^.>'vA
ijL.K' ,■ ;v-
Qr^C-A.
J^tv-
^LJvy"
The(
Case, _
Shelf,
Book,
OP TH
ologieal
PRINCETO
.^c.C
E
Seminary,
N, N. J. 1
Division J
Sectien
No,
0 t.
THIRTEEN
SERMONS
Concerning the Doctrine of the
TRINITY.
Preach'd at the
MerchantVLecture, dX Sdter\-H^IL
TOGETHER WITH
A Vindication of that Celebrated Text_,
I John \. 7. from being Spurious-^ and an ExplI-
catioii of it, upon the Suppofition of ics being Gfr
nuine : In Four Sermons, Preach'd at the'fame
Lecfture. An. 17 19, 1720.
• / ^
By Edmund CalAxMy, D.D.
f^ifquis h*ec legit, uhi pnrher certus eft, pcrgat mecum 5 uhi
pnriter hicfitnp, qUiCr/it mecum : uhi errnrem fuum cog-
nofcitf redent nd me ; ubi meum, revocet me, Augufti-
nus de Trinitate. Lib. I. cap. iil.
Cum homines Deum tjuaru7Jt, ^ ad intelligentiam Trinitn-
tis {-pro cnptu infirmitatis humane) animum intendunt ;
facilliyne dehent ignofcere errnntihus in tanti fervefii-
gfition^ fecreti. Auguftinus ibidem. Lib. II. cap. i.
Frlnted for John Clark^ at the Bible and
Crown in the Poultry, mar Cheapfide. 172^.
■^?^
m^ \ I *A\\m^mr\\[*m
T O
His Majesty King
GEORGE:
SIR,
UR Countryman ^Z-
cuin writing upon the
Doctrine of the Tri-
nity, in Defence of
the Common Chriftian Faith,
infcrib'd his Work to the Em-
A 2 peror
The Dedication.
peroi- CHARLES the Great,
and was well accepted.
Standing up for the fame
Faith, (of which Your Majesty
is the Great Defender) I am
very thankful for the Honour
done me, in having leave to
prefix Your ^uguji Name, to
my well meant Endeavours.
To You (Great Sir) all
among us that have any value
for Religion, look with a du-
tiful Reverence, as pur Com-
mon Parent ; gratefully own-
ing that pur Liberty to fpeak,
write, or a<Sl:, either as Chri-
ftians or Proteftants , under
Go D,
The Dedi CATION.
God, is owing to Your Ma-
jesty's Happy Acceflion to the
Britijh Throne : And to you
we reckon ourfelves accounta-
ble for our Conduct.
How much foever Your
Subjects in the Southern Part
of this happy Ifle may in other
refpcdls differ in their Senti-
ments about Religious Matters,
yet as to the Great Doctrine
of the Trinity, I can aflure
Your Majesty, they that are
excluded the National Efta-
blifliment, do very generally
agree with thofe that are under
it, and cannot be charged with
an Inclination to vary from the
Com-
The Dedication-.
Common Faith, without be-
ing greatly mifreprefented.
It were indeed to be wilh'd,
that both the one and the
other, were fo happy as to
adorn the Faith which they
profefs, with a fuitable Benigni-
ty of Temper, and Hohnefs of
Life ; and that Your Majes-
ty might be the BlelTed In-
ftrument of promoting it. This
would not be lefs Glorious
than the Reformation itfelf,
of which Your lUuftrious Fa-
mily is the Great Support.
•a; it
May the Supreme Ruler di-^
re6t Your Counfels, and pro-'
long Your Days. May
The Dedication.
May Your unwearied En-
deavours to fettle the Peace of
EUROPE upon a firm and
fecure Foundation, have many-
happy Confequences : And
may a more fettled Peace at
home be one of them.
May Your reign be profpe-
rous ; and your Future Reward
anfwerable to your prefent Fa-
tigues for the Common Good.
And may the Ages to come
be Happy, under a Glorious
Race of Royal SuccefTors from
Your Illuftrious Houfe, in the
Proteftant Line,
Thes^
The Dedication.
These are the Common
Prayers of your proteftant
Diflenting Subje6ls : But
of none more heartily,
than of,
Miy it ^ledfe Tour Majesty,
Tour Majesty'^ mojl Loyal,
I, tuojl Ohedieatj and mofi
r
•Devoted Sul>ieii andServanfy
Edmund Calamy.
THE
PREFACE.
