * Though we ought not to pre-
* fume to explain, in what manner Chrift
* derived his Being, Power, Knowledge,
* and other Attributes and Authority from
* the Father •, yet we ought to explain ' WHAT BEING he derived 5 whether ' the SAME or another, 5ca
ANSW. That is to fay : We ought to explain whether Chrift derived from the Father, THE FATHERS Being, or his OTFN Being. I could not have imagined that This was a Queftion which needed any Explication. But this Learned Au- thor determines it (pag. 14 1, J that the Son'^s Being is the fame with the Father* s j that is, that the Son's Being is the Father^s Being. W^hich, I acknowledge, is what I cannot underftand.
tag. 141. OBJ. ' That Chrift is the Same God
* with the Father, is a plain Propofition,
* not embarralfed with any Expreflions of
* difficult and dubious Meanhig. And
* we have neither Precept nor Example to
* warrant us in the paying any kind or dc-
* gree of WorQiip or Honour, upon a re-
* ligious Account, to any other Being what-
* foever.
. ANSW. That there is but 0?ie God-^ and Whom the Scriptures exprefsly declare to bs
That
of Some Confiderations &c. 507
That 0?ie GoJ-^ and hoxv Chrijl is neverthe- lefs confiftently ftiled God ^ I have (hown at large in iny Scnpture-VoBrine^ and in the fore-going Papers. Whether this Learn- ed Author's Notion hQ move plain^ and lefs embarra[fed with difficult and dubious Ex^ preffivm^ I leave out Readers to judge. As to the Queftion concerning Worjhip^ I only repeat That Text before-cited. Rev. i, 5, Unto him that loved us and wajhed us from our Sins in his own Bloody and hath made us Kings and Friefts to God and his Father^ to Him be Glory and Domim^ on for ever and ever : And ch. 5, 9, Thou waft Slain^ and haft redeemed us to
God by thy Bloody and haft made us to
our God Kings and Priefts : -Worthy is
the Lamb that was /lain : — - — Bleffing and
Honour be unto him that fitteth upo^
the Throjie^ and unto the Lamb for evei* tund ever : And I ask, whether here be not a kind or degree of Worjhip^ plainly paid to Chrift upon a religious Account ^ which is different from the Worftiip paid to God the Father^ and which cannot poflibly be paid to God the Father^ any more than the Worfliip of God the Father can be paid to the Lamb that was Slain ^
OBJ. ' Hereticks will not be kept with- M^ H^- * in the Rule of Scripture, by a bare Con- U 2 ' demnation
3Q§ An Anfvpcr to the Author
t demnation '^of their Opinions, but will ^ continue to ufe fuch unicriptural Expref- ^fiQ^s as are brought for the Defenfe of Vlheif Errours^ notwithftanding their be- Ving required by thofe in Power to forbear ' .the Ufe of them. If D^ Clarke be of ^Another Opinioh, I wifh, for our Con- I'viftion, thfs Method were Now taken ,
AN5W. I am entirely of Opinion, that whofoever is not willing to forbear the Ufe of any imfcrlptural Exprejjion whatfo- ever, which happens at any Time to give Offenfe to the Church, and is barely for-- hidden by his Superiours \ is a very bad Chriftian. And if This Method only^ had always been tal^n on all fides, without impofing contr-a^y ■unfcriptural Exprejpons • I am fully perfwaded it would have pre- vented numberlefs Controverfies in the Chriftian World, and been of infinite Be- nefit to the Church. As to the words. He- xeticks and Rerejies^ which (fince the firft arid pureft Ages) have been fo perpetually abufed ill an imfcriptnral Senfe, to fignify only Differences of Opmio?i, (though This heamed Author is indeed generally very Candid in forbearing uncharitable Cen- fures ^) I fliall only add That wife Sen- tence of the Learned and Pious Btfijop Taylor^ in the Epifik before his Liberty of
trophefying :
cf Some Confiderations &c. 50^
Prophejying : I am fitre^ Tays he, that' I know "what Drunkennefs d^<r, is -^ but I am riot fure that Such an Opinion is Herefy , Neither would Other Men he fo fure as t^ky think for^ if they did conftder it aright^ and ohferve the infinite Beceptiojis^ and Caufes of Deceptions^ in wife Men ^ and in mofl Things^ and in all doiihtfid Queflions * and that they did not mi flake Confidence for Certainty. His large Difcouffe upon" the fame Subject, in the Second^' S^Bidn of his Liberty of Prophejying, is alfo well worth the perufal of every ferious and fober- minded Man.
And now, having given a diftinft anij (I hope) fatisfadory Anfwer to all the Ob- jections that have hitherto been urged againft me : I take leave upon this occafion to declare once for all, that as I have upon mature and long Confideration, and with theutmofl Sincerity, drawn up my Thoughts upon This Subjeft, and laid them before the Publick, with my Rd!afons for them, as clearly as I am. able ;, fo I willingly fub- mit what I have v/ritten, to the judgment of every honefl: and impartial Reader, whp is capable of examining things of this N^- U 3 tare.
3 1 0 An Anfrper to the Author
ture. To whom, if what I have offered has Weight and Truth on its fide, it wilj, I make no doubt, approve itfelf : If it has not, I am content it (hould find no better Reception than it deferves. I defire not, to ifnpofe my Opinion upon any M^n ^ but only to prevail with Men to fluJy the Scripture^ and to make It their only Rule in matters of Revelation ; and that inquifi- tive Perfons would be pleafed to Compare what has been or Jhall be ohjeBed againffc me, with what I have faid either in Anfmr to^ or in order to obviate^ fuch Objections. It would be endlefs for me to repeat the fame things again and again, as often as any one (hall pleafe to tell the World he differs from me, without offering any Ni?ti> Arguments for fuch his Opinion. When- ever either my own further Searches, or the learned Enquiries of Others, convince me that I am miftaken in my prefent No- tions, I fhall think my felf obliged to own it to the World. In the mean time I hope I may without Offenfe defire, that if I am 5i/df^?f hereafter, it may be interpreted as a Declaration, that I fee no reafon to change imy Sentiments, I have no Concern, but for Truth \ and from whatever hand it comes, (hall readily receive it : But what is not Truth, or does not to me appear fo, J cannot embrace. And This I fliall for
the
of Some Confiderations &c, gn
the future think I fufficiently declare, by giving no Anfwer to any thing that fhall be writ j which, upon a careful Examina- tion, I cannot find to contain Arguments either in themfelves really weighty^ or a,t Icaft 7iot elearly anfwered already^
ERRATA-
Page. Line. 125, 91. Greatnefs 141, 17, poflibly 219, 5, unanfwcrabic 250, 13. icfelf 270, I, cited 5) doc§
APVER^
ADVERTISEMENZ
THE Third Volume of tht MEMOIRS OF LU TERATVRE for the Year 17135 containing aa Account of the Prejent SPate of Leaymng. both at Home and Abroad, is nowcompleat with an Index to it.
The Memoirs for Jcmnary^ febvidary^ and March, of this prefenr Year -'714 ; contain, befides an Account of fome Booke pubiifhed in England^ and conlcjquentlv better known than foreign Books : I. An Account of Dr y'ltrhgii Com- mentary upon Idiah. II. An Account of fome DiiTerrations upon feveraj Subjefls relating to Rehgion and Philology? by Mr Hevpet^ heretofore Bifhop of Auranches. III. A Letter written by a PrcfelTor in the Univerfity of Alcala, concern- ing a Method of Reading the Hsbr^w Tongue without. Points. IV. An Account of Mr Bafnage's Critical Remarks upon the Republick ot the Hebrews. V. An Account of Jerome of Prague's Trial. VI. An Account of a Treatife of the Gout, containing an eafy and. infallible Method of curing it, tried by the /luthor himfelf, who was affli^hd with that Difeafe. VII. An Account of fome other toreign Books, which are omitted here for Brevity-fake. VIII. Several Pieces of News relating to Learning,
This Jaft Article contains, the Projeih of three fcveral Works, to be publifhed by Mr Chamberlaine, Mr Di/hey, and 'another Engli/h Gentleman. 2. A Ihort Account of the following Books. Philologia Biblica. Obfervationes Sa- cra? ad Evaiigelium Matthxi, by Mr Olearius, A New Edi- tion ot Kepler's Works. Father Calmefs Literal Commen- tary ufo^. the Proverbs, Eccleftaftes, the S^ng ef Songs^ and the V/'fdom of Solomon. De Lingux Latinx in Germania per ampijus XVII facula facis Commentarii. De Hypo- crifi Gentilium circa cultum Deorum Schediafma Litera- rium. 3. Several other new Things of the fame Na- ture.
Thefe Mc^Aoirs, printed for the Author, may be had of the Bookfeliers of london and Wejiminflery'md at the News-Shops at Temple-Bar and ChAring-Crofs.
BOOKS
BOOKS Written by the Reverend Dr Clarke • And Printed for James Knapton^ at the Crown in St Paitl*s Church- Yard.
ABifcourfe concerning the Bewg and Attributes «f God, the Oh ligations of Natural Religion^ and the Truth and Certainty of the Chriftian Revelation^ In Anfwer to Mr. Hobbs^ Spinoza, the Author of the Oracles of Reafon, and other Dcniersof Natural and Revealed Religion. Being fixreen Sermons preach'd at the Cathedral-Church of St. Paul, m the Years 1704, and 1705. at the Lefture founded by the Honourable Robert Boyle Efq^ pr, 6 s,
A Paraphrafe on the Four Evangeiifts. Wherein^ for the clearer Underftanding the Sacred Hiflory, the whole Text and Paraphrafe are printed in iepa- rate Columns over-againfl each other. Together with critical Notes on the more dilficHlt Pafiages. Very ufetul for Families. In two Volumes, Svo. The Second Edition, pr. 12 s.
Three Praftical EfTays on Baptifm, Confirmation, and Repentance : Containing full Inftruftions for a holy Life, with earned Exhortations, efpecially to youRg Perfons, drawn from the Confideration of tlie Severity of the Difcipline of the Primitive Church; The third Edition. This new Edition makes ii Sheets in Twelves, on good Paper, and a fair Letter. pr. IS. and for the Encouragement of the Charitable, 112 for 5 /.bound.
A Letter to Mr, Dodwell 5 Wherein all the Argu- ments in his Epiftolary Difconrfe againft the Immorta- lity of the Soul, are particularly anfwered, and the Judgment of the Fathers concerning that matter truly reprefented. Together with Four Letters in Anfwer ISO the Author of Remarks on the Letter to Mr Vodwel. To which is added, Some Reflexions on that Part of a Book called Amyjitor, or, The Defence of Milton's Life, which relates to the Wri- tings of the Primittive Fathers, and the Canon of ; the New Teftament. pr. $ s,
' • Ik
BOOKS Printed for J. KnapUn:
The great Puty of mlverfal Zoive and Charity, A Sermon preached before the Qjieea, at St, James'%
A Sermon prcach'd tt the Lady Cod1^e*i Funeral,
A Sermon prcach'd bcforfs the Houfc of Commons^
A Sermon preach'd bcftre Th« Queen on tht 8th of March, 1709-10. pr. 2^.
A Sermon preached at St. ytfw«*s Church on the ThankfgWiDg Day, Nov. 7ch, 1710. pr. ^d.
The Government o/Paftlon. A Sermon preach'^ before the <^ueen at St James't Chapel, pr. 3 d,
Jacobi .Rohaulti Phyfica. Latinc vertit, recenfuit, 6: ub<^rioribus jam Annotationibus ex illuftriffimi JUact Neutoni Philofophia maximam partem hauftis, ampHficavit fifc ornavit S. Clarice, Accedunt ctiam in hac tcrtia Editione, novae aliquot Tabula! xri incifse ; & Annotationes mulcum funt auftx, 8^0. Price 8 s.
If, Seutm Optice. Latinc reddidit S. Clarke, S, T. P.
' The Scripture-Vo^rlne of the Trinity. In Three Parts! Wherein all the Texts in the New Teftamenc relating to that Doftrine, and the principal PalTages in the Liturgy of the Church of England,zxc collcfted, compared, and explain'd. pr ^i".
A Letter to the Reverend Dr Wells, Reftor of Cotes^ . hack in Lekeflerffsijre. In Anfwcr to his Remarks, irc^ Price I J.
The Rights of the Clergy of the Chriftian Church : Or, A Difcourfe fhcwing, that God has given and appropriated to the Clergy, Authority to Ordain, Baptize, preach, prefide in Church- Prayer, and Con- fecratethe Lord's Supper. Wherein alfo the pre- tended Divine Right of th« Layety to Eleft, either the Perfons to be Ordained, or their own particular Paftors, is Examined and Difproyed. By Thomas Bennett M. A. R^itor of St. James % in Colchefier. pr. $s.
A Paraphrafe and Annotations on the Book of Common-Prayer, Svo. pr. 4/.
A Letter to Mr. Benjamin Rohinfony on his Review (^Liturgies and their Impofition. pr. 2 s. 6d,
A Scoond LcKcr to Mr. KMtn, pr. 1 s.
BOOKS
BOOKS Written by the Reverend Mr. Hoadly ^ and Printed for James Kvftcm^ at the Crown in Sr. Pauls Church- Yard.
THE Meafures of Submtjjion to the Civil Magi- ftracc confider'd. In a Defenfe of the Doftrine deliver'd in a Sermon preach'd before the Right Ho- pourable the Lord-Mayor. Aldermen, ar.d Citizen^ ol London, Sept. 2^. 170$. The Fourth Edition. In which are added, x. An AccejJion'Samon, preached Mafb 8. 1704-5. 2. A Sermon concerning the *L'7iWp'ne/> of Abfolhte Monarchy ^ &c. g. A Sermon concerning St, Frfft/'s Behdxmr cowards the Civil Magiftratc:
The Original and Inflicution of Ctvil Government Difcufs'd ; v'tT^, I. An Exam'inafion of the PatriarcbiU Scheme of Government, 11. A Defenfe of Mr • Hool^er^s Judgment^ &c. againfl: the Obje^ions of feveral late Writers, To which is added, A Large Anfwer to Dr, F. Atterbur/s Charge of Rebellion : In which the Subfiance of his late Latin Sermon is produced, and fully examined. The Second Edition, pr. 5V.
Several Difcourfcs concerning the Terms of Ac- ceptance with God. In which, i. The Terms them- felves are diftinftly laid down ^ as they are propofed to Chriflians in the New Teftamenc. And, 2. Several falfe Notions oi the Conditions of Salvation are con- fidered, particularly of being faved by Faith. Of trufting to external performances. Of the power of Charity to cover Sins. Of relying upon the Merits of Chrift. Of Man's Weaknefs, and Gcd's Grace. 0£ Repentance. Of the Example of the Thief upon the Crofs. Of trufling to a Death- bed Sorrow. Of the Para'blc of the Labourers in the Vineyard. Of depend- ing upon Amendment in Time to come. pr. $ /.
The Reafonablenefs ct Conformity to the Church of England. In two Parts. With the Defenfe of it ^ and the Perfuajive to Lay Conformity, The Third Edition. To which is added. The brief Defenfe of Epiffopal Ordination, Together with the Reply to the Introdu^ion to the Second Fart \ and a Poftfcript rela- ting to the Third Part^ of Mr. Calamfs Defenfe of Moderate NQti-conformityo pr. 6s<,
AN |
INDEX |
0 F T H E |
TEXTS |
Explained in This BOOK. |
Voge Matt". VI, 9. 114 |
XII, 31. 189 XIX, 17. 59, 89 XXVIII, 19. 204 |
Mark XII, 29. 48 XII, 52. 51 XIII, 52. 171 |
Luke
An Index of the Texts, <tfc.
Luke I^ i6. If* |
119 |
IV, i8. |
181 |
John I, 1. |
^7, 125 |
I, ?. |
13* |
m, 5- |
i85 |
III, 6. |
187 |
V, i8. ^ |
I3» |
, viir, 58. ■^, |
i4r |
X, 30. |
55, 144 |
X, 33- |
136, 144 |
XJI, 41. |
155 |
XIV, 9; |
198 |
;! 28. |
17s |
XVII, 3. |
55 |
XX, 28. |
67. |
AGs V •, 3, 4^ |
P |
VII i 30, 31, 32' |
161 |
XX, 28. |
127 |
XXVIII i 25, 26, 27. |
180 |
Rom. IX, 5. |
68, 86 |
^ XI, 36. XIVj 9, 10, II, 12. |
11 \66 |
Cor.
An Index of the Texts
»Cor. Villi 4. 5, 6. XUI, 12. |
68, 94 |
2 Cot. Ill ; 17, i8. |
192 |
Gal. Ill, a8. IV, 8. |
43,44 76 |
E^h. IV, 6.
93
Phil. !Ti 6, 7. 11,9.
140, 17? 232, 233
CoL I, 15.
175
t Tim. J, I. |
84,85 |
II, 5. |
115 |
Ill ,t6. |
86 |
Tit,
explained in this Book.
Tit. ir, 13. Ill i 4, 6.
83, 96
84, 85
I Their. Illi 13, 13.
303
« Their, in, 5.
ao4
Heb. Ij 8, 9.
I" i 3, 4, 5, ^
xm, 8.
Si 165
3 Pet. I, 1. n, r.
83 no
I John V, 7,
I John Vj 20, all
306 96
jude
An Index of tlie Tcxt$^ &*€.
jRide4.
109
Rev. r, 5*
XXII, 9.
118 "7
t^i
FINIS,
LETTER
T O T H E
Reverend D' WELLS,
ReSor of Cotesbach in Leic€jlerJhJr€f^^:[Qfp^ In ANSWER to his ( . ^ I /:
REMARKS,
^?^.^^4LS^*
By SAMVEL CLARKE^ D. D.
Redor of St Jameses Weflmitijier^ and Chaplain in Ordinary to Her Majefty.
L 0 ISI D 0 N
Printed for James Knapton^ at the Crown in St PauVs Church- Yard. 1714.
Price One Shilling.
(3)
LETTER
T O T H E
RtvcYcndD' WELLS, &c.
S I R,
Y Book, entitled The Scrip- ture-DoBrine of the Trinity^ had been publiflied above a Year and half, and nothing came out -^ againfl: it but Pamphlets fet forth by fuch Tlnintelligibk Writers, as I thought might well be left to the conmwn Seyife even of the meaneft Readers to judge of, with- out my interpofing any further, The Name and Charader which D^' Wells had acquired in the World, by his Writings in fome other Controverfics, and by his Books re- lating to other parts of Learning -, raifed in me an Expectation of fomething more confiderable irom Hhn^ and fomething
^ For, ^s to the Books publifned not againfl my Argu- mctitf but againft J/? j I refer to my Introduftion, pag. 24 and 1$.
