■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WITHDRAWN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.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11