N the Debate about tfoc Doctrine of the
Trinity^ yvhlch I think may 'very well
he allowed, to he of as gi-eat Importance In
Itfelf and its Confequences^ as any of our
mofi dlfilnguljhlng Chrifiian Tr indole s ^
TV hat is alkd^d cither for its Defenfe or
Illufiraticny out &f the Sacred Scriptures^ the Fathers,,
the Schoolmen^ or the Writings of Modern Di^lnes^
(^whlch are all ufually cited) is manifeftly of 'very dlffe-^
rentCmJiderationi
THE Sacred Scriptures are here our proper Stan-
dard ^ adhering to Tvhich we are fafe^ whoever demurry
or make Ofpofition. As far as they upon being confttlted^
are found to contain and deliver this DoSfrine either dU
reElly or confequentlaUy^ we are bound to receive and
adhere to ity whatever Difficulties it may have attend^
ing it^ and how much foever vje may be exposal to
Cavils. It IS therefore a Scriptufd TRINITY 2i;>6/V/&
I have here endeavour'' d to defend and plead for :
And as to the Senfe of the feverat Texts produced ^ I have
film'' d at coiU^tlng It from the mofi common Signlficatic?i
The Preface.
cf the ^ords and Exprejfions ufedy _md hy comjarmg
parlous PaJJages together ^ not ozrer looking what has been
(aid by others y tho^ without apprehending ntyfelf to ht
under any Obligation to take my Notions from any fin-
gle Terfonsy or Bodies of Men^ let them be euer fo de-
ferring of RefpeB or Efieem. And upon the fi^ole^ I mufi
Civn^l am fo far from jiwndrlng that we meet with no more
about this DoBrine In our facred Writings^ that IthlnJz
ove ha've great Reafon to be thankful^ that we have fo
wuch there difcover^d concerning it^ as may gl've m
fujficlent Security of our Salivation in the Way of the
Gofpel.
I ^ar^t eafly forget^ (nor willingly would J) what I
heard In my younger Tears from an eminent Dl'vine (now
ovith God) who was pretty generally reckon d one of the
heft Treacher s of the Age. Occaftonally mentioning In a pub--
lick Dlfcourfe the DoSlrine of the Trinity, and the
right Way of fupportlng It^ he^ the better to tlluftrate the
Weakness of fuchy as not laying their main [Strefs on Re^
'uelationy fled to Reafon or Authority^ and made either
the one or the other of them their main Refuge ^ compared
their Conduci to the unaccountable Beha-vlour of a Tar^
eel of People y who belrtg in an Impregnable Forty where
they might he able to defend themfel-vesy and had no need
to Fear any Force that could be brought againft them, de-
ferted it^ to contend with their Enemy upon plain Ground y
to the needlefs hazarding their own Safety. The Simili-
tude I thought "very apt and inftrualve : and fuch was
the Impreftion it made upon mey as to bring me to take up
ti Refolutlony from which I never yet could fee Reafon to
depart y That I would carefully take heed of being tempted
tipon one Pretence or another y to divert from the Scriptures
in fuch a Matter of pure Revelation y as that Doclrlne is ;
€r to concurr In fettlng any Thing in the Icaft Degree y
upon a Level with themy in order to the Supporting and
Defendi7ig it. Nor can ly upon the clofeft Search L havt
hen able to makcy find any Way like this_ to^ keep up the
~~ ■ Credit
V\
The Preface.'
CrW^ of thofe Holy Writings,, on -which our Religion
fo much defends,
■ THE "very lafi Penman of Scripture^ St. John the
Jpofile^ (whofe Zeal for the Trinity^ and in parii^
'cidar for the proper Divinity of our BleiTed Savi-
OUR_, is celebrated among the Ancktits) left thfs World ^
a little after the Beginning of the lid CenturVj ac-
cording to our common Way of compttting^ and about
Two hundred and twenty Tears before the Meetmo- of the
Council of Nice. And within this Space of Tlme^ federal
of the Fathers^ either more defgnedly^ or more occa [tonal-'
ty^ in their Writings ^ {fe'veral of which are lofi^ a^td but
few of them comparati'vely remain now In our Hands ^
gave their Senfe of this Doclrlne, And till the ftartlng
of the Ar ia.n.Not Ion y it appears In what they have ad^
vanc'd concerning It^ to have been their main Defgn^
either to vindicate the Worflnp of our Dear REDEEMER^
on the Account of his Divinity : or elfe to oppofe a Fan-
cy that feems to have been betimes ftlrring in the Churchy
that there TV as fitch an Union of Father and Son^ In the
Deity ^ as that they no Way differ d^ and the One
might be fald to have done^ whatfoever was done by the
Oiher : And it is not impoffible hut their Oppofitlon to
this erroneous Conceit^ may have fometlmes carry d them
too far. The Two main Writings upon this Head hi thli
Teriody are Tertullian againfi Praxeas^ and NoVatian
o» f^g Trinity- And I jlwuld think it might fatlsfy
fuch as are reafonable^ to find thefe Two fo clear as they
are agalnft Sabellianifm^ notwlthfianding that not b.e-^
ing at that Time ajvare of the Danger of the as yet un-^
mention d Arian Scheme ^ they may not have guarded
againfi it with all the Strength and Clearnefs that might
have been defir^d^ or which could they have forejeen
. "ii^hat would, have been afterwards advancd^ might havs
been expecled fro?n them,
HOWEVE^^ It hew pretended^ That thefe frf
Fathers generally agreed in their J^otions and Senti-'
b ^ ments^
The Preface.
mcntSy 'With thofe that wtre afterwards condemn"^ d In
the Council of Nice ,• for the Satis faEiion of fuch as
either want Ability to confult the Learned Bijljop Bull_,
in the Language he wrote -in^ or have not Time to
run over his large CoUeBionSy I in oixe of the fol-
lowing DifcourfeSy have in a narrow Compafsy {with"
out in the leaf >detraBing from our Rule of
Faith) ojfer^d what appears to me to he fuficlent
Troof of the contrary : A7td hav,e there jhewny that
they who firfi fucceeded our 'infpird Writers ^ did
in the maln^ in what they puhlifid upon this Do-
cirlne of the Trinity^ adhere to the Holy Scrip-
tures.