A 2 which
C4)
which might well deferve more particular Notice. Upon which Account, though your Remarks, when they came out, did not anfwer the Opinion I had conceived of your Abilities, yet I thought fit to fend you the following Obfervations upon them.
fag. I. You begin with this Qiieftion : Upon
reading thefe Words of the DoBo)\ [_viz. that he " had colleBed ALL the Texts that re- *' late to the DoBrhie of t}pe Trinity " -^ Plight not one have Reajonahly expeBed^ that the D^ had colleBed the Texts of the OLD as well as Vew Tejlament^ relating to the faid DoBrine .<? For is not the OLD Tefta- ment a Part of Scripture^ as well as the Isew ? pag. 2. Again ;, The D" ought at lea ft to have given fome fatisfaBory Keafon^ why he took not the like Notice of the Texts of the Old tAg' 3. Te ft anient as of the 'New. Agiin *, It re- viams vicumhent upon hiin^ to give the Pub- lick a fatisfaBory Reafon^ why he did ?iot colleB All the Texts of the Old Teftarnent, ' as well as of the New^ that relate to the Trinity. Now I did imagine, Sir, when I publifhed my Book, you might eafily have gueifed what my Reafon was, why I alleged no Texts out of the Old Teftament. But, fince I perceive you cannot difcover it, I will for once endeavour to explain it to you. My Reafon was, becaufe, though there are indeed in the Old Te (lament in- numerable
C5) .
numerable Texts, which contain Prophecies concerning the Ferfon and CharaBer^ the Office^ Vower and Dominion of Chrift the MeJJiah ^ yet there is No Text m the Old Teftament, wherein the Doctrine of the Triiiity is revealed. Ton yonrfelf have al- leged none ; Nor have I feen any alleged by Others^ from whence any Argument can be drawn at all concluiive. If you think the Word, :zD'nVs. implies a Plurali- ty of Perfons ^ the contrary is evident from many Paflages, wherein you muft of neceflity allow it can fignify but One. Thus, Pfal. 45 5 6, 7, Thy Throne^ 0 GoJy (^C3»r'''7K.^ ^ for ever and ever ^ — ■ — • Thou hafl loved Righteotffnefs :> Therefore GOD^ lc=3m^^r\ even THT GOD, hath anointed thee, oCc. Certainly, neitlier in Solofnon, to whom the Jews applied the Word [cD^-^^?^] in the firft Part of this Paffige 5 neither in the Son of God^ to whom the Apoftle applies it ;, neither in God the Father, to whom it is applied in the fecond Part , can there be faid to be a Plurality of Perfons. x'^nd as to thofe Paf- fages, wherein Chrift is reprefented as ap- pearing to the Patriarchs, h uo^^» 05«, in the For7n of God, in the Isa^ne and Authority^ ' and with the P^n^^r and Glory of his Father :, being ftiied, at the fame time, both God and \he Angel of GOD -^ I have already confidered and explained them in my
Scripture-
CO
ScripUire-BoSrhie^ pag. 102, 105, I14,
and 369«
However ^ becqufe you could not (it feenis) guefs at This Reafon of my not ci- ting a number of Texts out of the Old Teftament, you kindly fug^^eft for me Ano- ^. 5. ther Reafon -^ vi^. that I underftood not the Original Revelation^ or Hebrew and Chaldee languages wherein the Old Tefta?ne?it was Orrginally written, Suppofe now, Sir, 1 fliould infinuate to my Readers, becaufe Ton have offered no Objedlons againft my Ex- pofition of the feveral Texts in the Vew. Teflajnent^ that therefore Ton underfland not the Original Revelation^ or the Greek Lang7iage wherein the New Teftament was Griginally written-^ Would you Think, that, in 'fuch an Infinuation, I acted the part of a reafonable Man and a Scholar > And is It not in T'oiirfelf^L Sign of great Want of Arguments relating to the Merits of the Caufe, when you are forced to defcend to fo mem a Suggeftion, (concerning One who has not the Honour to be perfonally known to you,) as that I undertook to col- lect aU the Texts concerning a particular Subjeft out of the Whole Scripture, with- out fo much as underflanding the Lan- guaG;:s wherein more thin One Half of the- Scripture Wr-s written }. What degree of knowledge I have in thofe Languages, h
would
(7)
would no more become Me to boaft in thfe place ^ than it became Ton to Tugged, (with- out knowing any thing of the Matter,) that I had No knowledge in them. Had you alleged any particiilar Texts^ as contra- dicting (in the True Rendring of the He- brew') any thing that I had alierted ;, you might have expected I Ihould have taken particular Notice of fuch Texts. But to a gejieral Suggeftion, that there are in the Old Teftament many Paflages againft me j I can only make a general Reply, that upon the carefulleft Search I find no fuch Paf- fages there.
But the Reafon (it feems) why you al- leged no particular Texts, was,becaufe there had already come forth a Book^ wider the Preface^ fame Title you had defigned for your Trea-'^^^- ^' fife '^ [^viz. The True Scriptitre-DoBrme of Preface^ the Trmity ,"] which though but a fart op''-^' '• what vpas defgned^ yet carries in it Alone a SUFFICIEh't ANSWER to D> ClarkeV Book: Upon the Sight v^hereofyon rejoiced^ as on other Accounts^ fo particularly becaufe you tpere hereby excufed from giving your- felf any Further Trouble^ a^ to what was contained in the Body of D^ Clarke' j- Book. 1 profefs, Sir, when 1 firfl: read this Paffage of yours, I could hardly perfwade myfelf but that I had fome way or other miftaken your meaning, and that it was impoffible
( s )
D"^ TFells fhould commend That Book. But fo it is : The Book which D^" Wells here recommends fo ferioufly, and with a Pro- pag. 66. feffion that he is Not in the leaft AJhained to ■ Ozvn ViibUckly his Name *, is a Book written by fome Rofecruciaji Author, turning all Religion (though poflibly not fo intended by the Author himfelf,) into manif^ft Ri- dicule. I had thought it a fliame to take any Notice of fo ftrange a Writer, and was willing to have p ifled him by in S'lence : But fince fo learned a Man as D" Wells ^ has in earnc^ft, (if indeed it be in earneft,) re- commended the Book as a SUFFICIENT ANSWER to D ClarkeV Book • and fince thofe who never faw the Book, may poflibly be induced, upon D^ Wells's Authority, to think there may be fome Argument in it^ The Reader will pardon me if I give him a (hort Specimen, what Kind of a Writer it is, that he finds thus recommended to him.
fag. 54. " Gen. 14^ 19, 20. Blfed be Ahram of the
" tnofl High G^d, poffejfoiir of Heaven and " Earth : And Bleffed be the mafl high God.
" THUS the Church of England 5 0 Holi " Trinity, have mercy vpon us.
pag. 55. " Gen. 21, 7^- Abraham called there en
" the Name of the Lord, the everlaftivg God.
*' Hebrew
Cp)
« Hebrew is, c=D«?n «->P. I take it tofigni- « fy preached in the Nam;, But if the lear- " ned will rather have i^-^O to fignify, cal " % wpow, that is, pr^'m^ to ; T H E N it will *' follow, that they worlhipped the Trimty ^' in the Name of the Medwtour, OR the *^ Father in the Name of the Son.
" His being the Word or Son of God, does pai. 52, " not take away from his being THAT " very God, whofe Word or Son he is.
.c Qen.4, 9. — An Oferhtg wtto the Lord.F^' ^9-
" Hcb, Jehovah. „ .^^,,o i.
" Note-, The Holy Ghoft SEEMS to have " been adored HERE, as One with the Fa- " th^r and the Son.
« Gen. 24, 26. Bomed his Head, and wor-m. 16. " llnpved the'ho^d, and faid -, Blfd be the " Lord God of my Maflev Abvaham,
" Note-, This SEEMS to hai/e been an *' Ad o^ W©r(hip to the whole Trmty, by the « Mediation of the Son. FOR it ^eems ^^ " have been the.S;;fn>, that firlt moved Abra- - ham to leave his Country ^ And it was the
" Son who appeared to him ^ And a feems
« to have ben the F^ti.r who is faid to have « Sworn to him. Now SINCE Abraham " was iufiified by Faith in Chnft and '' SINCE This Faith teaches us to addrds " the Deity as Three in One by the Media- " tour ., it cannot b.e thought unreasonable to :^ aff-rt This.
( 'o)
fag. 7^ cc ^^-^ ^^^g rejeded, becaufe he had not
" the Faith which made Jbel accepted.
*' It is certain he did not offer to the Trhiity : *' For had he believed Three Perfons, he " MUST alfo have believed that the Son " would one day become Man, and atone for " his Sins 5 AND have been juftified by *' That Faith, as well as Jbel
fag. 8i. " Gen. 28, 21. The 'Loxi JI)aU be my G^i-
" The Trinity in Unity, by the Mediati- '' on of the Son.
tag. 8§. " R^^- 1 5 S- Which is and which was avd
" tphich is to come. The Greek is, lav i^h h
" ^ 0 «fXo/£«y©-9 Which may be thusrendred,
" lUe Ens tarn qui fiiit qu^m qui erit^ The Is-
. " ing both which was and which will be.
fag, 8p. « Job. 17., 18, T9. As thou haji Sent me
" htto the World, even fo for their Sakes
" / fanctify myfelf.
" That is-, SEND myfelf.
pag, p8 & "I would here propofe to the Learned,
99* « whether we may nor take the words, HO L t
" FJTHER^ in the Prayer of our Saviour,
*' Joh. 17, II, to be fpnken to the Deity in
" the Perfon of the HOLT GHOST, as
** well as of the FAT HE R, The words
" feem capable of This Paraphrafe i OGOD,
" keep
(■■)
« keep thou in thine own Name or Vomr I ^' « THE PERSON OF THE HOLT " GHOST, thofe whom Thou in the P E R- ^' SON OF THE FATHER, h4 gi- « ven Me the S 0 N of Thee Q FAT HE R, « andofTheeO HOLT SPIRIT.
" if we render with the 70 and vulgar M- >o^' *' Verfion, Pf. 24, 7, 0 ye Princes, lijt vp your " Gates, (or Portcullices which were drawn « up 0 One may rationally conclude, that " during our LORD's continuance upon "-' Earth, the Celeftial Government was in « Commifwn, and managed by Angels ^ who « were THUS taught to know his PerGm " again, as being the fame Jehovah who laid " down That Shecinah, and now is m our " Nature.
" Job I 2, 12. IFith the Antient, is Ififdont -^fag, 13$^ << [avd in levgth of days, Underpvdivg.']
'^ Heb. With the A NT IE NTS is riS- ^^ DOM: That is, With the Father and Son, *' is the Holy Spirit. Note here, the Unity of '' the Nature of the Three Perfons, promtg the *' Exigence of the Son to be without dividing the *' Nature as calling both the Father and Son by *' thefanie Name A N T I E N T S.
" Job ?! •, T, 2. Jf^hy thenjfmuld I look up- pai^ 13^ «* on a Maid ?
'' For what portion of God is there, Sec.
" \ render, as in the Heb Afd what pould " J co7iJider in the Virgiv, even what is the Part ~ B 2 " of
fag. 144.
C ^^ )
'' of God Ofc. It is DIFFICULT to put any '' other conftrudion on the Words than This, " which Ihew Job's humble Faith^ without cu- " rious fearching into the myfteriouslncarna- " tion of God the Son, who was the Almigh- " ty, born of a Virgin, by the Power of the " Higheft, that is, the Holy Ghoft.
" Job 1 2, 1 2. THth the Attze}its is Wifdom. " Heb. IN the Antievts is TH/dom ; Thar is, *' /;/ the Fjther and the Son is the Holy Ghoft. " Note-, The Originating of the Spirit of *• God, is here declared to be a diftindion in " Perfon, but not a divifion in Nature. He " is faid to be, IN the Jntitnts^ not OUT ''OF the Antients ^ that is, One with them " in Nature.
t-xg. T49. " Job I, 24. TJje Name of the L,ord.
• . " Heb. The Name Jchovjh : That is, the " Son of God, in whom rhe Trinity is wor- " (hipped,and CON SEQ_UENTL Y the '' Notice thereof is unplyed in This Expref- " fion.
m.
6(
Job II, 7. Canft thou ly fearching find out
God.
" The Oeconomy of our Salvation (as it " appears from other places) was known at '' this Time 5 And THEN we may fately '' take the Title, GOD, in This place, for '; ihe Holy Trinity.
_'^ PafTages
( '3)
" PafTages in Job, In which is declared ;>'^^. x$o^ *'• what Worfliip was in His days paid to the " Holy Trimty, r -,
" Job I, 21. Blpd he the ^a7ns of the ^' L O R D. ^
" II, 13. Stretch out thine Hands towards
« H 1 M.
"15, 3' Callethvpojt GOD.
" 15, 20. Mine Eye pouretb out Tears to
'^ " 22, 2:j. Lift up thy Face to GOD.
" 33'. 29. ^^ thefe tbiiigs worketh GOD "OFTENTIMES. Heh, is, God in " three Proceedings, z;;, with^ or by the {Eighty
One,
<c
" Thfe Penitent Believer is pardoned hym- 180. « God the Father as of RIGHT, though " This Right is obtained by the Free Grace of " ^ GoJ t^^ iS'ow. So that, though we are « FREELT pardoned, yet this Pardon to " the Penitent is DUE.
^ It leems then, in this Author's Syftem of Divinity, there' is no Free Grace at all, of God the Father.
And Now, is not This indeed a Worthy ^ Anfwerer^ as D^ Wells ftiles him, pag. id of his Freface <? And was it not very reafona- bly to be expecled, that I fliould have writ- ten a Book in Reply to fo Worthy an Au- thor >
( H )
thor> Indeed, I fiiould Now have been very much afhamed to have tranfcribed fucK foohjij (not to fay profane) Stuff, had not fo confiderable a Manias Dr TVells has been Tref, pag. thou<5ht to be, foberly affirmed that it car- 2. rks in it Alone a SUFFICIENT ANSPFER
to D*' ClarkeV Book : Upon the Sight where- of ht rejoiced^ as on Other Accoitnts^ fo par^ ticularly becaife he was hereby exmfedfroni giving himfelf any further Trouble^ as to what was contained in the Body of D^ Clarke'j" Book
What you lay down, pag. 6 and 7, con- cerning the Ufe of Reafon in reading the Scriptures, is very True^ but proves no- thing againft Ale. For, the Inference you draw, viZ'6 that Reafon directs Men to ufe the.Afliftance of the Primitive Fathers in underfl ending the Scripture, is what I rea-^ dily allow ; and I add, that it directs them iikewife, according to the beft of their Ca- pacities, to ufe the Affiftance of Modern Commentators, and other Learned Divines. But if you mean that the Pritnitive Fa- thers have any Authority to determine Mens Judgment concerning the Senfe of Scrip- ture, any further than the Reafons they al- lege, convince Men that fuch or fuch an Interpretation is indeed the True Meaning of the Text ^ this I can by no means affent to. And, fuppofing their Authority to be
what
( 15 )
what you /pleafe -^ yet that their Jitdgment is againfl Me in the prefent Controverfy, as you moft unreafonably Suppofe without any Proof throughout your whole Book, and as an unlearned Reader muft needs, by your frequent and pofitive repeating of it, be led to imagine-, this (though you inuft take notice it is no part of the Queftion,) is what I abfolutely deny. Concerning which matter, I fhall h^ve occafion prefently to fpeak more particularly.
You affirm, that a Sitpematural Truth P^i- 9- may not he fo clearly Revealed in Scripture as to leave no room for doubting What is • the trite Senfe of Scripture concer?iing it • Namely^ becaufe Divine Providence may have provided flich external Helps^ as Reafon (if duly attended to^ and its Dictates not over-^ ruled by Prejudice or the hke^J will tell us are Proper and Sujficient to determine the True Senfe of Scripture in the point contro- verted. And, (pag. 1 5, J that the Scrip- ture is 7iot in itfelffo clear as to the Docirine of the Trinity^ but to require the TahnQ- in of external Helps ^ to decide the True Senfe, of it.
That the Be ft Afflftances (p.qg, 15) are, to be procured from thofe J?itient Writers that lived in the Fir ft Ages of Chriftiamty^ that is^ before or at the Council of Fice : That the Teftimonies of the Ancient Writers
C i^)
(pa2;- 1 8) ^luft m reafon be acknowledged to he the Be ft PROOFS^ that Texts are really Proofs of what they are brought to prove ', And whofoever refufes to admit of the Teftmonies of the Antient Writers^ as the Be ft Proofs in deciding the True Senfe of Scripture -^ does in effeB take upon himfelf alone to decide the fame by a bare Tefte Meipfo : That there is a rational Expedient (pag. 2i) preferved by the good Providence of God^ 7iamely by Referring the Caufe to be Decided by the Teftimony of the Primitive Churchy that is^ by the Concurrejit Teftimony of thofe Antient Writers that lived in the Three fir ft Ages of Chriftianity : That a Mans Be ft Under ft and'ing (pag. 25) will and tnuft in this cafe Always necejjitate him to believe That to be the DoBrine of Chrift^ which he finds confirmed by the '-joint Tefti- monial Aiuhority of the Antient Writers of the Pri?nitive Church : That the zvant-^f Recourfe being had by Divines (pag. 58) r<? the faid Antient Writers^ and of juft Defe- rence to their Teftimonies^ is a thing very de- ftruBive of Religion, and the Caufe of al mo ft all divifions among Chriftians : And that to aB (pag. 65) without having due regard ta the Primitive Writers^ is no other than for Men to lean to their Own Under ft anding.
That the Antient Writers (pag. \d^)) are. of the greateft Authority -^ That Men are obliged^ at their iit?noft Peril^ to have ra-
cQurfe
( '7)
ceitrfe tv the Tefthnojiies of the forefuid An- tie?it TFrhers^ as <9/'r/?^ Greateft Authority for deciding the True Senfe of Scripture ^ And that if the Antient Writers (pag* 45) he really of No iVuthority, ivhat need iJr Clarke trouble himfelf in the leafi, whether they were^ or were nct^ of his Ofinioii ^
Now to all This, I anfwer :
I. Were the Scripture-Revelation of any particular Doftrine, like the Heathen pre- tended Oracles of old, only Qjie fngle ob^ [cure Sentence •, it might indeed with fome Colour of Reafon have been alleged, that for the right underftanding of it, it were necelTary to depend on Other following Authorities. But the cale of the Scripture- Revelation, is far otherwife. Our Saviours own Difcourfes are here fet down at large ^ in no lefs than Four different Gofpels : The' Doctrine his Difciples preached afterwards, is recorded difti/iBly more than once, in the ABs of the Apo files : x'Vnd the Controverfies that arofe in their own times, gave occafion further for very targe and particular Ex- plications of that whole Doctrine, hi their feveral Epiftles. There are contained in the New Teftunent twenty-feven^ feveral Books^ written at different Times and in differe?it Places by eight feveral infpired Au- thors : And the Texts of each Author may, in cafe of difficulty, be compared with other Texts of the fame Author in other parts of
C the
( t8 )
thtfame Book^ and with other Texts of the fame Author in differejit Booh written up- on other occafions, and moreover with the Texts of other znfpired Aitthors writing Hke- wife upon the fame Subjecl:. And can it enter into the Heart of any reafonable Man to imagine, that after all this, any doclrine of importance fhouid not in fuch a revela- tion, in fuch large^ fuch explicit^ fuch re- pelted inftructions, be made known ^s fully ^ as clearly and diflhiBly^ as the Revealer of it intended it fliould be known at all ? The Writings of any uninfpired Author are ufual- ly well enough unclcrftood, by impartial Perfons comparing one place of his Writings with another, and confidering without pre- judice wh-.t is the Defign of the Author in the refult of the whole : And is the Scrip- tfpie alone fuch a Book, as, in dodrines of great importance^ and mentioned in almoft every Vage of the Book, neverthelefs by the moft diligent Study and by the moft care- ful comparing of the feveral Texts one with another, and interpreting the figura- tive exprefiions by the plain ones, cannot at laft be underftood without fome l^ew Ait- thoritative Explication .<? For inftance : as to the doclrine of the Trinity in particular , Are there in the New Ttfhnient more than "^oo feveral Texts ^ from whence the True underftanding o/ that doclrine is to be fetched , and fhall not a reafonable and un- prejudiced
( ip )
prejudiced Man, by carefully comparing to- gether thofe 500 Texts, be inabled to un- derftand fo much of that doclrine, as was intended to be revealed to him in That Book ? That is ^ fliall he not underftmdyi ftntch of the dodrine, as properly concerns Religion -^ though he underftand not the metaphyfical or philofophical part^ which was never intended to be revealed ? Unde- niably, if in fuch a Cafe the Scripture could not be fufRciently underftood by fuch dili- gent Study and Attention, (as you con- ftantly fuppofe it can not • ) it would ne- ceflarily follow from This opinion of yours, that the Scripture, (being, even in matters of great importance, more difficult to be . underftood than any other Book in the World,) ought by all means to be taken from the people, and the more clear and certain Interpretations put in its place : Which is the very Ellence oi?opery. Yes ^ but (you will fay) there was a Good Reafon why a Supernatural Truth might be re- vealed but obfcurely in gcripture ^ viz. hecaiife Divine Providence may have provided ^^^l* ?• fuch EXTERNAL HELPS, as Re a f on (if duly attended to^ and its Di Sates not over-ruled by Prejudice or the like J will tell us are Proper and Sufficient to Determine the True Senfe of Scripture in the point contro- verted ^ and becaufe there is a rationaU^i- 21. EJPEDIENT preferved by the good C 2 ' Vrovi-
Frovuience of God^ namely hy REFER- RING the Canfe to be Decided hy the Tefti- mojiy of the primitive Church. And is not This a fine Circlfe -^ to fuppofe Providence has in Scripture given us a Revelation of a particular Dodrine iii more than 500 Texts ^ only in order to Refer the Caufe to be de- cided "by certain follov/ing uninCpired Wri- ters > to fuppofe thit God Qiould appoint Infallible Writers, merely to Refer a Caufe to be decided by Fallible ones? that is, that the Scripture (hould be written, not to be Appealed to^ but to be appealed from ^ in mat- ters of Controverfy ? Is not the Scripture, in This way of arguing, a fine Rule of Faith 5 and the Proteftaiit Religion built upon a noble Foundation ? Suppofe a Ra- pi ft ihould affirm, (as Thofe of Th^.t Com- munion have often done,) that Trajifiib- ftanttatioji^ and the obligation of paying Mediatorial JVorJbip to the Blefjed Virgin and to Saints and Angel s\ is very obfcure in Scripture, on Purpofe that the Caufe might be Referred to he decided hy the Primitive Fathers of the Church ^ Mull a Proteftant firft be obliged to perufe the Writings of ail thefe Fathers, before he can return fuch aperfon an Anfwer ? and fhall" it not be fufficient fjrhim to reply, th^.t he is Sure he finds not thefe things in Scripture, and therefore they are not at all the Commands of God revealed to him in that Book ?