WHEN the Council of 'Mice was over. An. 325'^ and
^i^/rf ^/- Conitantinople. An. 581^ 7%oSuhje^was more
ovrlt upon than thtSy and the Y2iK\iei^ generally with great
XJnanimity afcrted the Eternity of the Sacred Taree_,
and their Equality in all Divine Perfe^ions. This was
done not only by St. Athanafius^, (who both livd before
the Nicenc Council ^ and a good while after it) but aljo
by St. Bafil^ St. Gregory Nazianzene^ St. Gregory
Kyffen^ and St. Chryfollonij and the rejl of the Great-
ejt Men In the Greek Church ; and by St. Hilary, 6"/,
Jerome^ St. Ambrofe, St. Auftin, and others that
4;ame after them in the Latin Church : And the main
'Difference amongfi them jecms to have been about the
Word Hypoltans,, by which fome underftood Perfon_,
^nd others Nature ; But without much Difficulty^ that
'nvas at length accommodated ^ and fo Eaft and Weft wai
of one Mind.
HA D I in thefe Dlfcourfes entered upon Particulars
under this Period ^ I had been inevitably drawn into a
Length that would have been tlrefome : and have there^
fore been content with a few occafional Touches and Re-
ferences onlyy Here and There. And for the very fame
Reafon^ I .ha^ve alfo forborn to take Notice of the De-
bates in the Vth Century, about the Incarnation of
ths
The P R E F A C E.
the Son (f Go Dj, which -were mana^d with fio fntall
Heat and Subtlety J upon Occajton of the Neltorian and
Eutychian Controverjies.
BUT a little after the Tear 5-003 that Excellent^ old
KomB.n Nobleman Boetius_, wrote upon f/6? Trinity :
j^nd tho^ he adherd to the 'very fame Notions as were
before generally current in the Churchy yet his jJwrt Dif
courfes on that Subje&y are fo full of Phllofophlcal Terms ^
and Metaphyjical Subtleties^ that it is no eajy Thing to
follow htm. And ^tts alfo much the fame as to John
Damafcene^ who about the Tear 7 ip^ piblljlilng Four
Books of the Orthodox Faith^ Intitul'd the frfi of
themyO^ G0D3 One and Three. It then began to
grow the Way to turn Religion into a Science^ and handle
it accordingly : Which has been fo far from doing it any
real Service y that it has unhappily diverted many from
any Concern about being acquainted with the Life and To-
wer of it.
IN the Time of Charles the Great_, and towards
the Tear 8oo_, our Countryman Alcuin and Paulinus
of Aquileia wrote on the Trinity^ in Oppofitlon to
Elipandus of Toledo^ and Felix of Urgel in Ca-
talonia^ who with Vehemence afferted that our Savi-
our was not the Natural but the Adopted Son of
God. ^W /w fZ'g Xlth Century^ Anfelm wrote on
the fame Subjeci agalnfi Rofceline^ who ajjerted that
the Three Terfons of the H kin ITY were three difiinB
Beings : Arguing, that elfe it might be [aid that the
Father ^WHoLY Ghost were Incarnate, as well
as the So K. And afterwards St. Bernard wrote on
the fame SubjeB againft Abaelard : And there were
like Debates between Abbot Joachim_, and Peter Lorn-
bard J Mafter of the Sentences. But they that livd in
thofe Times, very generally afferted a like Trinity in
U^ity, a7id Unity In Trinity^, wUh thofe that went
before them,
b 5 AFTER
The Preface.
AFTER the Ttar 1200^ there took place among, the
Schoolmen J 'who were a dark and, cloudy^ hut 'volu-
minous Sort of Writers^ a Language and Phrafeology
and Method of handllf>g all Subjecis that offered ^ that
7pas fecuUar, They treated the fe^ueral Parts of The-
ology_, and the DoBrme of the Trinity among the
refiy in a wr anting and disputing Way^ branching out
Into an Infimte Number of ^uefiionSy 'which they debated
07f both Sides with Abundance of Curiofityy and a num^
herlefs Parcel of cramp Difilntilojis^ fetched from the
Writings of Ariltotle_, ratUr than the Bibte^ -which
confounded Infiead of inftrucling. And this was the
common prevailing Way^ down to the Times of the Rc^
formation.
THO^ I cant fay but in the Writers of this Sorty
there are fome Things that are well advancd^ yet much
of their pains (and that upon this as 7vell as othe^ Sub^
jcBs) appears to me to be very like weaving curious Webs
to catch Flies. I dare therefore promlfe my Reader ber
forehand^ that he will here find the fublime SubjeSl of
the Trinity fo handled ^ that he will meet with no
Metaphyfical Nicetle/y cramping Terms y. or confounding
jDlJlin^lons of the Schools to dijiurb him. Nothing here
occurrs of the Perichorefis in the Trinity^ or the in-
dividual Subftantiality of the Sacred Three. There Is
nothing here of Suppolitality^ nor of the fame fpeci-
fical and Numerical Effencej about which there was
fuch a Contention for 7ner.ly between MarcliuSj and Cur-
cellacus^ ayid about which ^ as to the Se7ife of the Fathers y
S.here is fuch a^ Qontefi yet dcpcndlfig between Dr. Whitby
^nd Dr. Wateriand. In JJjorty I have only kept the word
.perfon^ and have given the Reafon whjy and intima-
}ed what is mte^ided by it. And if that be but aUowd
mcy I know of no Term 1 have ufed about thts Doclriney
ihai^ need g-ive Difiurbance to ar^y. Jnd fo little Fond^
fiefs have i of Words y that I could be content to part with
.thalfoQjtatmth^^ provided y what is meant hyip
1^'\ '. '■. h
The FtLEF ACE,
uhut fecur^dy Ti'hlch is a real Diftind:ion in the God-
{iead_, ^nfwerahle to the fei-ernl diflhi Et Charatlers gi^criy
and different Offices that are ^ffignd^ In the Sacred Scri-
ptures. JSior IS it In ?r?y yl'pp'ehefiJJon^ worth while to
contend for any IFord that is ?iot exprcjsly Scripturrd^ no
not e^ven tho^ it has been ever fo wuch ufed by Divines^ if
Tvhat is meant by It^ after Its being frovd true^ be but
fccur^d.
AT the Time of the REFORMATION^, when other Do-
Urines were tf'pon Search^ found to have beefifadly adul-
terated and corrupted in the Romifh Churchy by un-
fcripturalj unwarrantable additions to the Frimitlve
Creeds ^«i ConfeffionSj that of ^^e Trinity was^
as to the Subftance of ity foujid agreeable to the fiancllng
Rule ot Faith^ and therefore necejjary to be retained,
Tfoo' at the fame Time^ jufi Cojnplaint was very generally
made^ of the confoimdmg Language ufed about it in the
Schools. Accordingly It was brought hito the Con-
feflions of the fever al Proteitant Churches^ and their
Catechifras^ as well as Theological Syltems ,• of
which fo large an Account has been given in the Do-
drine of the BlclTcd Trinity^ Stated and De-
fended by fome London Miniilers^ as makes my di-
lating upon it altogether nee die fs.
BUT putting all together that has been offer' dhy
thofe that have had this Subjecl under Confideration^ (both
formerly y and more lately) as to the Scnfe of the Scri-
ptureSj Fathers^ Schoolmen, and Keform'd Di-
vines, about this Matter ^ I think we may verj natu-
rally be led lijto this RefeBlon ; that if the Vottrine of
the Trinity, and of the cojymion Deity ofthe^di-
ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, as It has been
ufually Stated^ is really an Error ^ it mufi mofi certainly
be of a very dangerous INature^ and fubverfive of the
main Foundations of Religion : And yet (which is ftrangf
to conceive) it has prevail* d In the very bejl and purejl
Churches of Christ fnce He left this Earthy and it
b 4 hiki
The Preface.'
has been fufforted and defended hy as Great Men ^ and
as remarkahle Bodies of Men met together m Councils
and Synods upon a Variety of Occafions^ as the Chrlfilan
World has e^ver kno7vn. Whereas on the contrary^ if this
VoBrme is true^ (and if it be not fo^ I can't fee how Re-
i)elation itfelf can he allqivd to help us to judge ^ ivhat
isy and what is not fq) it may 'v^ry well he Matter of
great Joy tq 7*5 to find It fo generally adhered to^ he-
caufe the Majefty of the Son_, and Spirit of GoD^ cur
own Redewftion^ the Worjlnp of the Chriftian Churchy the
Comfort of our Souls ^ and the Credit of the Sacred Scrl^
pturesy have therein fo great and fo manlfeji a Con-
cern.
A ND yet its eafy to he ohjer'v'd^ That as this Do-
Brh'ie met lulth no finall Oppofitlon at the firfi Spreading
^Chriftianity tn the Worldy fo alfo foon after the Re-
formatio N_, did there arlfe fome among ourfelijeSy
fpeaking pt^rvcrfe Things^ to draw Difcipl^es'after
them. As the Chrlfilan DcBrlne was informer Ages^
'Z'ehemently opposed hy the Gnofticks^ Ebionites^ and
ArianSj fo has the Doclrine that has commonly prevailed
in the Reformed Churches ^ hee?t opposed 7i>'ith as great Vc"
hemence^ and no lefs Subtlety^ hy Servetus^ Valentiiiu§
*Gentii!Sj ^W Socinus_, a?jd their Followers ^ to the
peruirtlh(^ many^ and the fimking and difiurhmg more :
And yct^ TlMi77ks be to GoD^ the Truth fiiU remains
un(J)aken^ and 1 hope^ and douht noty ii^ill continue to do
foy In all fucceedlng Ages.