Welli
( at )
Well •, But fiippofiiig the Caufe was refer- red from ScripTure^ to be decided by the 'Fathers : Art we hereby ever the nearer J Are the Fathers more eafy to be imderfhod^ than the Scripture ^ or do they fo certamly and mfallihly agree among Themfelves^ as the Books of the infpired Writers do ? Shall five hundred Texts not be enough to inform a' Man fufficiently concerning a doctrine of Truth, and Ihall he be able to find it with more Certainty in the Fathers ^ If the Scrjp- tare cannot be underftood, unlefs the -Kz- thers interpret it to him 3 who (hall in the next place interpret to him That Interpreta- tion i? and who fhall explain to him the True Meaning of the Fathers, and reconcile to him all xhtir feemhig and real differences ^ For, learned Men, (you know,) of u^// opi- nions, and in All Churches, have always claimed to themfelves the Authority of the Fathers : And the Authority of 0;/^ Father has in moft Controverfies been confidently cited againfi Hiwfelf and againft the Au- thority of Others in the fa7ne Age^ and a- gainft the Authority of Others in different Ages. For though, generally fpeaking, the Meaning of any one Father, in like man- lier as the Meaning of Scripture itfelf and of all other Books whatfjever, is in the whole intelligible enough to peribns unpre- judiced'and not engaged in Controverfy ^ yet to Meii concerned in any Difputes, the
Father3
( 22 )
Fathers ire (when compared together) at leaft as difficult, (I think, much more dif- ficult) to be underflood, than Scripture ^« and have much more need of fome Infallible Judge^ to interpret their Meaning and to reconcile their different manners of Expref- fion. What Petavms and other learned Writers, both Popifh and Proteftant, have publiftied upon this Subjed ^ is a moft un- deniable Demonftration of This Truth.
2. Neverthelefs, though I think it thus the moft evident of all controverted Points, and indeed the Sole Foundation of the Pro- teftant Religion, that the Scripture is the TVhole and Only Rule oflntth in matters of divine Revelation ^ and that All necelfary and important Doftrines therein contained, may be well and fufficiently underftood, by carefully comparing together the feveral Texts that relate to Such Dodrine : Yet, as it is neceffary, in order to fuch a com- paring of Texts, that a Man underftand the Language wherein the Texts were writ- ten, (or elfe that he be well allured of the Fidelity of the Tx^in^^Ltion^concerningnvhicb. matter I Jhal/ have oecafwn prefently to add fomething further .•) And as^ in order to his rightly underft3nding the particular Phrafes and Idioms of that Language, it is very rdvifible that he confult the Com- mentaries of Learned Divines, and conlider the Reafons they ofixr for and againft fuch
and
.^ '5 ) .
and fuch Rendrings of particular Phrafes • 5<?, concerning the A?itknt Fathers likewife, I agree it to be extremely advifable, that as Many as have Abilities, iliould confult Them alfo, and take in all the Affiftuice they can from Their Writings, by learning from them the Antient Ufe of Phrafes in the Language they u^'ote in, by finding the Opinions that prevailed in the feveral Times and Churches wherein they lived, and by confidering carefully the Reafons they al- lege, why particular Texts were in Their days underftood- in fuch or fuch particular Senfes.
3. But now All This, is not (in proprie- ty of Speech) afcribing any AUTHORITT to them. There is indeed a Senfe of the word. Authority -^ in which it may rightly be faid, that the Frijuitive Writers are of Great Authority. The Opinion or Judg- ment of every Learned Man, carries with it an Authority , not to oblige Mc to be of His opinion becaufe it is His^ (for This is peculiar to Infpired Writers only ;,) but it ought to carry with it fuch Weighty as to oblige me to confider carefully the Reafons which moved Him^ and which He alleges in order to move Me likewife, to be of That Opinion. Now in like manner as Great Learnings fo Great Antiquity alfo carries with it in This Senfe a fort of Au- thority : Not a Power of obliging any Man
to
( 24 )
to give his Aflent implicitly ; but only a' Povver offofar influencing a Man's Opini- on, as the Author's Skill in his own and the Scripture-language, and his better Know- lege of the Fafts which happened near his own Time, compared with what has at the fame time been faid by Other Writers who had the fame Advantages, ought to have its juft Weight among Other confiderations, in determining the Judgment of a reafonable and unprejudiced Man. But, in your Re- marks, j>oi4 either yourfelf ufe the word, Au- zhortty^ in Another Senfe -^ or, at lead, (confidering how much, and to how Fatal a purpofe, this word has conftantly been abufed by the Writers of the Romifh Church, almoft to the Total deftruftion of Chriftian Knowledge,) you have by no means been careful to prevent your unlear- ned Reader from being mif-led into a very wrong and moft pernicious Senfe of the word. For when you affirm, that poffibly
pag. p. a fupernatural Truth ffiay not he fo clearly
fag. ,4. revealed in Scripture^ but Men are obliged
at their utmoft peril to have recourfe to the
Teflimofiies of the fore faid Antient Writers^
as of the GREATEST AUTHORITr
for deciding the True Senfe of Scripture-^ and
t^i 18 til at their Teftimomes inufl in reafon be ac- hnowkdged to be the Beft PROOFS that Texts are really Proofs of what they are
fa^. ->!. brought to prove , and that the Caufe is
R E-
( ^5 )
HEFER R ED to he decided by the Teflu
ntony of the Primicive Church ^ fome of
iphich converfed wHh the Apoftles them f Ives ^ and fo cannot he reafon^My fuppofed buc to have INF ALLIBLT Known the True Senfe of Scripture ^and CO N SEQUENT- LT to have Drlivered the fame, both in their Own Writings^ and to Thofe with iz^hom they converfed-^ By whkh means ^ thofe that lived in the THI R D Age may likewife be reafonahly fuppofed to have had opportu- nity fuffic rent to know CERTAINLT the true Senfe of Scripture^ either by perufng the Writings of many fuch as had converfed mth the Apo files themfelves or their immedi- ate Succejfors^ or elfe by Coiiverfing with many fuch as had Converfed with the imme- diate Succeifors of the Apoffles : Whu is This, but affirming that UniufpiredWriters which followed after, were, by the Help of I know not what Tradition^ able to ex- prefs a doclrine of Chrill more clearly and intelligibly^ more properly and wifely^ thail the Infpired Writers themfelves ware able to do, even in more than 500 Texts that re- late to That Doctrine >
4. But after All, let the Authority of the Primitive Fathers be what it will, and even as Great as you yourfelf fuopore it 5 yet it will be nothing at all to Tour purpofe. For though you confidently affirm, that I fe-paz. 1^6. jeB the Catholick DoBrine' of the Primitive-
D Church'^
( .o
Church'^ (ineaiVLngby the Vrimithe Churchy Th3t of rhe Three tirft Ages, as you ex- prefsiy declare, pag. 13 ^nd 21 :) that I
P ag. 41. am 7wr to he coiiv'tnced of my Errors hy the lefihnony of the Antteyit Writers '^ that my
P^^i' 43- No:ions are inconfifleyit with the leftijnonies of the Jnrient Writers -^ x\v\t it necefj^ar.ly
pag 45. foUor^s that oiy Fcripr.nre'doBrine of the Tri- 7iity n FALSELT fo called^ as being in- confifent ivuh the doBrine of the frmity re- ce'ived and maintained hy the Antient Wri-
pag.c^,^,^.ters -^ and-th'it the True Scr'ipture-dcBrine of ohe Trinity^ as under flood hy the Primitive Cdtholick Chrm-h^ is oppofte to D' Clarke V Scripture-doBriiie of the Trinity fdfely fo calkd -^ :ind always take this for Granted^ in all your Arguments through your whole Book : Yet the Reader muft know, that All This 'is merely extravagnitG?;z/?J^?/(;^, with- out any Foundation and without any Co- lour of Truth. An innocent unlearned Reader indeed, muft- needs be led to ima- gine, from your Maimer of writing, that it WIS without all queftion a yielded and uncontroverted point, that every One of the Fathers in the whole Three iirfl: Cen- turies did clearly,* unanimouily, and in a nioft conft int and uniform manner, contra- dicl 7ny Notion and confirm yours. But . hnvcyou, for This, brought any the Icaft Shadow or Appeannce of Proof ? Have you alleged the Teflmonies of Any of thofe
Primitive
(27 )
Primitive Fathers ? On the contrary, hnve not / cited oat of them l^wmrom mofl ex- prefs and pofuive Tefiinionics in favour of wh'U i advanced ? and made it appear by their own plain and undeniable words ^ that they generally interpreted the Texts of the New Teftament in the very fame m nner as I did ? Have You, or the Other Perfeii you refer to as a Sufficient Anfwerer, offer- ed any thing at all to invalidate thefe Cita- tions of mine } or fo much as attempted to give your Readers Any Reafon to believe, that Thofe Fathers underftood the Texts otherwife than I do ? Now therefore either thefe Fathers were conjtfient J'Friter?, and entirely agreeing both with Themfelves and with each Other -^ or they tpere not. If they were^ (as your Difcourfe every where fuppofes j) then it ^ was incumbent upon you in Jullice, before you concluded againil me, to have reconciled AU my Ci- tations out of them to your own Notion, and to have fhown that thofe Citations did not neceifirily infer what 1 deduced from them 5 (which I am perfwaded the Wit of Man cannot do, and the moft learned both of Proteftant and Pop-fli Writers have free- ly acknowle9;ed that 'tis impofiible to doit:) But if the Fathers 7mre not conhiient Wri- ters ;, then, though you y/j6>7iy allege fome (ingle paifages out of them in Favour of your Notion^ (as i have cited yery Miuy
D 2 froiU
( 28 )
from them mofl fully expreflive of w/w<?,) yet That will not by any means make good your Affertion, That which feems to Me the fiir Truth of the c^Te, (and of which every Reader that has Ability and a Dcfire to know the full State of this matter, muft judge for Hin/elf, by perufing the Books themfelves, and not contenting himfelf with feeing fingl^ Citations coUeded only on One fide,) is This : that the generality of the Writers before the Council of l^ice^ were in the whole clearly on my fide , though fome particular palTages may be picked out of them, which will feem to look the contrary way : and that the gene- raVity of Writers after the Time of that Council, were in the main agalnfl me ^ y^t fo, as that out of The?n^ (elpecially in their Interpretation of Texts of Scripture relating to this Controverfy,) as many or more paflages in proportion may be alleged for me, than out of the antienter Writers can be brought agahift me. And if you pleafe to look into the Learned D^" CW- tporth's Intelleclaal Syftem, fro?npag. 602, topag. 612, you will find he has largely and undeniably proved, that the Notion the Nicene Fathers themfelves profefTed, was entirely different from and inconfiftent with Yours : As I ihall prefently have eccafion to Ihow more particularly. Thus, you fee, the Reafon why i allowed not the Primi- tive
( 59)
tive Fathers to have properly any AuthorU ty in matters of Faith, was not (as you moft unjuftly and unreafonably would have your Reader take for granted J that I knew them to be agahifl me -^ but on the con- trary, becaufe, though I knew (and proved it alfo by Numerous Citations) that they were generally /^r me, yet, in fairnefs of Argument, I refolved to lay no Strefs upon them, becaufe I would preferve entire to the Scripture^ its being the Whole and Only Rule of Truth in matters of Revelation : Which is the Sole Foundation, upon which the Proteftant Religion can poflibly pretend to be maintained. Where now is the Con- fcience and Juftice of affirming, as you do, pag. 24, that D^ Clarke fuppofes a Man tnay^ by the external Authority of the Frimi- tive Church, or JOINT TESTIMONT of ihe Antient Writers of the Fir ft Ages, he bound to believe any thing to he the doBrine of Chrift, 'which at the fame time his Be ft t^7iderftanding necejfitates him to believe is i^ot that DoBrine .<? When a Man writes in a Heat for what he is pleafed in his own Fancy to cqll Orthodoxy, is it reafonable that he fliould thereby prefently be difchar- ged from having any fober Regard to Truth a7id Right .<?• Yet here again I muft defire the Reader always to remember, that this Whole Debate concerning the Opinion of the Fathers^ is befide the main Queflion : And i ;- were
/5o)
were it as certainly Tme^ as it is a manifeft and notorious Miftake^ that the Primitive Fa- thers were H7hzni?ncujly of Your Opinion , yet it would avail nothing towards gaining your Point. For, I fay again, the Scripture Only is, in matters of divine Revelation, the Rule of Truth.
You affirm (p^g* i6,3 that I ch^xgt fome of the moft Celebrated Bijbops and even Martyrs of the PRIMITIVE Churchy with endeavourhig to prove fomethtng not very confiftent with what they elfewhere aflcrt : That I charge the Governours of the PRIMITIVE Church (pag. 55, 54, 56,) TPtth growing Mifiiite in deter?nining Unne- ceffary Contr over fie s^ with being Uncharita- ble in their Cenfures^ and with departing frofft the Fountain of Cacholick Unity : And (pag. 4.0 J that as the D' charges THEM imth Not ah V ays fpeaking very confijlently ^ fo in the fajtie page he charges THEM with frequejitly going about to ajfrin^ and indeavouring to prove ^ fofne thing not very confiflent with what they could not elfewhere forbear expr effing clearly and d/ftinBly , a?id likewife he reprefents THE M^ as lying un- der the ftrongeft and 7Hoft fettled Prejudices. Now This, though of no great mo^nent to the Merits of the Caufe, yet dcferv^s to be taken notice of, that your own Confcience may reprove you for Carelefsnefs at leafl.
For,
C30
For, Who (I befeech you) does that word, THEM, refer to? Does it not, in each part o{ your Sentence, mean neceil^irily the fame Perfons ? But in my Introduction / P^i* i8- carefully diflinguifhed the Writers before the Council of l^lice^ (to whom you your felf alfo confine the word Pr'miitive,^ from thofe who wrote after it , And what I faid about Prejudices, is there exprefsly applied to the Later Writers only^ in contradiftin- aion to the Earlier ones : And when I had faid, majiy Antient Writers expre/Jed my No- tion clearly and diflifiBly , even F R E- QU ENT LT when at the fame time they were about to affirm^ and indeavoitrin^ to prove ^ fomething not very confiflent with it j I diftinclly explained my Meaning after the following manner, in the very next words ; The greatefl part of the Writers Before and At the time of the Council <9/'Nice, wer-e (I think) Really of That Opinion^ (though they do not ahvays fpeak very clearly' and confiftently^) vchich I have indeavoz'ired to fet forth in thofe Propofitions -^ But as to the " Writers After that Tmie, the Reader musi not wonder if Many Paffages not con- fident with (nay^ perhaps contrary to) thofe which are here cited, jJjalJ by Any One he al- leged out of the fame Authors , For I do not cite places out of THESE [thefe Later] Authors ^fo much to fl:ow what was the Opinion of the Writers themfelves^ as tojlww bow na-
turalh -
C 3^ )
turally Truth fomettmes prevails by its ow7i nd^ tive cleaniefs and evidence^ even againfl the (IrongeH and most fettled Prejudices , [^That 'is *, how Men are frequently compelled to acknowledge fuch Prenufes to be true, as neceilarily infer a Conclufwn contrary to what they intend to eftablilli.^ And what '^^g* 1' I faid about Mens being Minute in determi^ ning unnecejfary Contr over fie s^ and impofing things much harder to he under flood than the Scripture itfelf and becomings more unchari^ table in their Cenfures^ and departing from the Fountain of Catholick Unity ^ the Apoflo- lical Form of Sound Words \ was likewife plainly meant of thofe who YwtA After your primitive period of Three Centuries, though thefe Corruptions did indeed, in fome mea- fure, begin fooner ;> (as appears from the Pradrfe of Valentinm^ Mont anus ^ Tertullian and others 5) and This evil Spirit, like all others, grew up by Degrees : According to that Prophecy of St. P4ul, 2 Tim. 4, 4, The Time will come^ when they will not en- dure fourid DoBrine^ but -fDall turn away
their ears from the Truth^ andJJjall be turn- ed unto Fables*
Your Obfervation, (pag. 27,^ that my affirmlni^ a Man must ofnecejjity at lasi un- der (land with his 0 JVN Under /landing; aiid not AK OTHERS, is the fame in^effed: as to fay, that he mufl of necejfity at last
come
( 33)
tdme to a right Underftandhiz of any things SOLELT hyhis OJVN Vnder (landing, without the HELP of any 0 THER S -, is beneath the Gravity of a ferious Writen For though you are pleafed to pl^y with the words, and amufe your Reader for two or three pages ^ yet you well knew, my Meaning was not, that the Meayis whereby m* 25. a Man comes to a right under ft anding of a ^ thing, is Solely by his Own Under ft anding, without the Help of any Other's Under ft and- ing ^ but that, after he ha* procured from Others all the Help he can, his Judgment muft finally be determined by the Reafoii of the thifig it f elf and not by the Opinion he has conceived of the Ability or Honefty of the Perfins, the Help of whofe Reafons he makes ufe of. For example : In order to underftand rightly the Meaning of any Text or Texts of Scripture, my judgment muft finally be determined, not by any Opinion I may have conceived of riie Abili- ty and Honefty of fnch and fitch Fathers or Commentators, (which is what Ton would have, upon a wonderful groundlefs Imagi- nation of the Fathers being on your fide • ) but it muft be determined by what appears to Me to be the Signification of the Words themfelves, after I have feriouily confider.d the Text, and compared it v/ith other Texts, and with what as many either Au^ tient Fathers, or Modern Comine-mator?-
E or
<^ 54) .
Or Living Teachers have ft id upon it, as I happen to have Ability and Opportunity of confulting.
But here follows, you think, ah unan- fwerable x-Vrgument^ The Original Revela- tion of the Old Teftment^ (you fay, pag. 27,) w in the Hebrew and Chaldee Tongues'^ and the Origifial Revelation of the Vew 'Tejia?nenT^ is in the Greek : You ask there-- fore^ What they who know neither Greek nor Hebrew^ nor Chaldee^ and who make the far greateH part'of Chriflians^ 7m iH do toknor^ the Senfe of Scripture <? Are not Thefe un- der a Jsecejfity of Relying on the Trarijlation made of the original Revelation into their "F alive Tongue^ or elfe (which comes to the fame] on IV HAT EVER their Particular Teachers fijall tell them is the Senfe of the Original Reirelations ^ The fame thing you repeat again, pag. 7^. And the Inference you draw from it, pag. 29, is This: As the divine Provide?ice has and ftill does raife Up Men of Learning enough^ to Tranjlate or under [land the Original Languages *, and of Integrity enough^ not vpilfidly to corrupt or recede fro7n the Senfe of the Original Reve- lation j 5/9, by parity of Reafon^ notwith-^ Jlanding the True Senfe of Scripture^ con- cerning fame 7rioft important Points of Reli^ gjon^ is not to be fo Clearly known from Scriprure Jtfelf as to leave no room for '• ' Doubt '^
( 3S) .
Douk ', andihs fat J Doubt is not to If e re-' moved by any more Rational Means ^ than Recourfe tp the joint Teflimonies of the An-, tient Writers , yet it is not reafonably to be denied but God has made fui table Proinjion for the Salvation of all Men^ inafmuch as his Providence has ^nd does ftiU raife up Men cf Learning eiwugh to under [land the Antiefit Writers^ and of Integrity enough not wilfully to corrupt or recede from their Mean- ings or That Safe wherein they tinderflooJ the Scripture as to the controverted Points of Religion. 'Tis very Wonderful, Sir, a l^lan of your Abilities iliould not perceive, jthat this Argument of yours makes all Re- > Jigions equal, and confequently fupppfes that there is no fuch Thing as True Reli- gion at all. For if the far greaiefl part ofm. 27. CJmftians (as you affirm,) — are under a Ne'- '^effity of Relying— -on WHATEVER their Particular Teachers JJjaH tell them is the SENSE of the original Reve'ations , Then, (ince the joint Tefti7noiues of the An- fag, 29; tient Writers are to determine That Senfe , and fince all denominations of Chr-ffians, whether Popifti or Proteftmt, cannot but ' think their own Particular Teachers (or elfe they would not follow them) to be Men of Learimig enough to under (land the Antient Writers^s and of Integrity enough not wilfully to corrupt or recede from their Meaning ^ Here are plainly ail Religions put upon ah
- E 2 eciual '
( 30
equal Foot 5 or nther. That which has the greateft Numbers on its fide, will always have the Advantage ^ or elfe we arc of ne- ceflity gotten into that endlefs Circle, that the Tme Church can only be difcerned by firft underftanding the True Senfe of Scnpf tiire^ and yet th^t at the fame time the True Senfe of Scripture can only be learnt from the True Church But (thanks be to God,)- both the Foundation itfelf of your Argu- ment, and That which you build upon it, are entirely erroneous. No Chriftians are iinder a ^fece{lity of relying on the Judg- ment of their Particular Tranflators, but pnly thofe J^liiul Followers cf the Bhnd^ who are willing to have both the Original and the Tranflation alfo taken from them, that they may fecurely walk after their Teachers into the^ Ditch. All Others look upon it to be not only Lawful, but their Duty alfo, to fee as much as poiFible with their own Eyes« And very Much of this is po{- fible, even to mean Capacities, who are iincerely defirous not to be deceived. They can read or hear the Whole Scripture, and compare ont part of it with" another, and interpret the figurative expreflions by the plain ones, and obferve how Men of diffe- rent Opinions underftand words ) and can Collecl their Duty, not from fingle contro- verted Texts, but from thofe numerous plain and often-repeated i.iflrudions, in ■ ■ which
(37)
which the generality of Leame3 Men fuf- ficiently agree both as to the Tranflation and the Senfe. For, as the Truth and Un- corruptnefs of the original Text it Jelf i% inade known to Chriftiatis, not by the Ju^ thority of their Particular Teachers, but by the Teftimony oi Friends and Enemies ^ Men of All opinions in Ail Ages from the Begin- ning, whofe different Interejls and Opinions made it impoffible for them to agree ejiher in deceivino; or being deceived , (whic^h 13 the Greateft Evidence a Matter of FaS is capable of;,) and This extends to the whole Text^ excepting only a Very few various Readings of any Importance, concerning which all capable perfons are (till at liberty to judge : So the Truth and Goodnefs of any Tranjlation^ is made known to thofe who ufe it, not by the Authority of their Particular Teachers, but by its having been examined and compared by Men of diffe^ fe^it Opinio7is^ whole Intereft has engaged them to difcover Faults where there are any ^ By which means, a Trariflation, in a Free Country, cannot but be in the main agreeable to the Original -^ and where it is fo controverted in any particular palTage^ as that the Reafons for different Rendrings feem on Both fides equal, it is There not only lawful, but Mens Duty to look upon the Tranfli'tiori as of no fufficient Authority^ if they have any regird to Truth in the '^^ ^ matter
tnitter.of their Religion. But fuppofing if were True, as it is a great Miftake, that Men muft needs truft their Particular Teachers for the Truth of a Tranjlation ^ that is, for the Truth of the Matter of FaEl^ that This or That is the Text of Scripture ^ v/ould it from thence follow, that they muft likewife as blindly trufl them for the Senfe and Meaning of the words ;> that is, in a matter, not of FaB^ but of Judgment .<? Suppofing it were necef- lary, that the Authority of particular%Ien muft be trufted in fome RefpeBs^ becaufe. \ (fuppofe) in" rhofe particular refpects there was no other poflible means of knowlege, and Men can do no more towards informing^ themfelves than is poflible for them to do ^ would it therefore follow that they mjiift truft ' likewife in Other RefpeBs^ where there is No fuch neceflity > And muft Thei aFo who dQ underftand Languages, truft entirely to the Ability and Fidelity of 0- thers^ as well as They wyho do 7iot under- ftand them? Verily, Sir,' according to your Scheme of Divinity, no poilible reaion can be given, why it would not be much better to take the Scriptures quite away from the people •, and not from the people only, but from the greateft part even of the Learned, alfo^ For if the Scriptttre (how plain fo- ever the Words themfelves may happen to be) muft of neceflity be underftood to meai| i ' neither
( 3P )
iieitlier more nor lefs than wh^t the Fathers fay it means ;> and the Fathers (how plairi foever Their words alfo may happen to be) muft of neceflity be underftood to mean nei- ther more nor lefs than what the Particular Teachers of every Church fay they mean ; *tis evident there can be no other Ufe of publifhing the Scripture (nay, and the Fa- thers too) to the World, but only to di- fturb this happy Tranquillity, and give Oc- cafion for Men, by judging for themfelves, to run the hazard of differing fometimes from one another in opinion.
But you proceed, (p^g^ 30 J) and ask ^ Upon what gyounds does D' Clarke believe the fever al Books of the Old or Ner^ Tefta- 7nent to have been written by thofe Infpired Writers^ to zvhom they are afcribed <? Is it not^ becaufe they have been Believed fo to be by Other Chriflians^ through the fever a I Ages ofChriftianiiy up to the Fir ft Age^ wherein they were Known to be fiich by the Chrijlians then Living .<? And if D>' ClarkeV Belief of tljie Bcoks of the Bible to be the Infpired Re- velation of Gody is this founded on the Be- lief of Others , / would fain know ivhy his Belief of Any Article of Religion CON- TAIKED IN THE SAID IN^ SPIRED REVELATION,?naynot likewife he founded on the Belief of Others ; namely aj jz Ground of bis own Belief 3 as a
good
C 40 )
j^odGronndy that What he believes ^ f>e he^ Tieves in the True Seyife of Scripture^ becaufe he believes it m That Senfe^ wherein it has been believed through the feveral Ages of Chrijffianity up to the Firft^ wherein it was known to be the True Senfe of Scripture* To the firfl part of tbris your Qiieftion, I an- Iwer : I believe the Books of Scripture to have been written by thofe Infpired Writers whofe Names they bear, not upon (he Au- thority of any Particular Teachers, but upon the agreeing Evidence of Friends and Enemies of all Sorts, of Chriftians of differ rent Opinions^ and of Jews and Heathens ^ the Books having been cited bjr innumera- ble oppofite Writers in all x\ges and in dif- ferent Languages, and difperfed both in the Original and in numerous agreeing Tranlla- tions through all Countries, from the Be- ginning. And this is the proper Evidence of a Matter of FacL But now c^s to the Senfe and Meanings of Words agreed to be the genuine Text , (which is a Q-ieftion, not of FdB^ but of Judgment ;) this is to be determined, not by Tradition^ but by Reafon and good Under [landing. And, if it was to be determined by Tradition ^ yet for you in the prcfent caie to pretend (con- trary to the full Evidence of all Hiftory extant in the World) that there is as uni- verfd a Tradition for the Texts of Scrip- ture having been from the Beginning in- terpreted
(40
terpfeted according to Your Notion, as there is for the Books of Scripture having been written by Thofe whofe Names they bear ^ is to pretend that the Darknefs of Midnight, is equal in Brightnefs to the Sun (hining at Noon-day. To the fecond part of your Queftion, I anfwer : that my Belief of any Article of Religio?i CON- pag. p* TAINED IN THE SAID IN- SPIRED REVELATION^ is not founded on the Belief of Others, namely on Their believing it to he the True Senfe of Scripture ^ but it is founded wholly upon my Seeing it to be (what in your Qiieftion youfuppofeitis,) COiVr^/i^£D IN THE SAID INSPIRED REVE^ LATION.
But you go on *, pag. 52. Though the tpords^ Biftop a?id Presbyter, for ifijiance^ are ufed promifcuoujly in Scripture , yet furely D' Clarke will not fay^ that I confound and blend the Antient Writers with Scripture^ becaufe I look on Their Teflimoriies as a De^ cifive Proof that there were notwithftanding Three DiflinB Orders of the Miniftry in the Time of the Apo files. 1 readily acknowledge that the Teflimonies of Antient Writers^ when they a2;ree, and fo far as they agree, are a juft and Decifive Proof of any Quefti- on of FaB relating to their own Times : But how This tends to prove, (what you F ' would
(4^ )
would have,) that any Man can be obliged by the Opinion of Others, to believe any Text of Scripture to mean^ what he himfelf cannot with the utmoft Care perceive the words of That Text to fignify , this I un- derftand not.
You add , /;/ like 7namw\ Moough the Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft^ are faid (i Joh. 5, 7,) to he only One, not ex\ plicitly One God, or of the fame Divine In- dividual E [fence -^ yet it wiU not follow
that I confound and blend the x\ntient Wri- ters with Scripture •, becanfe I look upon Their Teftimonies to he a fuficient Proof and Authority for helievijig Father^ Son and Holy Ghofl, 10 he tndy and properly One God, or of the fame Divine Individual Ef feru:e ^ or that This is the True Senfe where- in St John under flood the?n to he 0?ie* Now by your manner of citing this Text here, and again pag. 5 9 , would not any unlear- ned Reader, depending upon your fidelity, be led to imagine, that without Doubt this Text was unanimoufly underftood in your Senfe by al/ the Primitive Fathers .<? Where- as, in Truth on the contrary, befides that the whole Text is wanting in all the Jn- tient Verfions in all Languages, and does not with any certainty appear to have ever been found fo much as in any One Manu- fcript Copy of the original Greek^ that Is
or
(43 )
or ever Was in the World, but feems rather to have been firfl: added in the Greek even after the Invention of Printing, (as you V7ill find reafon to think, if you confider carefully what Erafmus has faid upon this Subjed, and D^ Mills in his Differtation on the Text, compared v/ith his remarkable acknoW^ledgment upon better information and fecond Thoughts, in his Prolegomena^ f pag. 117, how he himfelf and the Writers before him had been DECEIVED in
the
t Oprandum cmnino forec, uc indicalTec [/I0&. 5*^^-
^}mmti]dit Codice quoliber, —integer fueric, an imper- feftus & mucilus •, cocumne N. T. continsrec, an partem duntaxac s tuericne Evangel iorum, an Epiftolarum &c. Abf- que hujufmodi aliqualinocitia, peric maxima pars beneficii, quod ex MSS &c, Ne dicam, quod laxior ifie &indefini- tus de Codicibus fermo, trahac in falfa, uti force fir, de S. Texcu judicia. C^uum qmndecim Exemplarium memineric RobertH4, quis non ilacim eum tocidem integros N. T. Co- dices naftumarbicrarecuf ? Proclivis hie error-, & in quem nemo, qui variantes ieftiones ad Edicionis Roberti certiic marginem inKribrem poficas non diligenter admodum & ex proteffb expenderit, non facillime labacur. Hoc certe errore irrecici baud pauci, cum in celebri illo S. Jjanms loco dc triplici ceftimonio Patr'is^ Verbi(^S. Spiritus^ 1 Job. $, 7, feitem durtixac videanc Exemplaria, in quibus omifTum fit 'iJIud, h -tJ i^.vS) increpide ftatim concludunc reliqua 5c7o cexcum 'ilium integrum, nullaque fui parte detruncarum reprsefencare i cum tamen iflorum Codicum varietates ad marginem collocatas fedulb per N. T. expendenti confter, e quindecim codicibus Stephankis noa nifi feptem, ad mar- gi lem iflius loci notatos, epjjhUm banc Joann'is exhibere 5 reliquos omnes vel Evangeliorum elTe, vel aliarum laltem N. T. partium. Qu\n baud Icmel cum jimelotius, aliique, turn & Nos ipfi, in hac palseftra diutius paullo verfati licer, examine Codicum iftorum per omnes N. T. libros ex varie- cacibus baud dum tafto^ in eundem eprorem incidimus.
F 2 w T^b^i^
( 44 )
the matter of Stephens's Manufcripts :) it has moreover never been cited hy Athanafius or any of the numerous Writers in the whole An an Controverfy ^ nor mentioned in the genuine Works of any Greek Father at all, either before the Council of Vice^ or after it '5 though many of them quote the words
That \s : It were to be wifhed^ that Stephens had diflm- gu'}f\;ed concerning every AfAnufcripty whether it was entire or jmperfe^y whether it contained the Whole New Teftament or Fart only^ whether it was a Copy of the Gofpels or Epiflles. Without thus dij}ingHiJf)hi£j the Copies lofe the greateft part of their Vfe : Not to fay^ that fer want of fuch dilVw^ion, Men are often led into an erroneous Judgment concerning the Sacred Text. For infiance : When Stephens mentions fifteen Copies^ Who would not presently imagine that he meant fo many En- tire Copies of the New Teftament .^ 'Tis a very natural Error-, and which any one may eafily fall into, if he does not care- fully and with that very View confider the various Readings piarked in the inner margin of his third Edition. 'Tis by Thif Mi'^al(ey that in That famous pajfage of Sz John, concerning the threefold Teflimony of the Father, the Word, and the Koly Spirit, i Joh. 5, 7 j many perfons^ when they obferve the vpords^ in Heaven, [He (hould here rather have h\d.jhe whole "jth verfe, and the words, on Earth, in the 8th vcrfe, as ap- pears by comparing together the fevcral parts of his DifTcrta- tion,] to be wanting in on'y Seven 0/ Stephens'/ Afanufcripts -, prefently conclude, that, without doubt ^ the other E'ght have That Text entire and perfe^ : Whereas in Truth, he that care- fully obferves the variom Readings of Thofe Manufcripts, mark,- ed in the Margin through the Whole New Teftament •, will find thaty o«f of Stephens's fifteen Co;).'ey, thofe fcvca only, which are referred to at the margin of This Text, have this Epiflle of St John at ail ; all the reft, being Copies of the Gofpels on- ly, or of other parts of the New Teftament, Into thif Errour, vot only Amelot and Other Writers, but I myfelf alfo, though long employed in this very Study, bad more than once fallen, before I had examined all the Copies by their vario^n Readings thvQugh all the Book,i of the Whole New Teftament. Mills Pro- legomena, pag. 117.
immedi-
( .40
immediately foregoing and following : Nei- ther is it alleged by any Latin Father be- fore S^ Jeroni^ excepting only (as Some think) in one paffage of Tertul/ian, and in one of Cyprian : And of thofe Two paf- fages. That of TertuUian is plainly not a citation of this Text, but the words of the Author himfelf 5 And that the Other of Cyprian^ (if genuine, as I fee no reafon to doubt,) is only a myftical Interpretation of the following Qth Verfe, and not a ci- tation of the yth^ is more than probable, as well from the Teftimony of Ettcheriiis and the exprefs Evidence of Facimdns refer- red to by Dr Mills ^ as from the Text's be- ing wanting in all even the Latin Copies both before and long after Cyprian's time. And even in the firft E?igl{fb Bibles after the Reformation, in the Tune of Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th^ it was printed in a different CharaEier^ to fignify ^ its be- ing wanting in the Original : Which Di- ftinclion came afterwards to he negleded. And the Senfe of the Apoftle is very com- plete without this Text, according to the following Reading of All the Greek Ma-^ nufcripts and Antient Verfions : Who is he that overcometh the World^ hut he that be- lieveth that Jefus is the Son of God ? This is he that came [that was declared and manifefted to be the Son of God,] hy Wa- ter [at his Baptifm, when there came a
Voice
Voice from Heaven, ftying, This is my beloved Son-,] and(\:ij) Bloody [viz. by his
Death and Refurredion \\ And it is
the Spirit [the Gifts of the Holy Ghoft, and the Power of Miracles granted to the Apoftles,'] that heareth tvitnefs -^ becanfe the Spirit is Truth : For there are Three that hear Record^ the Spirit afid the Water and the Blood '^ and thefe Three agree in One^ [or, as fome Antient Writers read the Text, thek Three Are One^ viz. One Teflimon}\ that Jefus is the Son of God. Thefe things ought not, in juftice and fairnefs, to be concealed from the World, by fo citing the Text in a point of con- troverfy, as if there never had been any Controverfy about it, and as if all Primitive Writers (who indeed never cite it at all) had agreed with you, both in .the citation and in the interpretation of the words. You ought at leafl to have acknowledged the dubioiifnefs of the Text. And if the Text had been unqueftionably genuine, yet you do not ufe the Englifli Reader well^ when you affirm that though the Three Perfons are faid (i Joh. 5, 7,) to be only One, and not explicitly One God, yet d^e. For though the Englifh word, (One^) is indeed ambiguous, and may (ignify One God^ or One Perfon^ or One Nature^ or One Ejjence -^ yet the Greek word, (h,) is not fo, and cannot poffibly fignify any of thefe
things
(47 )
things, unlefs by a remote and figurative confirudion.