Michael Seryetus was very like Simon the
Sorcerer ] who we are told^ A^ls viii. 9. gave out
that himfelf was fome great one. For whereas It is
faldy R.ey.xii. 7. That Michael and his Angela
■fought againit the Dragon j he interpreted it of
himfelf. The Truth of it is^ he was Infufierahly arro-
gant ^^ and fouUmouth'' d in his RefltBlons^ on the Great
\Doftrlnes of the GoiipQl. He call'd the TRINITY a
Thre£''headed Cerberu^^ a7ul was guilty of divers Blaf
' "' ' ' '■ " •■'•■' ^ • - ■ j)hsmies.
The P R E F A c eJ
^hemtes. Me is hy many (notwithfianding he had a
f^ariety of fubtle Fetches) thought to have been far front
beino- right In his Head : And for that Reafon^ as well
as others y I jlwtdd be loth to undertake a Vindication of his
Treatment at GtntY2i^ An, lyjj.
Valentiuus Gentilis attempted to bring in a proper
Tritheifm^ and making Three dijtin^ Godsy he might
as Tvell with the ancient ValentinuSj ivho ll'vd In the.
lid Century^ have made them up Thirty. He boafied
that he was the firft Martyr that lofi his Life for the
Glory of the Father. But -whether the Zeal of thofe^
who upon that Account made a Martyr of htm at Bem^
An. 1 5*663 was not too fiery y %s not the Matter of my
prefent Confideration,
^QCiTVdsfet up for Photinianifm^ and had many Fol^
lowers : And they that are defirous to fee his Method
of managing^ and how eminently Go D in his Providence
appeared agalnfi hhn^ may conjult Dr. Owen's Freface
to bis A^nfver to Biddle^ where they will meet with a
large Account; and fuch Authors referred to^ as will
abundantly fatlsfy their Cwlofity,
BUT after all the Lengths that have been rufty hy
fuch as have beeyi the moji eager m pur fulng their ow?i
Fancies y I can find but Three different schemes about the
Poelrine of f>6f Trinity that can be proposed ; and they
arey That of the SabellianSj that of the Arians^, and
that of the Catholicks. Some have attempted to mloc
them together y and have In fome few Things difFer'd
in their SeyitlmentSy from fuch as in the malny were
in the fame Scheme with them. But it will upon a clofe
Examination be foundy that in One of {hefe Three
Schemes J all at Ufi center,
THE Sabellian Scheme takes away the Deity of
the Sottj and reduces the Holy Ghoft to nothing. To
charge the Followers of AthanafiU3 with this (as is the
■ ^ Way
The Preface.
Way (f Mr,\^h\&ori) ts to make a Var eel of Fools of
^em^ •witbmt doing them common Justice : But -as to
the Followers of SoGinus_, their Views are evidently the
fame. The Sabellians^ did not only with the Catho-
licks_, make the Father and Son of One Ejjence or Na-
ture^ but they made them one SubjeB or Hypfiafis^ with
a nominal only^ not a Real DiftinBion, 1-heir Tri-
nity 7i^as properly^ One GoD aSling in Three diffe*
rent Difpenfatlonsy under the Law^ the Gofpel^ and the
Efftifion of the Spirit ^ with a deify d Man under the
fkcejid. And fuch a Trinity^ even a Socinian may
ezree to.
THE Arian Scheme hrings In a Real Tritheifm^
cf One Supreme and Two Inferior Gods. And whofo^,
ever pretend to own the Deity of f^g Son «W Spinr_,
hut at the fame Time contend for a proper Superiority^
gind a greater Excellence in the Father ,* are^ In my
Apprehenfio7ty in that Scheme^ how unwilling foeqjer
they may be to own it^ or to be charged with it. Thh
Scheme was' brought out of V\2iX.ovi\^m. into Chriltia-
nity ,• and that by which it is dijlifiguijh'd^ is the
holding Three unequal Perfons^ One i7ide pendent y and
felf-exlficnty and the other Two deriving a dependent
Exi fence from the firfi • which in the Ijjue^ is no more
than One GoD^ and Two Excellent Creatures.
WHEREAS the Catholick Scheme aferts^ One
Divine Nature ^ i?itirely injoy'd by Three ^ that are ne-
cejjarlly exiflenty and as necejfarily related to each other ;
Ti^ith fuch a Subordination cnlyy as excludes any proper or
real Superiority or Inferiority in the Divinity. It takes
/« ^ Trinity^ their Unity^ ?^e/V Real Diftindion^,
and their EqjLialIty_, as to all Ejjential Excellencies and
Terfeclions * tho* all that in the 'rvaln- are in this Scheme^
are not alike clear as to all thefe Articles. Different
Ways are particularly taken ^ to explain both the Unity of
the Effence^ andthe'Tnmty o/Perfons in the Deity :
IV<?r can I fee why- we maj nvt there allow of a Dlvei^fay
■ '- of
The Preface.
of Sentiments y fo long as both are firmly adhered to. But
if either the Unity^ or the Trinity he rejeBed or d'lf'
oivndy Truth -iv'ill ftiff^r and receii/e conjtderable Da^
mage.