However, in your. Interpretation of this Text, you declare explicitly wh2Lt jour No- tmi of the Trinity is. And ftiU more di- ftinclly, pag* 21 , The Scnpture-doBrine of the Trinity (you fay) is truly Tbis^ that in the Godhead tloere are Three Perfons of the fame Divine INDIVIDUAL Efence. Now This, I fay, is an exprefs Contradidi- on in the very Terms. For IND IVL D UAL Ejfence^ in all propriety of Speech^ and if the word has any Signification at all, is (when fpoken of an Intelligent Being) the very fame as PER SO NA L Ejfence -^ that is to fay. That by which a Perfon is that Individual Perfon which he is, and no Other. Befides, it is a Phrafe not only not ufed in Smpfure, nor in the nree Firft Centuries, nor in the Fourth, (unleft it be the True Rendring of the word (mvq'mciQ- or Tzf-vn^ciOr, which was then uni- verfally condemned as Heretical ;) but feems to be the Invention of the Schools, in latter Ages. Hear the very learned Dr Cudvporth upon This Point. It is evi- dent, (faith he, pag. 604,) that thefe re- puted Orthodox Fathers^ [viz. S'^ Cyril, S*^ Gregory Nyfl'cn, and others,] who were not a Few, were far from thinking the Three Hy- pofiafes of the Trinity to have the fan/e
SIN'
(4§)
SlNGVLAR exiftent Effence : That
Trinity of Perfons fiumerieally the fanie^ or having all one and the fame SINGU- LAR exiftent Ejfence, is a Dj&rine which feen/eth Not to have been owned by Any pub- lick Authority in the Chrijiian Churchy fave that of the Lateran Council only : That no fuch thing was ever entertained by the Ni-
l><^. 605. cene Fathers^ &c. Again : The Truth of This ("faith he) will appear, fir ft ^ becaufe thefe Orthodox Anti-Arian Fathers did all of them %ealoufly condemn Sabellianifm 5 the doUrine whereof is no other than this^ that there was but One Hypoftafis, or Singu^ lar INDIVIDUAL ESSENCE, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft : In the
^yjj' next place, becaufe the word Homooufios, was never ufed by Greek Writers otherwife, than to fignify the Aqreement oj things NU* MERICALLT^DlFFERINGfrom
611. one another, &c. Laftly, that the An-
tient Orthodox Fathers, who ufed the word Homooufios againft Arius, intended not there- in to ajfert the Son to have One and the fame Singular or INDIVIDUAL Ejfence with the Father, appeareth plainly from their difclaiming and difowning thofe Two words,
ih'd '^civ7x>^<nov and Mo oi<77or Again : It is plain
(fays he) that the Antient Orthodox Fathers afferted No fuch thing, as One and the Same SINGULAR or Numerical Ejfence of the fever d Perfons of the Trinity. And
This
( 4P )
This he proves by numerous moft exprefs Quotations. Where now is your vain Confidence in the Concurrent Tejiiwonies of ihe Fathers •, when not only in the Three Firfl Centuries your Notion, in the manner you exprefs it, was never heard of, but even in the Fourth and following Centu- ries it was univerfally condemned > But ftill I am willing to allow all This to be befides the main Queftion 5 For Scripture only is Our Rule.
Well : But D^ Clarke (you fay) cant pg* 32: hut know^ that the wojl ufual Pleas made by Presbyterians, Anahaptijis^ and other SeSa^ ries, are no other than vphat He him felf urges ^ viz. that Scripture is the only Rule of Truth in matters of Religion^ and that Men are to take care not to cor found and blend Human Teflimonies with Scripture* Very True : Presbyterians and Other Sedaries receive the Holy Scripture as their Rule : What Then > Mull We therefore 7iot receive it as our Rule ? Presbyterians and Other Secta- ries pretend to follow Scripture only : Mufi We therefore not pretend to follow Scripture only ? Surely, Sir, the Q^ieflion is not, who they are that pretend to make Scripture their Guide, but who they are that really make it fo. And though Men of all opinio ons do indeed allege Scripture for their opi- nions, yet I think there is plainly This dif-
G ference :
( 50 )
ference : In favour of Some ophiions there can be alleged only fome very Few, and thofe very Obfcure and controverted Texts, and fuch as can be demonftrated not to prove what they are alleged for, by nume- rous plain and clear Texts evidently evin- cing the contrary : On the other fide, in favour of fome Other opinions^ there can be alleged a very great Number of plain and clear Texts, even the whole Tenour and Defign of Scripture ^ againfl which on the contrary there can be oppofed by an Adver- fary, only feme Single obfcure and very difputable Texts. The Inference I would draw from hence is, th^t every Opinion concerning a Point of Revealed Religion, ought to be looked upon as having juft fo much more or lefs Certainty, and to be treated* accordingly, in proportion as it is built either upon More and Plainer^ or upon Fevperj and Ob fearer Texts- Well : But Who fliall be */7^^^, whether an Opinion, is built upon Many and Clear ^ or upon Few and Obfatre Texts ? I anfwer : As Wifdo?n is juftified of all her Children, fo Tntth' alfo mufl finally be left to be juftified by the Reafon of Mankind -^ And whofoever ftadies the Scripture with a fincere and un- prejudiced Defire of finding the Truth, in order to obey the Will of God -^ has the Pro- jnife of our Lord, that ht pal/ know of the DoBrine zvb/^ther it be of God. But you are
• of
C 5^ )
of another Opinion, and think fome Other Judge neceffary : I heartily wifli, it were an Infallible One. You think the Caufe is referred to be decided by the Primitive Fa^ then : But Men of all opinions allege Fa- thers alfo, as well as Scripture , And fo the Queftion returns, Who fhall interpret to us the Fathers j?- Tour \n{wtx at laft inuft be. The Church. And then, (you know the CLueftion has often been put in the Romifh controverfy,) Who is the Church ^ The Church of Rome pretends to it , The Greek Church pretends to it ^ and the Church in every other Nation upon Earth pretends to it j The prefent Church pretends to it j and the Church that was 500 Tears ftnce^ full of very different Opinions, pretendecj to it like wife : And Who fliall judge, which of Thefe is in the Right > Of neceffity it muft end in This at laft : Either the Church muft be judged by the Scripture, and Men by ftadying the Scripture muft find which Church it is fafeft for them to joyn with , (Which Prniciple is the Foundation and Eilence of Proteftant Religion 5) Or elfe ^very Man muft blindly follow the Authority of the firft Teachers he happens upon 5 Which Opinion of yours, is fairly putting an end to all Religion at once, and termi- nates at length in Mr Hobbs's doclrine. That the jhongefl Arm ought always to put an end to all Differences of Opinion, juft as G 2 Uarkjiefs
( ^^ )
Darhiefs puts an end to all Differences of Colour. Befides : If the Church muft inter- pret the Fathers ititerpretation of Scripture ^ ftill the Queftion returns, Who (hall inter- pret That laft tjiterpretation of the Church > For^ you well know, All the ConftJJions of faith that ever were publiflied by Humane Authority, have occafioned more Conten- tions, and been more difficult to explain^ than the Scripture itfelf. Which is not at all to be wondred at. For, as, in Philofo- phical Queftioiis^ the Commentators and In- terpreters of Ariftotle^ intermixing infenfi- bly their own opinions with His, are infi- nitely harder to be underftood, than the Works of Ariftotle himfelf -^ fo all Syftems of Divinity^ containing in them both the Whole Doftrine of Scripture and moreover a mixture of humane Opinions, muft of neceffity be more liable to be difputed a- bout, than the Scripture itfelf. (For which reafon, in explaining the Doctrine of the Trinity ^ [ayid the farne Method wctild be very nfeftl in all other ?ei7its of Divinity •,"] I have indeavoured to fet forth the whole Doctrine in the very words of the Scrip- ture itfelf, by coUefting and placing in one view All the Texts tha't relate to that Sub- ject , that the Reader may diftmguifli, at lirft Sight, what is inJi [put ably revealed to him by divine Authority, from what is on- ly propofcd to him as humane opinion^ which
may
.( 53 )
may always be difputed about, and ought perpetually to be examined with Gare.) What a Wildernefs now are you got into ? And where will you ftop, when once you depart from Scripture the Only Rule of re- vealed Truth 5 and ufe any Humane Wri- tings, not as Affiftances to help yoit to under- fland^ but as authoritatively Decijive of^ the Meaning of Scripture ? The plain Truth of the whole Matter, I think, is This: As all other Books are generally well enough underftood, by reafonable Men who ftudy them with That Defign *, fo the plain and neceifary Parts of Scripture, the Rules by which Men fhall be judged at the la ft day, are eafy to be underftood even by mean ca- pacities ^ and thofe which are really ob- fcure, as it is not poflible Men fliould in truth agree about them, fo 'tis of no Ufe they fliould be forced to pretend it. And yet indeed even the Obfcurer paflages of Scripture, if Men could be wholly unpre- judiced, would not perhaps be fo liable to be mifunderftood, as is commonly imagined. For confider what is the Reafon, that when our Saviour fays, / a^n the Door^ I a?ft the Vhie^ and the like •, no Man, either learned or unlearned, ever mifunderftood him : but when he fays, This is my Bod}\ (which in itfelf is no harder a Figure, than the other expreflions -,) about the Meaning of This, Learned Men are perpetually cutting each > ^ others
( 54 )
Others Throats, In like manner j What is
the true Reafon, that when S^ Paid faith
concerning Himfelf and ApoUos^ He that
planteth^ and he that watereth^ are One^
I Cor. 3, 8 '^ no Man, either learned or
unlearned, ever mifunderflood him : but
when our Saviour faith, / and my Father
Job. 10, are Oiie^ (which are the Very Same Words ^)
^°' he muft needs be underftood to mean fome-
thing utterly unintelligible ? And that,
when he prays to his Father in behalf of
his Difciples in thefe words ^ that They may
Job. ii,he One^ even as We are One *, / i« The??!^
22 (6* 23- and Thou in Me \ the former part of Each
of thefe Expreflions is underftood by every
Man, but the meaningof the /^rr^r part of
each of them muft be quarrelled about for
ever ?
You affirm (p^zg. 36,3 that I rejeS ths Sound Judgfnent of my own Mother-Church -^ and CP'^S* S7->) ^^at 1 (land Condemned by the Judgment of the J'Fhole Church of Eng- land. Now though This Accufation is no- thing to the Merits of any Queftion con- cerning Truth and Errour^ yet, to obviate the Calumnies of Men who are more con- cerned about Other Argumeyits than thofe of Truth, I demonftrated, in my Book, by an Induction of Particulars, that there are More pallages in the Liturgy of the Church of England, from which (taking Them as
PreiTiifes}
^ ^5 ) .
Premifes) my Conclufion will by juft Rea- foning neceirarily be inferred, than there are Paffages which feem on the contrary to contradid me. And from hence it follows, that till Toil can reconcile All thofe palTages I cited, (as you have not attempted to re- concile Any of them,) to Tour Notion ^ / have jufter reafon to affirm, that Ton ftand condemned by the Judgment of the Church of England, than Ton have to affirm that / do fo. But the Argument by which you prove, that I ftand condemned by the Judg- ment of the Church of England ^ is a very pleafaiit and round Ont. By rejeBmg (you p,^^^ ^^^ fay) the Catholkk DoSrine of the Primitive Churchy I rejeS the Soujid Judgment of my oivn Mother-Church. For the making good of which Argument ^ lirft, you fuppofe that my Notion is univerfally condemned by the Writers of the Three Firft Centu- ries : But of This, not one Syllable of Proofs becaufe the Contrary is True. Weli^ hwtjuppofmg my Notion not to agree with the Dodrine of Thofe Primitive Fathers, how does it The?ice follow that I am con- demned by the Church of England > Why, becaufe our Prudent as well as Pioits Mother pag, 24.
would have All her Children to look on
the Teftimonies of the Antient Writers^ j^thofe of the Three fir ft Ages^ fo }^ou ex- prefsly explain yourfelf, pag. 21 and throughout,"] — ^^as the Beft Means to be
Rationally
( 50
Rationally perfipaded, what may or may 7iOt be Truly concluded and proved by Scripture* (It feems, without the Fathers, the Scrip- ture is of no Ufe at all to conclude or prove any thing.) But how do you prove This to be the Judgment of the Church oiEng- pag.^s^ la7id^ Why, This is evident (you i^^y) from the P RACTISE of dur Church -, INAS^ MUCH AS^ in the Preface to the Forms of Ordination and Cojifecration^ our Church has obferved^ as an unanfvperable Proof in itfelfofthe Threefold Order of the Mimfiry^ that " it is evident unto all Men diligently " reading:^ if not the Holy Scripture alone, " yet It and Antient Authors^ that from the " Apo files time there have been thefe Orders " of Minifters in Chrift's Churchy BiJJjops^ *' Priefts^ and Deacons "• In like manner^ hy infertihg into her ?noft excellent Liturgy^ the Nicene 0 R 'Conftanti?wpolitan Creed^and That comfnonly called the Creed ofSf Atha- 7tafiiis^ &c. That is to fay : Notwithiland- ing the Church has declared in the moft ArtkU Solemn and Authentick manner, that Holy ^ih. Scripture containeth all things necejfary to Salvation \ fo that whatfoever is not read therein^ or may be proved thereby^ is ?wt to be required of any Man^ that it jJmdd be believed as an Article of the Faith^ or be thought reqwftte or necefjary to Salvation : M'fch And that it is not lawful for the Church to io.":. ordain any thijig that is contrary to Gods
word
( 49 )
word tprittefi , neither inay it fo expowul one place of Scripture^ that it be repugnant to afiother •, Wherefore dlthougjo the Church be a Witness and a KEEPER of Holy Writ^ yet as it ought not to decree any thin^ AGAINST the fame, fo BESIDES the fame ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for neceffity of Salvation: And that even General Councils^ forafnuch as Article they he an Afjembly of Men whereof All be^^^^ not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, may err, and fometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God \ Wherefore things ordained by them as necefjary to Sal- vation, have neither Strength nor Authority, iinlefs it may be declared that they he taken out of Holy Scripture : Notwithft-inding all thefe folemn and inoft Authentick Decla- rations 5 yet, becqufe it Once accidentally mentions Antient Writers, by vviy of con- firmation of a matter of FaB -^ and inlerts into the Liturgy One Creed made in the Fotdrth Century, and Another made A^^ body knows hoiv ?nany Centuries after That ^ (not out of any Regard to the Authority of the Compilers •, but merely for This Reafon, that the Reformers judged they could re- tain them agreeably with Scripture, as is exprefsly declared 'in the 8'^ Article com- pared with the 2 ii^ ;,) hence you conclude, that the CJourch of England would have all p.tg, ^.. her Children believe, that the Befi Means
H ^ io : ,
(5o)
to be Rationally perfwaded what May or may not be Truly concluded and proved by Scripture^ is, not to rely on the Scripture hfelf, by ftudying it and comparing one place with another, but to depend on the Teflimonies of the Antient Writers ^ and
, , that, unlefs a Man thus makes the Fathers to be his Rule of trying the Senfe of Scripture, (that is, unlefs, diametrically oppofite to the whole Proteftant doftrine, he profefles to regard the Scripture fo far only as it agrees with the Antient Fathers, inftead of regarding the Antient Fathers fo far only as they agree with Scripture,) he flands condeimied by the Judgment of the Church of England. Is this the Arguing, of a Man accuftomed to Mathematical Studies ? But befides : The Antient Writers^ with you, are the Writers of the Three fir fl Centimes : And how does the Church of England, by in-
f^g. 21. ferting One Creed made in the Fourth Centu- ry^ and Another made at leaft Three or Four Cefituries after That^ refer matters of Faith to be decided by the Teftimony of the Wri- ters in the Three fir (I Centuries^ I am much afraid, if we muft be referred away from the Scripture at all, and if there be any Force in your Argument, we (hall foon be referred to the Writers of the 8^^-' and 9^^ Ceiituries^ as well as of the Three Firji : And then the Proteftant Caufe is m a Hope-^ ful Condition*
You
( 5» )
You defpife my manner of exprefling^,^. 43 myfelf, when I fay. The greateft fart of^^°- the Writers Before and At the time of the Council of Nice, were, I THINK, Realy of That Opinion &c. But do you nnagme Sir I thought myfelf the lefs Certain ot what I affirmed, becaufe I did not exprefs it in Confident Words ? Does Confidence tvtv add Strength to any Caufe, or give Weight and Solidity to any Argument? / faid I Thought the greateft part of thofe Writers were on my fide ; and I gave my Reafons why I thought fo, in the nume- rous Citations which I alleged of their own exprefs words, Tou, on the contrary, are very confident, that they are All clearly and unanimoufly againft me ^ but you do not fo much as attempt to bring any the leaft Proof of what you are fo fure ot. And do you think that in Tbts you have gained any Advantage over me ? But con- lerning the Opinions of the Fatloers, I h^ve fpoken more fully above.
Your whole Argument, pag. A9, 50, SI S2 ; zlbpag. 21, and indeed in molt •other parts of your Book •, is what may, almoft word for word, be retorted upon you in Its full ftrength, by Thofe of the Church of Rome;m favour of ^n,- Tradition. T:kcS(ripti,re (it feems) is, in many things,p.^. ^ &
( ^o
ohfciire : 1 he Qufe inuft be left to be Be-
fxg. 21. c'fded by the Tefthmnv of the Prmitwe Church: Thofe of the Fir ft Age, knew IN- FALLIBLT the Tnte Setife of Scripture ^
;^^. 21. and CONS E^UENTLT delivered the Same Truly to their Followers : Thofe of the Third Age, kneiv from thofe of the
pag. 21. YiY{i and Second, the True Senfe' of Scrips ture CERTJ IN L2" -^ and, to be fure, ?nade due Ufe of it^ in conveying it l>uly
fas,. 22. to the next Age *, and fo On : The Cover- nours of the Churchy to prevent B>rors, inuft
?i'5- 49- infert into the Creed more particular Expla- nations of foine Articles : This, is not In-
M' 50. l^ygjng the Creed, but only Exprejjing the Article in More JFords •, the Senfe of the inlarged Creed being No other ^ than that of
t-^g' 51. the original Baptijmal Creed : Controverted Articles wtre Always explained according tQ That Senfe ^ which w.as derived from the Beginning : The Providence of God would not' permit, that Thofe who had thQ P.ower^
pg» s^- fliould ever not be in the Right: Gover- nours therefore ne\Tr were uncharitable, in fuch Cenfires or Proceedings^ as were the nwft proper Method to reclaim Heterodox per-
pfg' 5-« fons : And thus the True Senfe of Scripture has been preferved and maintained by Tra- dition, and received by the Catholick Church through the feveral fubfeque?it A^^es thereof without Any corruption, even unto This
day.
( 53)
dav- Thus argues a Rofnan-Cathdickr.: And if Ton argue rightly^ fo alfo does He : For One ^^^ is not more like Another, than His Argument is like to Tours. x\nd in Neither of them indeed is there any Other Fault, but This only, that (God knows) the dired Contrary is in Ecclefiaftical Hifto- ry too apparently True. The further you go from the Fountahi^ the lefs pure is the Stream ^ and there is no depending upon any thing but Scripture.
YourObfervation,(/?^^. 50,) thatthough every Age grew wore Minute^ yet it was by no means in determining UNNECESSART Vontroverjies^ unlefs D'' Clarke will have the determiimg of the True Senfe of Articles which he allows to be NECESSARY to be under flood ^ to be the deter minhig of UN- NECESSARY Controverfies : is a mean Playing with words, unbecoming your own Gravity and the Dignity of the Subjed. For can any thing be more obvious, than that an Article may itfelf be Necefjary to be underftood, and yet at the fame time many UnneceJJary Controverfies may be raifed about Circumftances relating to That Article ^ Are not the Refurreciion of the Body^ and the Life everhi flings Two Arti- cles very neceffary to be underftood by eve- ry Chriftian ? and yet is it not at the fame
time
( 54 )
time a very unnecejfary Controverfy, to dif- pute whether every individual f ankle of the fame Body that died jloall he raifed again^ or not '^ and whether, in the Life everlaji" hig^ the Bleffed (hall be capable of fiillfur^ ther Degrees ofiviprovement^ or not ? With numberlefs other the like Queftions. Thus likewife, the Incarnation of the Son ofGod^ is an Article very neceffary to be under- itood by Chriftians , and yet to inquire in what particular rnetaphyfical inanner That Son was begotten of his Father^ may be, and is, a very unneceffary Controverfy.
What follows, CP^<S* 53O isftillmuch worfe: LATITUDINARIAN, alids COMPREHENSION, aliks MODE^ R A TION-Principles. What Science Thefe Terms of Art -belong to ^ and how tpsll This Language becomes the Mouth of a Serious Divine ; and what Proef thefe fine Expreffions amount to, of any part of the Queftion between us^ I (hall wholly leave to Others to judge.
Only one thing I muft obferve to you by the by. It is a very ufual, but very wi- righteoii^s cuftom among Writers of Con- troverfy, when they can't anfwer Argu- 7nents in particular, to throw General Names of Reproach, of No certain determinate Signification. Thus M Chillingvporth, and
4rch-'
( 55 )
Arch-Btjhop Tillotjon^ and fome others of the Ableft and the Be ft Men, that the Fro- ze ftaiit and the Cbriftian Caufe was ever de- fended by I, when they could not be ^;/- fwered^ were called Latitndinarians •, only to raife an Odium againft them among the ignorant people, who cannot eafily diftin- gui(h between hard TVords and hard Argii" merits^ and are too apt to be prejudiced with hard Words whofe Meaning they under* ftand not. I am very fure, that Thefe Latitudinarians^ whom both you and /have upon this occafion mentioned by Name^ are p^g* s^. Men that fincerely indeavoured to follow the Dodrine of Chrift and his Apoftles ; And though jiou Nozv feem afliamed to be joined with fuch Company, yet God grant / may be found with them at the Great Day.
What you add in the fame Paragraph, ^ag. sg, as an Inftance of LatHudiyiarian Principles, \yiz. that Wloofoever does hut profefs He be- lieves the Original Baptif?nal Creed according to the bare Words thereof^ no matter in what Senfe, He ought to he look\lupon^ ivithout any more ado^ as .a True Good Chriftian in refpeSi of his Faith Q though it be very unfairly exprefs'd, and with an ill Spirit, yet feems indeed to contain the moil: mate- rial Difficulty in your whole Book, viz.
Hozi^
C 50
How Men pall knoTV^ (fuue Words are iio-- thing without a determinate Se?ife^) what is the determinate Senfe ofthofe Fundamental Articles of Faithy which are abfolutely ne-^ cejjary to Salvation / I aiifvver : They are cxpreiled as Clearly in the Sermons of Chrift and in the Writings of his Apoftles, as the Spirit of God thought fit they ftiould be expreft -^ and the Wifdo?n of Man cannot exprefs them more clearly. Whoever reads the Sermons of Chrift and the Writings of his Apoftles, with a fincere intent to learn from thence what he 7?2ufl do to be faved^ may be as Certain of underftanding the determinate Senfe of the Words wherein They exprefs the Iseceffary Requifites to Sal- vation^ as he can be of underltanding the determinate Senfe of the Words of Fallible Men '^ and More certain^ of not being led tliereby into Error. Thefe Fundamentals^ the Church has from the Beginning indea- voured briefly to exprefs in the Baptifmal Greedy not as an Authoritative Explication^ but as an InftruHive Summary. Aiid the Articles of Thi^Creed^ (efpecialiy as it was ivorded in the Three Fir ft Centuries^ whicli is the Time you appeal to,) are fo clear and intelligible^ that, I verily believe, no fincere ?ni7ul ever inifunderftood any one of them. All the Controveriies in the Chriftiaa World, have been either about Otler Farts^
of
( ^$ )
of Scripture^ -which contain mfallihly true T>oBr'me^ but not fundamentally necejfary to the Salvation of a Chr'iflian , or elfe, (and indeed more frequent y,) about the Authority and the deterininate Senfe of the additional Explications of Men , Which may indeed well be look'd upon as Quefti- ons and Speculations about Truth and Er- rouY^ but not about That Faith by ivhich a Man muft be Saved or Da?nned.
I had faid, (IntroduH. pag. 19,^) that it was a great Fault in young Students, to take up theirNotions in Divinity /r/2 from Humane and Modern forms of fpeaking^ and then to pick out afterwards (as F roofs )fopie FEW ftngle Texts of Scripture^ inftead of attending to the whole Scope and general Tenour of Scripture in the Fir ft place. To This, you reply : / nntfi crave leave to dif- Pi- si- fent herein fro?n the DoBor ; For furely the Whole is made up of its Parts ^ a?id ?iot the Parts of the Whole : And confequently the Whole Scope and General Tenour of the Scripture is to he known^ hy knowing the EJght Senfe of THE SEVERAL PAR^ TICULAR Texts'^ and it is Abjurd to fay on the contrary^ that particular Texts are to be Rightly underftood hy the Whole Scope and General Tenour of Scripture , this hing in effeB to fay, that the Parts are
I madei
( 66 )
ynade up of the Whole : Wherefore^ fince in order of Mature I am Fir ft rightly to iinder^ [land TEE PARTICULAR Texts of Scripture^ before I can nnderfland rightly what is the Whole Scope and General Tenoiir of Scripture -^ and confeqitently 'tis ifnpojfible in the nature of the Things for me to under^ fiand the Foriner by imderftanding; the Lat^ ter *, heiice there is a necejfity of dffigning Some Other way^ as the Befi for rightly im- derflanding THE PARTICULAR Texts or PaJJ'ages of Scripture^ and thereby the General Tenoiir of Scripture : And That Be ft way^ is having Recourfe to the Antient Writers^ (^c. Now is lliis a way of argu- ing, at all becoming a feripus Writer, plead- ing in earneft for what he believes to be the Truth ? / made the Diftinftion between
particular Texts X.2k.^n^\\\<^)\ ^ TEW fu- gle Texts ^ (thofe were my Words,) on the one hand \ and, on the other hand, the Whole Tenour of Scripture^ that is, ALL the Numerous particular Texts relating to any one Doclrine, confidered and compared Together. Inftead of This, you^ in your Reply, reprefent me as oppofing All the particular Texts of Scripture, to the Whole Tenour of Scripture ^ that is, as oppofing the Whole Scripture to the IVhole Scripture. And can you really. Sir, have fo mean an Opinion of your Readers, as to think that I
nee4
- ( ^7 )
need make Any AnlVer to fucli kind of Arguments as Thefe ?
But there is ftiil Another admirable piec^ of Sagacity, in this Paragraph of yours. The Whole Scope and General Tenour of Scripture^ we muft know, cannot be right- ly underftood otherwife, than by under- ftanding The ? articular Texts , becaufe the Whole muft needs be m.ide up of its Farts: And The Particular Texts cannot be un- derftood by attending impartially to the whole Scope and general Tenour of Scripture^ (that is, by confidering and comparing all thofe Texts one with another •,) becaufe This^ it feems, is in effeB to fay^ that the Farts are M- 58- ntadeitp oftheWhole: THEREFORE there's No way at all to underftand the Scripture, but by fome Other Help, viz. by the ^Antient Fathers. Is This again the Argument of a Mathejnatical Writer? One of the greateft Benefits of fuch Studies^ and' that' which ufes to diftinguilli Men who are skilled in That Learning, from Thofe who are not • is their taking Care that their Conclufion be fure to follow from their Preipifes : But This, you al- moft conftantly neglecl. Apply fuch Ar- guing to any other Book in the World ^ and try if you can perfwade Mankind, that Tul/fs Ofrices, or any other Book of Mo- ralitv, is not to be underftood by reading';
1 2 and
(<58)
and (ludying the Book itfelf, but that the Dodrine taught in That Book can be learnt otily by (ludying Other Books.
■pig. 5;v Your next Argument,is Something about the Acquaintance and Intimacy certain Men fnay have happened to have formerly con- traHed, as being of the Same Unwerjity^ and FelloW'Collegiates^ and more particularly yet^ Chamber-Fellows^ and the tike. I fup- poie you will be furprized, when I tell you, thit the Perfons you fpeak of, not only never were Chamber-Fellows^ but even not fo much as of the Saitie College. But if the Fad had been True -^ was it either \i\ itfelf of any Importance^ or any thing at all to your purpofe > Confider, Sir, feriouily in your own Mind, whether this Childilh Wrath of Man^ can in any degree ivork the PJghteoiifmfs of Gcd^ or be likely in any niealure to promote Truth and Equity and Chp:rity am.ong(t Men. Is any Man the worfc or the better Chriftian, or are his Arguments the weaker or the ftronger, for having lived in the Neighbourhood of fuch and fuch particular perfons, or having been in the fame Houfe or in the fame Chamber with them? You were r^Wthis matter for a Truth, no doubt : But does it become a Man of Dr Wells^ character, when he de- h'i^ '•'^« dares lie is ISot in the leaf} ajhamed to own . ' Fiibl'ickly
( 69 )
Publkkl) his l^lame^ and that he has not only taken Care Hifnfelf to let nothing drop frorn his Pen hut what was confiftent with the True Spirit of Meebiefy a?iJ Chriftianitjy, but has alfo Submitted thefe his Papers to the Judgment of Judicious ^ truly Piom^ and £mi?ient Perfons in London, with full Power to flnke out whatever fiall appear to their Better Judgments Vot confiftent with the True Spirit of Meeknefs and Christianity : Does it become D^ Wells ^ with fuch a Pre- amble as This, to endeavour meanly to raife an Odium amongft ignorant people againft a Perfon who never offended him ^ by publifhing, with the Auih/)rity of his Name to it, a Little Palfe Story ? and This, without giving himfelf the Trouble fo much as once to inquire, whether there w^as any Truth in it or no \ though he had Neighbours that were of That Univerfity and of That College he fpeaks of, who could with the greateft Eafe have informed him better > We pretend juftly to abhorr the Principles of Thofe 'Men, who think no faith is to be kept with their Adverfa- ries > And Ihqll Protefiants themfelves, when they happen to differ in Opinion, take No care to keep any megfures of Truth and Charity .<? Becaufe Ton think yourfelf Orthodox^ (as / alfo, and I hope with as good Reafon, think My felf;) are you there- fore
(7o)
fore at liberty to raife little Calumnies at a venture, and indeavour to blind people with Prejudice^ inftead of convincing theiii by Reafon <? If, in matters of Controverfy, Both fides (liould make a Cuftom of allow- ing themfelves in fuch Negligence j what a hopeful Exam.ple fliould we fet to our Tit, 5, 2. people of the Doclrine we preach, to fpeak evil of no Man^ But becaufe I believe This was only 'Negligence in you, and not De^ Jign :, I hope the Convictions of your own Conicience will make you to be more cau- tious for the future, and to confider of how 111 Example Such fort of Negligence is.
But to proceed : In your next Obferva- tion, (upon my cautioning Men to be gui- ded, not by the Sound of fingle T<ixts, but by the Senfe and whole Tenour of Scrip- ture,) you are again playing with Words, in a manner which does not greatly become ptg, 5p- fo ferious a Subject. Becaife S^ Paul^ (j^^ fay,) fpeaki?ig of Chrift^ tijjirfns of him^ (Rom. 9, 5,) that He h OVER ALL, GOD Me (fed for ever^ We are not therefore (for avoiding being mif guided by the Sound ofthisfmgle Text^) to under ft and the Triie ^e?ife of the faid Text to be This^ viz. that a;//? is NOT OVER ALL, GOD bleffed for ever. As if (befides your un- fairnefs in corxealing from your Reader
the
C 70 ^
the Ambiguity of the words of that Text in the Original,) every Child could not un« derftand, that He who, with refpecl to the whole Creation made fubjeB to him, is GOD OVER ALL., yet at the fame time, with refpect to Him ^ho fubjecled all things to him, isNOTGOD OFER ALL: It being Manifejl^ (as Sc Paul obferves,) that is to fay, manifeft to the common Senfe i Cor. 15, of Mankind^ without needing to be often ^''* repeated , that He who fub]eBed all things \ Cor. 15, to the Dominion of Chrift^ (namely, GbD^ ^^' even THE FATHER, as the fame A- poftle takes Care to explain himfelf,) muft needs be exempted from being Himfelf fub- jed to That Dominion.
The like Trifling, follows again in the>^^^- 59. next words : Becanfe (you fay) S^ John affirms (1 Joh- 5, 7,) that Thefe Three Are one, We are not therefore (for avoiding being mifgiiided by the Sound of this fingle Text) to under fland the True Senfe of the Text to be This, Thefe Three ARE N O T O N E. x\s if things that in one Senfe may be truly faid to be One, might not as truly in another Senfe be faid 7iot to be One. Befide^ that you exceedingly a- bufe your EngWfli Reader, when you en- tirely conceal from him, both that the word. One, has not in the Original That Ambi-
• g^it:y.
( 70
guity, which it has in Englifli ^ and alfo that the Whole Text hfelf^ (for ought that yet appears,) has been wanting in Every . manufcript Copy of the Original, that Is or ever Was in the World. Of which mat- ter, more has been fpoken above.
And ftill once again, in the following }Ag, $9. words : Andfo^ verfe 20^^ of the fame Chap- ter becaufe it is faid^ This (that is^ {yon fay'] Jefas Chrifij I S T H E T R U E GOD, We are not therefore (for fear of being viifguided by the Sound of the faid Text) TO tinderftand its True Meaning to be This, viz. This IS NOT THE T R U E G 0 D. As if it were not very plainly confiftent, to affirm of Chrift, with regard to Dominion over Us and the whole Creation^ that He is Truly God , and yet that at the fafne time, with regard to the Supreme Father of All^ Chrift is not He (or That Perfon) who in Scripture is ftiled by way of Eminence Qo d\n^ivi( ^fo^l The True God and The Only True God. But Here alfo again you ufe your Englifh Rea- der very unfairly, when you Thus cite the Text, This (that is^ Jefm Chrifl) is the True God •, as if That were, without any Ambiguity, the Si^ification of the words in the Original : Which is by no means the Cafe. For though the thing it
felf,
( 73 )
felf, underftood in a right Senfe, and ac-- cording to the Analogy of Scripture, is un- doubtedly true, that Jefiis Qonft is Truly God 5 yet That is not the AiTertion of this Text. We know (fays the Apoftle) that the So7i of God is come ^ ajid hath given us an Under (landings that n>e may know Him that is True^ \jiv ihf^^tyl^ ^h. the True God , fo the mod and beft MSS have it ^ in like manner as Joh. 17, o,-^ And we Are in Him that is True^ Qin the True God ^ So the Conftruftion manifeftly requires it to be underftood, of the fame Perfon as be^
fore^ hct ypc:(rKu>uiv TON AAH0INON (^'oy,)
KAiitrucp h Tn AAHGiNfti and we are in That true God,'] In (that is, By) his Son Jefii^ Chrifl : This is the True God, and eternal Life *, Little Children, keep your/elves from Idols. The Meaning plainly is : This is the True God, whom the Son of God has given us an Underftanding to know, and in whom we Are by His means i That is to fay, This is the True Religi- on, and the Way to eternal Life, (yi:s^. the Worihip of this True God by and through his Son Jefus Chrift 0 Beware of Idol-worfhip- Thus, verfe iV^' of this Chapter: Tim is the Record, that God hath given to us eternal Life, and This Life is IN [that is, By or Thropgh'^ his 6c?w,
K Your
(74)
pai, 6c. Your next citation, of the Two Texts out of S^ Peter and Ifa'iah^ concerning Chrift's futfering for our Sins or not for our Sins ^ is either not at all pertinent^ which is the Beft that can be fuppofed of it ^ or elfe it is intended to fuggeft a moft unrighteous infinuation, as if 1 had faid any thing in diminution of Chrift's fuftering for our Sins ^ for which fuggefti- on, 1 have no where given you fo much as the leaft Colour. But as he that breaks the haw in One point,, is guilty of All-^ fo (it feems) whoioever differs from your Opinion in any one cafe, mny lawfully be charged by you with any other Errour whatfoever. Will it not better become us Frov, 25, All to conlider *, As a MaJ-?na7i^ who cafi- *^* eth Fire-brands^ Arrows and Death ^ fo is
the Man that Reviieth his Neighbour^ and faith^ Am not I in Sport ?
pag. 6o. To your Obfervations upon my AJJe?it to the Forms by Law appointed^ my An- fwer is ^ that by having plainly declared my Opinion, a£oon as it was pojjihle for me to colled the materials necefiary to de- termine it, without regarding (as you un- juftly fugg.ft) at what Time it might mofl priidentialy be done , I ha\^e, with all de- cent Alodcfty, fubmitted Iliat whole mat- ' . ter
(75 )
ter to the Judgment of my Supenours^ and taken care not to impofe upon my Infenoiirs or Equals. Whether Aflenting to Any words of humane Inftitution, m the Manner which Tour whole Argument aims at, merely in reliance upon the ge- fieral Authority of Tradition^ without con- fidering in particular how and in whit fenfe 'tis poflible the words alfented to luay be underflood confiftently both with the Scripture and with Themfelves compa- red together ^ Whether, I fay, This way of Aflenting, how much foever it may poffibly tend to a fort of Feace, can in any wife tend to the promoting of True Religi- on^ I fliall not here take upon me to de- termine.
As to the Difficulty you are afraid there p.g. si. may be i7i Difpoffeffing me of my Prefer.- ment ^ How This tends to fliow the Reader any Weahiefs m MY Argiment^ I under- ftand not : But I am very forry to fte, (for your fake, much more than for ray own^^ that a Man of your x^bihties ihould Thus declare, wherein (he thinks^ confifls the chief Strength of HIS. In This mat- ter. Sir, you know not mhat Spirit you arc of. God be thanked, the Proteftmt Reli- gion has not yet renounced the Ejfential Principle upon which it is built^ For, K 2 were
(70
were any whole Church, of That Spirit which the Confequences of your frefent Arguing lead to, (I hope it is not your fettled and calm Opinion •,) I affure you, it would be 710 Dijjiculty at all, to pre- vent Me from being a Member of fuch a Churchf
I fhall conclude the Whole, with fetting before you, as in a Glafs, a lively and exaft PiiSure of the different Spirits of Men, in the Words of a iPerfon as heartily Zealous for the Authority and Traditions of the Church, as any Learned PROTESTANT in Chriftendom. It is the ingenious Robert Nelfon Efq^ in his Life of the Right Re- verend Bifhop-JB^// 5 fpeaking concerning the Bifliops Explication* of the Dodrine of Jiijlification^ which is Now as uni- verfally received and followed, as it was Then contrary to the general Opinion of Divines.
Nom
a 77)
Now (fays M"^ Nelfon,) as the Method of our Author (^Bifliop Bull"] was always to feek Truth at the Fountain-head-^ What^ ever RefpeB he might have for our Ftrft Reformers^ and fome other great Divines both Foreigners and Natives^ he could by no means take up with their AUTHO^ RITTy though 7iever fo pompoujly fet off '^ but was for going dtreBly to the
very Origi?ials themfelves. Accordi?igly
Joe betakes himfelf in the very firji place^ to the Holy Scriptures ^ and here he pru- dently hegi7ineth with that which is obvi* ous and plain^ rather than with that which is amhiguom and oh f cure. Mr Nelfon's Life of Bp Bull, p3g. 104.
Notwith (landing all which caution of his in the treating of this Pointy that had been rendred fo abflriife^ ?nore by the laborious difputations of Divines^ than by the Nature of the Thing itfelf or of the Revelation concerning it •, there was prefently no fmall Alarm^ both in the Church and out of it^ from M"^ BullV performance •, as if the Church of England^ and the whole Prote- flant Religion^ were by it in danger. For^ his departing herein from the private Opi- nions of fame DoBors of our Churchy tho* in Obedience to her Rule^ was by feve- ral interpreted for no lefs than a depart- ing
( 78 )
hig from the Faith hy her delivered, pag.