AS for aU thofe who worflnp GoD as One^ and alfi
worjljip the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft together with the
Father as Q o T)^ I tannot but reckon ^em in one
and the fame Scheme ^ and of the fame Faith and Religion :
And -whate^jer elfe they may differ in^ I think they otfght
to lo've as Brethren. And it ts with this '2erfuafiony that
I firfi preach' dy and now publljh thefe Dlfcoitrjes j being
fuUy fatisfyd that Attempts (under one Tretence or ano-
ther^ to divide fuchy or create any Variance ^ Mlfttnder-^
fiandlngy or Anlmofity between ^em^ is from the Evil
One^ and differ -ves the common Inter eff of Religion ^ with*
out promoting either Tlety^ Truth ^ or Charity.
AN Heat having been rals'dy about Matters of this
JSfaturey in the EJlabllJh'd Churchy I cannot fee why it
jhould be reckon d at all' furprlzing^ for it at length to
reach to thofe alfo that are out of It^ who lie open to the
^ery fame Imprcffions in common with their Neighbours,
And for the DilTenters in fuch a Cafe to be refleBed on^
as either unfound^ or unpeaceable^ is not^ as far as I
can judge y agreeable to Rules of Frude^jce^ or reconcile-
able with that Brotherly Klndnefs^ which ts due by the
Law of Charity. I therefore think it not pr.ude7Jty becaufe
it very naturally leads the Tar ties accused ^ to put their Cen-
fors in mind y. That it 7vas among them that the Heat be-
gan ^ while we have it from them^ and at fccond Hand*
and is a Temptation to *€m^ to offer it to their Confide-
rationy Whether their own 7ict being In a Flame ^ may
not be chiefly owing to their being kept by Authority from
meeting in a full Body . Nor does it appear to me eafily
reconclleahle with that Brotherly-klndnefs which the
Law of Charity requires ; becaufe it is not a dealing with
others y as they 7D0uld be 7vlllingth€?vfdves to be dealt
wlthaL ' i " ' '
• THO\
The Preface,
jTHO^ fome- ha've in this Cafe taken firange Liberty in
their RefleBlons upon their Brethren^ yet that any Number
among the Diffenters_, at all waver as to the Subfiance
of the DoBrlne of the Trinity ^ admits of noFroof;
and therefore ought not to be fuffos'd, J (-who think I may
he allowed to pretend to know 'em a little better than
they that befpatter them) mufi declare that I a7n upon
good Grounds certain^ That the Body of them do
firmly adhere to that DoBrine as it is fated in the Ar-
ticles of the Church of England^ the Cotifeffion and
Catechifm of the AlTembiy at Weftminller^ and
the Confeffions of other Reformed Churches. And
tho' I was but a Stander-by In their late unhappy Con"
teftsy and (as I thought for good Reafons) fiu^iou[ly for-
bore being prefent at any of their Meetings y yet I cannot ,
but readily do both Sides the Jufiice to declare myfelf well
fatisffdy that as one Side acted out of a real z,ealous
Dejlre to fecure the Truth delivered in Scripture upon
this BoEtrine of the Trinity^ fo did the other act out
of as z>ealous a DefirCy not only to avoid being imposed
ztpon where they were aware of no Right to make a
Demandy but alfo to fecure to the Holy Scriptures the
Honour of being the Standard of Truth_, in this and
every other Doth'ine. The Truth that both Sides are for y
is the famey and their Firmnefs iji adhering to ity the
famCy tho' their Sentiments differ as to the proper Ways
of Supportiitg it. And therefore tho^ it were to have
been wijli'dy Thaty according to the Wife Man's Advice y
they had left off Contention before it had been medled
with ^ yet to charge either the one^Side or the other with
Difinclination to the Docirine of the T Ril<i ITY y is nei-
ther equitable ?;or juft,
THO' Leant denyy but that it's a very poffiUe Thing
for a Sublcriptionj {about which there of late has been
fo much Difcourfe) to be fo Circwmftanc^dy as that a Man
cannot be able handfomely to wave ity if he is fatisfyd
what he is urgd to fubfcrihe to is really true ^ yet he that
will
The Preface*
will he at the Tains to confttk the Hlflory of the pafi Ages
of the Churchy ovHl find fo many ill Confequences arljinv
from the multiplying Subfcriptions_, as will he apt to
abate his Fondnefs for them. And I mufi own^ if we
come down to Modern Times ^ h appears to me a 'very
pardonahle Things for Terfons to be the lefs inclined to
regard or 'value Sublcriptions^ when they ohfer'ue how
aukwardly they are managed by the Arian Suhfcr'tbers
to Trinitarian Articles ^ and the Arminian Subfcrlhers
to Calviniftical Articles ^ of both which Sorts J doubt
there are grtat Numbers in the Church of Eng-
gland.