97-
There arofe in the Omrch no fmall cojir-
tention^ whether this Interpretation of Scrip- ture were conforinahle to the Articles of Religion^ and the Homily of Juflific ation
therein referred to. Some maintained r
that it ivas.'^ fome doubted about it j and others downright denied it^ and condemned it as Heretical. There wjts many a hard Cenfure faffed upon the Book and the Au- tl^or^ for fome time -^ Which is not to be wondred at. pag. 98.
Some mightily triumphed over him for r
not attending enough to the Dothi^ie of his ozvn Church, pag. 225.
Others, as if he were nqt pnly to be held for an Heretick by the Churchy but even for an Herefiarch too. pag. 211.
That M BuU'j- explication of the Do^ Brine of Juftitication, was properly Hereti- cal ^ as being contrary^ in a fundamental pointy to the Teftimony of Scripture^ and againfl the Opinion of the Cathohck Fa- thers^ the judgment of the Church ^/"Eng- land, and the determinations of all the fo* reign Reformed Churches, pag. 214.
Some ftirred up f ever al of the BifJ:ops —
to make Ufe of their Apoftolical Authority in thundring out their A?iathema*s again/i the DoQrines here mai?itained^ as pernicious
and
C 79 )
and heretical^ and contrary to the Decrees of the Church 0/ England, and of all other Reformed Churches, Thefe were quickly feconded in This by fome Others^ partly known J and partly ipiknown , of who?n Some that under jlood hut little of the inatter^ xpere^ as it often happens^ the hottefl of all againfl him^ and were for pu^nng things to the utmofl extremity : But moderate Coiin- fels prevailed for the mofl part ^ and the Governours of the Church were fo wife^ as 7iot to intermeddle further in this affair^ than to keep the Peace of the Church commit- ted to the?n. pag. 1 01.
So?ne there were^ more violent than the reft ^ of whom He complaineth^ that they 7nade very Tragical Outcries again ft him^ as if by fuch an Hypothefis as This^ " the " whole Syftem of Orthodox Divinity fioidd *' be fiaken^ yea broken to pieces and ut- " terly dejiroyed ^ and that the very Foim- " dations both of Law and Go/pel were " hereby at once imdermined and overturn^ " ed. pag. 166.
Some there were more wife and learned than the reft^ who yet approved it not^ that they might not appear guilty of Innovating, as they called it. And it could not be di-
gefted by them^ becaufe the Prejudices
which a great many worthy perfons among m had fucked in from the narrow Syfteins
of
( 8o )
of modern Divi?iity or otherwife^ were
too ftro7ig for them entirely to overcome^ even roitlo the Help of the cleareft Lights pag. 98.
Some were among the mofi Jealous to oppofe^ by their rigid adherence to cer- tain Tenets by them formerly imbibed^ and to fome Scholajlick Terms iinfupported either by Scripture or Antiquity, pag. 102.
There could have been no difficulty con^
cerning •, had either the ftate of the
controverfy in the Apojlles days been at^ tended to as it oiight^ or perfo?is had not come with their modern Opinions and Pre- judices to read the Apoftolical Epiftles ; 7iot fo rnuch^ very often^ to learn what is the Truth^ as to efiabhjij the?nfelves thereby in what they are already^ by the Tradition of a SeBj prepojfefjed with to he the Truth. pag. 123.
Some, 7iot allowing themfelves time to think fedately^ or even to examine fuffici- ently the fenfe of an Author who pleafed them 7iot 5 being fired with a Zeal for what they took for Truth, from the Sy- flems which they had greedily fucked in as Aitthentick Explications of the Gofpel ^ in- tirely loft themfelves thereby^ and expofed the very caufe they imdertook to defend. pag. 1^6.
Ther
(SO
They fet themfeives to defend their owi Scheme^ as the only Orthodox one ^ thhik-^ ing that Mr Bull ivciiid ?nake an intolerable Change in the very Sitb fiance of the Body of t)ivi?iity, pag. 172.
But He [viz. M^ Bull] affirms it to he mofl imreafonable and againft the Princi- ples of the Church of Eiigland^ to prefer the Authority of any modern DoBor or DoBors whatfoever^ before a Truth ground- ed upon Scripture^ tPith the unanimous t07ifent of the Catholick Church pag*
235-
Tet with much ingenuity He co7tfeffes
that " matters were coine to that pafs^
'* that it was hardly fafe for avy One " to interpret either the Articles of our " Churchy or even the Holy Scriptures ^' themfeives^ otherwife than according to the Standard of Calvins Inftitutions j " Whofe Errour therefore^ (faith he J ought " not fo ?mich to he imputed to The?n^ " as to the Age wherein they lived : Since " almofl in every Age^ as One has well *' obferved^ there is as it were a certain " Torrent of opinioiis proper to it^ againjl *' which whofoever foall go to oppofe hi?n- " fe^f» ^^ M^l certai7ily either be carried " away with the Violence thereof^ or be " quite overwhelmed '\ This is an Oh- fervation that is very jujt : — -^Nay, did
L I know
u
JB O 0 K S Printed for James Knaptom
The great Duty of univerfal love and Charity. A Sbrmon preached before the Queen, ac St. Jamei% Chapel, pr. 6 d,
A Sermon preach'd at the Lady Coo)(^e's Funeral, pr. id.
A Sermon preaeh'd before the Houfc of Commons, pr. id,
A Sermon ppeaeh'd before the Qiieen on the 8th of March, 1709-10. pr. id,
A Sermon preach'd ac Sc. James'i Church on the Thankfgiving Day, Nov. ych, 1710. pr. %d.
The Government: of Paffion. A Sermon preach*d before.chc C^ueen at Sc fames'^ Chapel, pr. 3 d.
Jacobi Rohaulii Phyfica. Latine vertit, recenfuic, & uberioribus jam Annotationibus ex illuftriiTimi IjAnci Kcutoni Philofophia maximam partem hauftis, ampHficavic 3c ornavit S. Clar\e. Accedunc eciam in hac tercia Edicione, novae aliquot Tabulrs scri incifse 5 ^ Annotationes mulcum Tunc audx, 8a/o» Price Sj.
//. Neutoni Opcice. Latine reddidit S. CUrl^Cy S. T. P.
The Script nre'DoSlrlne of the Trinity. In Three Parts. Wherein all the Texts in the New TcOamenc relating to that Doftrine, and the nrincipal PafTages in the Liturgy of the Church of England, are collefted, compared, and explain'd. pr. 6s,
The Rights of the Clergy of the Chriftian Church : Or, A Difcourfe fhevving, that God has given and appropriated to the Clergy, Authority to Ordain, Bapci'/e, preach, prefide in Church-Prayer, and Con- secrate the Lord's Supper. Wherein alfo the pre- tended Divine Right of the Layety to Eleft, cither the Perlons ro be Ordained, or their own particular Pallors, is Examined and Difproved. By Thomas Bm\ety M. A. Reftor of St. James's in Cokheftcr, pr. $-».
A Paraphrafe and Annotations on the Book of Common-Prayer, 810. pr. 4/.
A Letter to Mr. Benjamin Robinfon, on his Review of Liturgies and their Impoiition. pr. is. 6d,
A Scftond Letter to Mr. Kgtinfon. pr. i s.
A F U L L
ACCOUNT
OF THE Late Proceedings hi Convocation
Relating to
D"^ Clarke s Writings
about the T R I N I T
Containing True Copies of \^y
I. The Complaint of the lower-HouJe. ^ '''
II. The Anfwer of the Biflwps, --^_^
III. Their Mefiige to the Lower- Houfe, directing an ExtraEl oi 'Particulars.
IV. The Extra[i ot ParUcidars laid before the Bifiopi by the Longer ■ Hovfe,
V. Dr Clarke s Pap-T deli^ert^d to the Btjhops.
VI. The Refolution of the Bifiops^^on that Paper ^ which was Comnianicated to the Lrwer Honfe.
Together with an Account of the Rt^ioiuaon of the Lower 'Hovfiiv-on it.
With Some Short Remarks,
LONDON^ Prlnttci for John Baker, at the Bhck Boy in Pater kj^er Row. 17H Pfice 6d
' Advert if ement.
TH E Proceedingf in Convocation, rela-m ting to D''(Zhx\iQ^ ha- ving made a great Noife in the World, as n>ell on ac~ count of his great Reputation, as of the Controverfy to mhich they relate ; and ImperfeU Copies of feme Particulars of thefe Vroceedings , having been al- ready Vnhlijhed and Dijper- 4 2 fed;
fed 'y One mho had the Curt" ofity to procure a True Account of every thing as it pajfed^ thinks ii not improper that the World (lotdd now feeithe whole" ap one
X-j Ul'x
VkwiX l\A i x\ i\Y^
He hopes that the Reverend Body, whofe Conipl^aint hegan thefe Proceedings, will not look on this Publication as m Injury^ Jznce it jmll refcue their ^ Coff^ du& from fuch Imperfed Mil-^^ representations, and ferve to place their Zeal for the Church, in- Its true Light. And the Keve^ rend Z)** Clarice, He prefiimes, will have no reafon to complain of it, fnce it contains an Exaa.
Copy of what he delivered to the Bifhops, both with refpeB to his own Opinion J and the Peace of the Church.
THE
(7)
THE
COMPLAINT
Of the Lower^Houfe^
June 7. 1714.
To His Grace the Arch-Bijhop of Can* terbury^ atid the Lords the Bijbops of the Province of Canterbury in Can'vocation affembled.
The Clergy of the Lower^Honfe of Con^ <zfocation Humbly Reprefent^
THAT a Book hath of late been publiflied and difperfed throughout this Province, Intituled, The Scripture - Dvcirwe of the Trinity. Ift Three Parts. Wherein aU the Texts in the Nerp Teftament relating to that DMrine^ and the Principal Tajfages
in
in the Liturgy of the Church of England
are coUeEfed^ compared^ and explained^
By Samuel Clarke^ D. D. KeBor of
lS^rJaT9CsY XJiTeftmiafter^ and Chap^
lain mOraindry to Her }AajeJiy ^ And
feveral De^ifes thereof^ by the fame
Author/ Which Book and Defenfes
do^ in our Opinion , contain Afler-
tiuns contrary to the Catholick Faith^
-as ieceivetf. and declared by this Re-
ipf med Clntrch of England^ concern-
ifcg Thn^-'t'erfons of OM Sid^ fiance^
Server and Eternity^ m^'ih'e ^nity of
tbe Godhead': And tending moreover
to perplex the Minds of Men in the
Solemn Afts of Worihip^ as direfted
fey our EftabJiflicd Li^iir^y^ to the
:^^cat Grief and Scandal of pious and
fcber-mindcd Chriftians;
And whereas there are diverfe Pafiages in the Book of Common- Prayer^ and in the Thirty-nine Arti- cles, which are dircfl-ly oppolcd to fuch Heretical Aflertions^ We do
further
fuMef i-eprefent to yolir Lordffips^ That even thefe Paflagcs have by the faid Author been wref ted with fuch Subtletj^-a^ may both teach and tempt the Unftable and Infincere to comply with the Laws^ which re-^ quire them to declare their mifeign- ed Aflent and Confent' to the faid Book of Common-Prayer, and tofub- fcribe to the faid Articles^ and ne> Verthelefs to retain and propagate the v^ry Erroiirs^ which are moft in- confifteirtt wFth fuch their Declar^ioit and Subfcription. ::>!r?n
It i$ With thef iitmoft Concern thai^ we behold thefe daring and dange-^ rous Attempts, to ftibvert our Com- mon Faith, to corrupt the Chriftian Worfhip^ and to defeat the Church's main End in agreeing tipon her nTti- c/cf^;~r^amely, The avoiding of Di^er- jities ^of Opinions^ and the efiabli/I?ing of Consent touching True Religion.
B And
( lO j
And We cannat therefore but think our iclvcs bound^ in Duty to God and his Church, in Difcharge of the weighty Tfuft repofed in Us as Members of this Synod, and in Cha- rity to the Souk committed to our Care^ moft earneftly to bcfeech yous Lordfliips to take the Premiles into your Serious and Godly - Gonfiderati- on ^ AlFuring your Lordihips of our moft Dutiful and Ready Concurrence in any proper Methods^ which may effciStually put a Stop to thi^ growmg Mifchief^ and remove from our felves the Reproach^ which our Silence on fo importart an Occaiion might juft- ]y bring upon Us.
THE
r 11 •)
i!'? vitrfoj
THE
A N S W E 'R
OF T HE
Bifliops.
THE Bifliops highly approve the Zeal of the Lower Houfe for the Prefer vation of the Catho- ^ick Faith^ expreffed in their Repre- ientation^ laid before this Houfe the laft Sefllon ; wherein they declare their Concern for the great Scandal given to Pious and Sober-minded Chriftians^ by fome Books lately pub. liflacid by Dr Clarke^ and their A p. prehenfion of the Mifchiefs and dan- jgerous Confequences that may enfue
B ? there^
thereupon. The Bifliops think the Lower Houfe had juft ReaiWior fueh their Complaint^ and will take it in- to their Confideration w^hat is proper to. do on this Occafion,
0 v-jr-:,- !^ '. ''
^^^^
^^^'^^
. rk
ID fiOil^.rl-i'iq
'^^]^o1 ^OiLOi^ dill y vi'yC ':ii
n^ir M E S S A G E f ^ tk
LomeV'^Houfe ^ direBing an Extrad of Particulars out of the Books complain d of
I'^HE Bifliops having t^en in- to ti)|^,^nuderat;ioi) what is proper to l^it^pbrie^ infe f #^^ to the Book^ and feV^^M'^Blfphfes thereof^ complained of by the Lower-Houfe on the 2d of this Inftant J tine ^ do think it proper that (for the clearer Proceeding of the Convocation in this MatterJ) an Extract flioiild be made of thofe Paflages in the faid Books^ which give greateft Offenfe and are moft liable to Cenfiire. And they do yccommend it to the Lower-Houfe^
that
C 14)
that they would with all convenient Speed prepare fuch an Extra^i and lay it before this Houfe^ together with their Obiervations thereupon-
rh
T^e EXTRACT of
Particulars laid hc" fore the Bifhops, hy the Lower-Houic.
^ May It pJeafe jonr Grace aniyowr Loriffitp,
1
■^ H E Lower-Houfe, in parfu- ance of what your LordCnips were pleafed to recommend to them in your Paper of the inh. Ir^ftant, have extraded fome Paflages out of T>r Clarke s Scnpture'DoSirwe of the Trimty ^ and the Defenjes thereof^ and have difpofed the ExtraSi they have made under the following Heads^ with a diftind Regard to the feveral Matters of Complaint^ contain d in (heii; late Reprefentation.
L Affer--
I. Aflcrtions contrary to the Ca- i^tholick ;F^itfiL., as Received and de- \:larcd by this Reformed Church of '^l^nglandl^ cohcefriing Three Perfons of 'One 'SuhrrajTcq^ Power and Eternity^ in the Unity of .the Godhead. ..1
Scrip%m\' T-Q^nneof tin Trinity^ ;pag. ^^6^, Yny. 2. ^vAf^lfr^ pj^J the- Word^ ' '0/.o«^©-^ ^*'wllil%- we tranflate of'Ohe Suhfidfice '^^ with thrPatherJ be' mrderfVood tp ^^^ fipnifie'--*— 0?7e Indi'viduai SiiB- "^ jiance'^ this will be firroperlT-
^^ One Spcbfificnce\ or One: Terfon dnlv^^
X^ef/(rr/l7'Pr;WeIk/pagf 47.! J-'df; r^^'^^'Nbw this^ I fay^ -[ifi^. 7hat% ^^^ the Godhead there are^/Threc Pirfbtts '^^ irf the \^fame Di'vine hidi^^idttdl £jp- ^^ fer7ce~] is ah exprefb' Coritradiftiorn in ^^ the very Terms.
Anfrv
er
C '7 )
Anfrper to the Author of fome Conji-^ derations^ p. 224. J. 12. , ^^ If the Father^ the Son^ and the ^^ Holy Spirit^ be conceived to be ^^ AJI but Om Individual Being ^ it ^^ follows of neceflity^ that the Son ^^ and Holy Spirit have no Bang at '' all.
Ibid, pag. aSp. lin. 8. ^^ That Two ferfons fliould be One ^^ Beings is (l think J) a manifeft Con- ^^ tradidion.
Ibid. pag. 297. lin. 4, ^^ This \yi^ that the Father add ^^ Son are Both hut One and the Same ^^ Indiiidtial Being^ I think^ is an ex- ;^ prefs Contradiftion*
N. B^ That the Words Epnce, Beings and Sabftance^ are uled by this Author as cquiualent Terms ^ i^id. Scripturc'Docfrine^ pag, 243. Im. i
© and
( ,8 )
and p. pag. 270 § XIL lin. 2. pag 27a. lin. 2, pag. i8p § XIX. lin. 2. P^g- 349 S^L. lin. 2. pag. 550 § XLI lin. 2. pag. 372. § LI. lin. 3. p. 373. lin. ip.
Answer to the Author of f owe Con* Jiderations^ p. 22c;. 1, p.
Scripture'VoBrim^ p. 429. 1. 10. ^^ There are not-— Three Eternal
^^ Perfons. IbicL lin. 17. ^' There are not—-
'^ Three Uncreated Perfons. IbicL lin. pemilt. ^^ There are not
^^ — Three Almighty Perfons.
II. Paffages tending to perplex the Minds of Men in the Solemn Afts of Wordnip^ as direded by our Eftabli- ed Liturgy.
All the Paffages before-cited have. In Our Opinion^ this Tendency : More particularly tbofe whereby the
Author
C '9) .
Author pretends to explain fotne Ex- preffions in the 'Nicem and Athauafian Creeds^ which arc Parts of our Divine Service.
Of the like Tendency are his Comments [ ScripturcDocinrje^ Part III Chap. IL pag. 4?5;, C^-^.] "pon divers other Exprefllons in the laid Creeds, in the Doxology^ Litany^ Collefts^ and other Offices of Devo- tion. In which the Church mani- feftly intends the Worfliip of the Trinity in Unity, and afcribes one and the fame Glory to the Three Perfons, without any Difference or Inequality.
But the mod: Offenfive Paffage un- der this Head feems to be in pag^ 476 of the faid Book : Where ha. ving firft connefted the proper Pre- face for Trinity Sn?7clay with the Words^ 0 Lord [Holy Father'} Al-
C 2 mighty
C 20 )
mghfy^ Ei^erljjlwg God^ without tal- king notice that the Words [Uoly fa- ther^ are cxprclsly ordcr'd to be o- mitted on that Oay^
He afterwards aflerts^ that the firft;, obvious^ natural and grammatical Sound ot the whole Sentence^ is^ that the Perfm of the Father is not Ofie Only (Perjo;?^ but Ihree Tcrfo?7s. Which Proceedino[ of this Author is not on- ly a maniteft and grofs Mifreprcfen- ration of this particular Form cf Devotion , hut tendeth greatly to per- plex the Minds of Men in the Life of it^ by intinuajting^ that whilft they arc here acknowledging the 0;;e God to be Not One Only Terjon^ but Three Ferjons in One Subfrance^ they are all the while addreiilng themfelves to the Pcrfon of the Father fingly^ and abfurdly declaring Hm/ to be Not Cm Only ferjon^ but Ihree feV" fins.
IIL
( ai )
lU. Paffages in the Liturgy and XXXIX Articles^ wrefted by D^ Clarke in fuch Manner as is complain'd of in the Reprcfentation.
For thejfe we reler to the whole Second Chapter of Part III. of the Scripture Dioirim of the Xriniv^ Com- par'd vvitlji ^age 24 and 25 of the IntrodyMion, In the faid Second Chapter^ He explains many Paflages in the Liturgy and Articles^ in a Senfe diredly contrary to the known Scnfe of the Church j and in the Introduction He defires it may be obfervcd^ that he gives his Affent to the Forms by Law appointed in That Senfe Only^ wherein He hioifelf hath explained them.
The Lower- Houfe are perfwaded^ the foregoing Extraft does fully fup- port their Reprcfentation.
But moreover we beg leave to
obferve^
r 22 J
obferve^ that the Offence given by the Books complain'4 of^ leems to Us to arife not only from fuch particular Parts and Paffages there- of as are before-cited^ but from the general Drift and DeHgn of the whole \ the fa id Books^ in our Opinion^ tending to nothing lefs^ than to fubftitute the Author's pri- vate Conceits^ and arbitrary Inter- pretations of Scripture^ in the Room of thofe Catholic Doftrines, which the Church profeifes and maintains^ as warranted both by Scripture and Antiquity.
Exhib. 23. Ju?2ii. 17^4. Job. London Commiffar.
RE
(23)
R E M A R K S
OOME may be apt to obferve that O throughout this Extract, and the for- mer Reprsfentdtlon^ there h no Complaint, either thit afjy of thofe numerous Texts of the New Teftamtnt ci<:ed bv Dr. Clarke in the Firft Part of hts Scripture- DoSriffe are mifreprefented ; or thar a- vy of the ^ r op 0 fit ions hid dovn in his Second Part are f^lfe in themfelves : hay, that the Catholtck Faith ^ confidered as fnch, is not the Snbj-ft of the prefent Concern of. the Lower-rLufe ^ hm the Catholick Faith as receivi'd and decl^^pd hy this Reformed Church of Ef2glard*^ and the Catholick Doci'-ifies rvhich the Church pro- fejfeth.^ and maintains . as warranted both hy Scripture and Antiquity • but not the Doc- trines lb warranted, diftinft from fuch Pro- fcjjion of the Church, But this will be no Curprize to any, but fuch as think that Efia- hliJJjwent is no certain Mark of Truth -^ and that Humane Authority in Religion is not IncontejiaSle '^ and that Matters fettled for many Years, by Men in Power, are not to be alw-iys lefr Sacred and uatouch'd.
Others
C =4 ) ,
. Others mav wonder at the mention of this. Reformed Church, in the prefent Queftion 5 under Pretence that it happens, in this par- ticular Point, that the Doff rwe here fixed upon this Church belongs not at all to it, as Reformed'^ but is enjoyed bv it in com- mon with the TJ^rcformed Church of Rdwe 5 to whofe Scholajlic Writers the Eftablflh- ment of thofe Terms, and Ldnguage^ in which only it is here allowed to be ex- preffed, is entirely owing • being utter- ly, as they fay, unheard of, and un- known , in the firft Ages of Chrifliani- ty. But thefe again are fuch as fondly imagine that the Church, confidered as Re^ prmed^ is whoUv founded on that Prin- ciple of fending all Chriftidns to the Scrips ^ fuyes, and not to her felf, or ^v\) Huf^tane Authority^ for a Rule of Faith or Pra&ice. No wonder, if fuch as theft (hould be fur- priz'd at this^ or at a Protejiarrt Sj?7od'$ Complaint of the Doff or s Interpret a tio?7s of Scripture, r^s of his own Private Conceits^ and Arbitrary hterpretatiotis ^ when fuch Perfonsare not afhamed often toprofefsthat Prottji^vtifm corld never fo much as have been in Being, but by departing from the Publick interpretations, and Doftrines of a Vafi Churchy in a long continued PoffefTion • and by having recourfe to private Interpre- tations, with the beft Helps that Learning and Integrity afforded. The^
r 25 J
To the fame purpofe, They urge that the interpretations of ScriptPtre made ufe of by the firft Patrons of this Reformed Church w^re, at the Time of the Rejormtjtion ^^\YA by their Adverfaries Private Conceits ^ and Arbitrary Interpretations 5 and complaiud of, ^sf^bfiU -tutedin theroom of thofe Catholick DoBrijies tohith the then Church profejfed and maintain- ed : But that the i?e/<?^/5??a/ thought it a good Ahfv^ifeV, that no Church was irjfallihle, that the Scripture was the Rule for every one to go by 5 and that there was no Way of un- derftanding that, but the Way of Private Judgment , fupported by the beft AfGft- ances. They pretend that the only con- fident Reply to this is, that this was only the great and hafty Zeal of the Reformers 5 but that they did not confider of wh« fat^l Confeqiienre it was, to deftroy the Infallibility of one Church, without (tt- ting up another, with the fame Authority, in it's Stead 5 that the Reformed Church having by Degrees fettled every thing upon the beft Grounds poffible, no ufe of Judgement was from thar time left to any of its Members 5 and that when once the Private Cor?cetrs and Arbitrary hiterpretatrof;s of our Reform^^rs came to he Eftablifbed , they prefently became,
D at
-( =6 )
^terpMatiorfs., ^r^ACnfholick DoUrines 4 x\f> cttlqre ■ to ik > -rot^f^0e(3;': And therefohe ■^hen it is'fesfeed by many, " Where vvoirfd: tlieVV^re ic5f .fhir^CWriS .be, if any P^.- fbris .\ (beffcfes ffiemfe! vesj) be .allowed io ftfppofe any v^Pi'opofitic^n -v or'. Interprer t^fibii ,, m- »bfe%rofig, wlikK uHat ' bixh Vee^lV^d, ^d" maintained > TheFe Pdrfcto -ariyPwcir , by ' a^4cmg , Where iwould ;thi3 "-Reformed Chkhhi fi felf ha-we-^beeii, / with^ •out 'fending ajll-jit'S Mei^nbeais . I evei> vtitb Iheir own Pri'i'atij Jpidgpmits ^i'(mx CmT i^eits^^ if fob picafe) from the CA)/r<?^ toihe Scriptnves ^ ; • i '^
c^*^Bvi!^^(^wret^ri^Ms Be; Tfiere are thoft; 3 jfind; who ^bii^ik' that it>defefved, Thafih father than t Ceftfi>re ifrom thiS ReveVevd -Body^ to attempr to reconcile th^r feveral ^i'flfisring Expreflions, ■ in owe f Mick Ofices^ taohe another 5. '^nd tD ^lew in how ^ood a Senfe thry^ may all be taken 5 that this was' fo -ftr from tending to dif? traft the Minds of Men in Worftip, that wlhout feme, ^orh 'Method/:(on" one Side, or otlier) they^ muft rcmainvfor oever ^^//^ frA&ed. — ^ — ^Bot thefe again are fuch as do not -'cdnfider -v'hoU' tenacious Men think they (hould be of e.?ery Expreffion, that
Ii.gth beeiv rCipcCr; fi)c!d to anraore tlian.orr.^ cjiin^ry mvfteric^i^s and IplemaSenfe; ai>4^ th^t all fuch IfTpfrprafatiorfs'riA tims tend, to ^^ravy * ^^}^^: the Minds (^^ Men from pati.e^tly^ai^d..:,^hupbly; ac^^^ efcins: in what is hid upon them by tTieir Ecclefiafticalrgu^fiprs, ^--^^ ' ; ,^ ^
yLaflty^ They, pretend tp;,ur^e that Dt^ €krke pro^v^^gl;I?^; many -^^i^^xliQ. pJai^c^^ Expreflions of our Church it felf^ .i^,,]J(|^ own Favour, which it is irapoffiWe to underftiind in the contrary way 5 that He perpetually citv?s many *T)f pjLir..owa pr4n- opaK cuid moft:.;^amous Diviues, as agrf,^ ing with him in thofe IntzrpufMiorjs "9^ Scripture^ which are moft objefted a^ gainO, and in tho,fe Pre;^i{iis frpm whicjil his Cof7clnfions inevitably follow y and, wh[^l is more, that He h^th alledged a great Number of the very firfllVritm-s of Chrifr tiamty , who agree with him in thoFe Interpretations, and quoted the mod un- deniable , and plaineft Ijaff^es out o^" them, for all the principal, /Branches oi His Opinion ^ many more, *5tv Number , and plainer in Expreffion, than canpoQi^ bly be produced againfl Him : .Axid upon 4^befe accounts,they pretend to think it whol-
v' D 2 ly
C =8 )
ly unaccountable, as well as unparallel- d, that Opimorts^ and hterpretations ^ thus backa, fliouM be reprefented under the contemptuous Notion of Private Coftceits^ and Arbitrary Interpretations.
But I only mention thefe, as the Obfer* rations of fome 1 erfons, to whom it is very difficult to give a Reply that will fatisfy them, till they become moredifpos'd to give up their Underftandings to their Superiours.
Soon after this Extra& was delivered to the Bijhopj, as I am informed the Dr. drew lip, what he thought an Artfivcr to every Branch of -it 5 which he communicated to feveral of them. . But as I know no way of procuring a Copy of it, the World muft be without it, unlefs He himfelf (hall (as is much to be defired,) judge it proper to publifti it*
One thing there is, which feems to fome to prefs clofe, tho* not upon his Gafe, yet up- on his Perfonal Conduft ^ and that is, His Subfcripttoft^ and Declaration of J//?z;^ and Confent, whilft he holds Opinions fuppofed to be contrary to the Declarations of the Qhnrck. He hath himfelf given an Account ' of
( 59 )
of this in his Anfwer to Mr M//S//. How fa- tisfadory, every one that reads it muft judge. His Friends, I find, think they fufficicntly defend him thefe following ways. i. They argue, that fuppofing him, when he at firft fubfcribed the Liturgy and Articles, not to have differed at ill from what is here taken to be the Do3ri»e of the Chnrch^ then all muft allow his Subfcription to be Honeft and Sincere^ and that fuppofing him af- terwards by Confideration to have changed his Mind, it is fo far from being difhoneft, that it is the heighth of Integrity to lay his prefent Thoughts openly before the World , for his Superiors to judge whether they think fit to tolerate them, or not. 2. That fuppofing Him to be of the fame Mind when he firft fubfcribed, which he hath now declared, His Subfcription could not affeft His Honefty, becaufe He was fully perfwaded that all the moft plain and moft intelligible Exprefiions in our Church- Service^ relating to this Point, are mani- feftly on Hi$ Side 5 and becaufe it cannot be accounted diftioneft to endeavour, in the Cafe of fuch a Difference of Ex- prefiions, to interpret the obfcure, and the lefs intelligible, by the plain ones, whofe meaning is certain. 5. They al- ledge that this \ya§ the Cafe of Arck-Bijhop
Lmdy
. ( fo )
L^icf^^^nd Bifhap Bull^ with refpea to the Armnian DaSrjnes^, 4. They oflR^r to main-' ii\n th?it this rhiirt be the Cafe of all the moft Orthodox of his Advenfarks them- felv^s^ nay, they pretend to be ready to- (hew rihat the difficulty is greater on Tj^eir Side than on Jy//^ and that it is next to iflipoffible for^ie^f to reconcile what^ they profefs td be their Dofttid^i with' many of the plaineft EicprelSohs in ih^ Creed f^ and Sevvlce^ of bur Chirch: 5. Tha f foppofing xht Church at fir(1-fO' have made ufe of fuch a Variety of i!i)rpfeffibn^ up- on this Suhjefit, ir cannot be difhoneft for Men of diff.^ring Notions to" vSW^j^r/i^, in this Gafe, any more than in others, un-* till Some AHthentick J^ he (okmnly and regula^rly pafs^d, to declare whether the PUtmU\ m4 niofii A/^tie^'t Expreflions (hM yield to the more Oh/cure and Ma^ ^tfr>? "^y-br 'Whether the Senfe of thefe (hall be conformed to the others. 6, They averr that' this is the Cafe, in fonie Inftance or other, of every Conforming Clergyman ill England^ who (ubfcribes with any Thought or Confideration of what He is about. 7. That, therefore, there can be no Danger from fuch Precedents, unlefs it be dange- rous that Men (hould be Encouraged to tndeavour to put fome fixt and determi^
nat^
( 31 )
mSS^3-^io.X^\^^^^jM%Mn^^^^^^ the
Offices and Declarations, they are to fub- fcribe, ni^^ing the plai|e(l^'; and cleareft Expreffions their Rule to go by, in dubious Cafes ^ whjc-h, - they ar^ue, cannot be^if- ho^ft, till fotee Authctttkk Mh^i\\^i\n- lyi^eciaredi^inft it. Mm this maiuifer. They pleaf themfelves in defending Him, and in HVcnr all the (Qff^ormm^ Clergy ( who in feme Point or oth:^»" are in much rfi€ fame Gafe^) 4fOi« th^ 4fflputation^- of Difhonefty,. or Difingenuiry ,. in their Subfcri^tion. With wha^ Jijftice I dd hoi determine. ' ^ ^v ^ '^ < ; ^"
The Noife.-e^ this Affa-ir befpre-tht C<>)iri ^ocatioK, ' ^dw iufrej^fing in 'the Wold; 5 & Clarke, gave' in tFe Mrowlf.g Paper to the BiJhopSy'^hoY>\ng, -Without doubt, that it might;,well pafsfor a Den^pnftrstion^ that He regarded the Peace oi th^ Churchy hekt to his owii hmcence arid Integrity 5 and that he was "ready to dd all that he could with a fafe Confcience, for the Safce of it. oi
Dr-
C P )
Dr. C L A K KEs
PAPER
Delivered to the Bijhops.
Concerning toe Eternity of the Son and Holy Spirit.
MY Opinion is^ That the Sou of God was Eteriially begot- ten by the Eternal ncomprchenlible Tower and Will of ih^ Father; and that the Holy Spirit wa.s likewife Eternally derived from the Father^ by, or through the Son^ according to the Eternal Incomprehenfible ^omcY and Will of the Father.
Con-
C 33 J
Concerning Freaching.
Before my Book^Intiturd^T/?^6Vr//>- tnre'DoSirim &c. was Publifli'd^ I did indeed Preach two or three Sermons upon this Subjcft, but fince the Book was Publifli'd^ I have never Preached upon this Subjedt ; And ( becaufe I thmk it not fair to propole particular Opinions^ when there is not Liberty of Anfwering,) I am willing to pro- mife (as indeed I intended ) not to preach any more on this Subjeft.
Concerning Writing.
1 do not intend to write any more concerning the Dodritie of the Tri- nity : But if I fliall fail herein^ and write any thing hereafter, upon that Subjcft^ contrary to the Do£i:rine of the Church of England^ I do here- by willingly fubmit my feli to any
£ ' fuch
C 34 )
fuch Ccnfurc^ as my Superiors fliall chink fit to pafs upon me.
And whereas it has been confident* Jy reported^ That the Athanafian Greedy and the 3^ and i\tb Petitioned of the Litany^ have been omitted in my Churchy by my Diredron^ I do^ hereby declare^ That the 3^/ and ^th Petitions of the Litany have never been omitted at all^ as tar as I ksaow^. and that the Athanafian Creed was Hcvcr omitted at Eleven a Clock Prayers^ but at the Early Prayers only, for brevity fake^ at the difcretion of the Curate^ and not by my Ap- pointment.
As to my Private Cociverfarion, I am not conleraus to my fclf, that I -have given any ]vSt Occailon ior thofe Reports which liave been fpread' concernincy me, with relation to trhis Controvcrfy.
r 35 J
f am forry tkat what I fincerely intended for the Honour and Glory of God^ and fo to Explain this great Myllery^ as to avoid the Heresies in both Extreams^ ihould have given any Oifence to this 5j;;W^and particularly to my Lords the Bifiiops, I hope my Behaviour for the time to come, with ^elaciQn hereunto^ will be fuch^ as to prevent any future Complaint a- gainft iifie.
E 2 Bcfide*
C Z6 )
Befides this Paper, it is known that the Dr imnnediatel) drew up a fecottd^ in which (to prevent all poffible Miftake, and to explain more clearly what He had be- fore drawn up in hafte,) He declared, that his Opinion, delivered in the jorwer faper^ Was not different from what He had before profefs'd and mainrain'd in his Books ; and that He defired it might be fo underftood, and not as any fort oi Retrac' tation of any thing He had before written 5 And that, as to that Part of the faid Paper^ which relates to his writing upon this Sub- jeft, it was not his t)e(ign to lay Himfelf under an abfolut^ Obligation not to write again, (which He judg'd , it would be criminal and dilhonefl: to do) but only to exprefs his huMtion (as He had done be- fore this, in his lad Book,) not to write any more on this Subjeft, unlefs fome new, and juftifiable Occafion, fhould make it a Point of Confcience, and Honefty fo to do. This yecond Papen I am informed. He con- veyed to the BfJIjop of LoridotJ His Diocefan 5 who very readily received it. After this, the Bifliops prefently came to the following ^efolution.
The
r 3?;
The Bijhops RESOLUTION July 5 th, 1714, upon the De^ livery of the foregoing Paper. .
WE having received a Paper fub^ fcribed by Dr Clarke^ con- taining a Declaration of his Opinion concerning the Eternity of the Son and Holy Spirit^ together with an Account of his ConduS: for the time paft^ and Intentions for the time to come J which Paper we have ordered to be entred in the A6i:s of this Houfe^ and to be communicated to the Lower-Houfe, do think fit to proceed, no farther upon the Extract laid be- fpre us by the Lower-Houfe,
Thi
( 38)
Tills Refoiution^ together witk Dr Clarke s Paper^ being com- municated to tliQ Lower^Honfe^ and re^id in it^ They came to tlus De- termination^ That Dr Clarke ha- ving NOT RETRACTED any of his Opinions ^hich gave oc- cafion to th^ir firft Complainc^ They could riot efteem His Paper Satis- faSiory-
They expeSed, it appears^ aa immediate and- plain Kecantatioj?. But findmg nothing of this in the Paper ; nor fo much as any abfo- lute, or bifiding Tromife not to write upon the fame Subjeft^ They did not think fit to accept as Satisfac- tory^ all that the Dr thought con. fiftent with his Honour and Coh- fcience to offer them ; qr to agree
w^ith
CJ9)
wrtli the Bijhops^. who^ not piit of any want of Zeal^ (as appears from their frji An[rver ) but^ without doubt^ from a further confidcraltion of the Merits of theCaufe^ werd willing to acquiefce in the Declaration he made of his Regard for the Peace of the Churchy exprefs'd in as ample Words^ moft People think^ as any Hofiefi Man in his Circumftances could poflibly confent to make ufe of
One Thing more I fliall mention^ Jbecaufe f have heard it frequently af- firmed by his Friends in Converfation^ c^/x. that no Perfon is Ick attachM to his own Opinions ; or more truly difpos'd to hear what can be opposed to thcm^ than He is ^ and that He is very willing and ready^ to enter into the moft [erioiis Debater^ both for his own InftruS^ioii^ and for the further fettling of fo important a SnhjeSi^ with any fuch of his Brethren^ as may be
deputed
C4o)
deputed^ for that Purpofe^ by that Ke'verend Body who are ftill offended at Him ; (if they iliall think Him worthy of fuch an Honour '^) or with any other Learned Pesfons : Though, they think^ He ought to except fuch as publifli Ad'verti^ements about Con- ferences which never were^ and Tri- umphs which never cxifted, but in Imagination.
FINIS.
( 40 )
deputed^ for that Purpofc, by that Rewrend Body who arc ftill oftodcd at Him ^ (if they fliall think Him worthy of fuch an Honour •^) or vith any other Lxrarncd Peslbns : Thugh, they think^ He ought to excepifuch as publifli Ad^vertijemerjis aboui Con- ferences which never were^ an( Tri- umphs which never cxifted, bt in Imagination.
FINIS.
w-^
■«•». «irn
• > ' -