AS to the Sermons here publlflj^dy they were deli^-
*ver^d in as publlck an Auditory as any among the
Diffenters^ about the fame Time that Dr. Wacerland
was ingag^d upon the fame Argument to fo good Purpofe^
at the Ledure fu^ported by the Generofity of the Lady
Moycr at St. PaulVj in which Dr. Knight has fince fo
worthily fucceeded him. And tho^ the SubjeSl has been
fo much inffied on^ as that it may feem exhauftedy
yet I am in hope that thefe Dlfcourfes^ together with a good
Number of Trails lately publlfiidy may help to prevent
its being hereafter faldy that the Diflenters did not at
tins Time appear agalnft Arianifm^ when it fo much
threatened 7iSy as it has been often (tho' both unkindly
and unjufily) ftfgg^fted to their Reproach ^ That they
puhlljl] d little or nothing againfl Popery_, . in the Reigns
of King Charles and King James_, when it was fo
likely to cverrun m. I think alfo^ it will from hence
be e'vldenty that the fame Truth ts pleaded for^ both
in the Church and out of it. And tho^ none can be
more ready than I am^ to applaud the Performances
of the Learned DoBors forementlond upon this Head ;
Jet I don^t know but the Method I ha^ve here taken^ •
may be plainer to fome^ afid more liable to their Ca-
pacities y than that which they haze furfud; and en that
Account may be of fame Ufe,
The P R £ F A C Ei
1 think none can Tvell 'wonder at the Delay of thk
Tuhllcation^ and that I have taken Time to Re^vlje
thefe Difcourfes ^ efpcclally confidermg the Temper and
Difpojitlon of a J>Jumher of Teopkj -who may be likely
to cafl their Eyes upon them. And if I own^ that
I ha^e In their proper Tlaces^ made fome Additions ^ of
^vhat I either had not Time to deliver from the Ful-
plty or of -what occurrd that I thought proper for II-
itfflratlony "while I was imployd In the tedious JVork of
Tranfcrlhlng^ I fuppofe it will be forghjen me without
much Difficulty,
TERHAPS fome might have been better pleas'd^
If I had caft the Subfiance of thefe Difcourfes into the
Form of a Treatlfe : But I thought it might have its
Advantage as to a Number of Readers *, to keep them
hi their native Form ; becaufe I have thts Way Li-
berty for a Variety of TraBlcal RefleBlons^ which I
hope may not be altogether without their Uje,
I have chang\l the Order In which thefe Sermons
^ere deliver'dy putting thofe lafi^ that were preached
firfi ; looking upon it^ upon fecond Tlooughts^ to be more
proper y to referve my Vindication of I John V. 7. to
the Clofe^ than to begin with It ; tho^ in Jo doing I
had the Learned Zanchy for my Pattern.
IN 'what I offer upon that Text^ I have neither
fcrupled borrowing from Worthy M, Martin_, ; (who
now refis from hjs Labours) nor varying from him tip-
on Occafion ; and I have done the fame^ by what other
Writers I have confulted on that SubjeB. Tho^ I did
not at jlrji certainly know that Air. Emlyn 7vas .the
Author of that TraB which I principally oppofe ; yet
fince I have known^ and ije has piblickly ownd it^
I have wav^d fome Things that mizht perhaps have
veen repreje7Tted as mvtdious . ^*nd ij after
ally I have not given fufficle?}t Proof that that Text
' ' " is
The P R E F A C E.
«• genuine, to the SatJsfaBion of fuch at are vnllino'
it jhotdd fafs for an umv arrant able Addition^ I think I
may yet be allowed to hope^ that if ivhat I haije col'*
lecled upon that Subject be but confiderd^ ove jljall not
for the future have fuch mighty Boafls^ of the Fidnefs
of the Proof of its being abfolutely fpurious.
IT has been my "Endeavour to avoid Eagernefs a7i^
Sittemefsy which in my Apprehenfon ts 7jo Ornament
in a Theological Debate. J have ahnd at Defending
the Truth in that Way^ that appears to me mofl jvor-
thyy both of itfelf and its Author. I can 'with a great
deal of Safety declare that I have not the leafi De^
fire to incenfe any agalnft thofe whom I differ from. I
can heartily pity them en the account of any Thing
they may have indurd for the Sake of what they ap-
prehended to be Truth ^ and can make Allowance for
a peculiar Edge upon their Spirits ^ that have met with
fuch Treatment y as was naturally apt to exajperate.
And it is my obferving the Aptnefs of Severity to four
Mens Spirits y that makes me the more averfe to it in.
any Religious Difference. I reckon it my own Happijjefsy
and am very thankful for it^ that I did at frfi fet-out in
the World with fuch 'Principles as theje ^ That as Er^
ror does not deferve^ fo Truth does not need Seve^
rity to fupport it ^ and that as Error will not long be
fupportedy fo netther is Truth befriended by it : And
thefe Principles I believe I fiiall now carry unaltered to
my Grave.
SOME perhaps may think the mentioning the Ob-
jeUions of the Erroneo^^ fo particularly as I have
fometimes done^ to be a laying Snares for the Inju-
dicious ^ and a Way to ralfe Scruples which they other-
wife might never have had^ and may not be eaftly
able to get rid of : But when they who themfelves have
deferted the Truths are with great Indufiry and Subtlety
conveying their Poyfon^ methinks it is but ft that fui*
tabic AntUotes JJwuld be prepared. I mtffi confefs, I
fake
The Preface.
take the Anfwering of Ca^ils^ to he a Debt due t»
Truth. They can^t he anfwer^d without being men"
tion'd ; and In fame Cafes cannot he ivav^d^ hut
Truth will he betrayed. It would he an hard Qafe^ if
•when almofi all Converfatlon ts full of Snares y breach-
ing jljould not he allowed to make Trovifion agamjh
them*
I have only this to add^ That If any JJjould he In*
cim'd publickly to Animadvert upon what ts here pub-
lljh'd in Defenfe of the common Fahh^ my either ta-^
king Notice of them^ or overlooking tbem^ will wholly
depend upon the Apprehenfions I jhall have^ when all
Things are confiderd^ that either my Sileitce or my
farther Writings will be moft for the Honour of Go D j
and Service of Religion^ and the promoting of Truth
ar^ Peace joyntly.
THESE Difcourfesy and the Candid Readers of
them^ are humbly recommended to the Divine Blef-
fingy hy a
Sincere^ Difintercfted^ Univerfal
Admirer and Purfuer of Truth and Love,
Edm. Calamy.
THE
THE
CONTENTS.
SERMON L
HE Deity of the Fathek, afferted and
illuftrated, from,
I Cor, viii. 6i jll
• But to us there u but One Gody the E A*
THER. Page I.
SERMON II.
Tlie T)eitj of the Son prov'd and confirm-
ed, from,
I John v. 20.
This is the true God, and Eternd Life. p. J i.
SERMON III.
Obieclions againft the Sufreme Deity of the
Son confider'd, and anfwer'd, from,
John v. 25.
ThAt all Men fhould honour the Son, even as
they honour r/;^ F A T H E R. P* ^9'
SERMON IV.
The Reply to the Objeftions againft the Su^
freme Deity of the Son continued, from,
I CoR-
The Contents*
COLOS. ii. 2.
•^'— • To the Acknowledgment of the Mj fiery of
GoDy and of the Father, and of Christ.
p. 101.
SERMON V.
A farther Continuation of the Reply to the
Objeflions againft the Supreme Deny of the
Son : From
John v. 23.
That all Men fhould honour the Son, ^'^^f^ ^^
Mey honour the Father, p. 135.
S E R M O N VL
The Deity of the Holy Ghost, prov'd and
confirmed, from
M A TTH. xxviii. 19.
'^--Baptizing them in the Name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
p. 167^
SERMON VII.
Objeftions againft the Deity of the Holy
Ghost confider'd, and anfwer'd, from,
2 Cor. ii. 11.
for what Man knovceth the Things of a Man^ fave
the Spirit of a Man which is in him f Even fo
the Things of GoD knoweth no Man^ hut the
Spirit of God. pag. 201,
SERM.
The Contends.
SERMON viir.
Of the Unity of the Godhead, from,
I Cor. viii. 4.
We kno)V • . that there is none ether
God J but One. p. 227,
S E R M O N IX.
Of the Distinction in the Godhead^
from
I Cor. xii. 4, 5, 6.
Now there are Diverfities of Gifts^ but the fame
Spirit. And there are Difftrences of Admij^
ftrations^ hut the fame Lord. Ar3d there ^ffj^
Diverfities of Operation's ^ hnt it is the fame
God, which rvorketh all in all. p. 257.
^ S E R M O N X.
The Old Scheme and New compared as
to Antiquity, from
Jeremiah vi. 16.
Thtis faith the Lord^ fland je in the Ways and fee j
and ask for the Old Paths, where is the
good Wajj and walk therein ^ and je jhall find
refi for pur Souls. p. 287,
SERMON XL
The Old JgcHEME preferable to the New^
on many Accounts, from
Jeremiah vi. 16.
Thtis faith the Lordj [land ye in the Ways anJi fee^
find ask for the Old Paths^ where is the Good
" " Way,
The Co NT E NTs;
Way, and walk thereiny and ye (hall find rejt
ftr your Souls. . P- ??5*
SERMON XII.
GtiRiosiTY to be avoided r From
John iii. 9,
Nicodemus anfwer^d and faidy How can thefe
Things he? p. 363.
SERMON XIII.
Tkuth and Love to be maintained jointly,
fi-om
jj^ Ephes. iv. 15.
^ — Speaking the Truth in Love. p. 389,
SERMON I, II, III.
A Vindication of that celebrated Text f-om
being Sfurious^
I John v. 7^
Tor there are Three that hear record in Heaven^
the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost, and thefe Three are One. p. 423,
457^ 5^5-
S E R M O N IV.
#^* The fame celebrated Text particmlarly ex-
plained and opcn'd, fuppofing iij^to beG^-
nuine, P« 5J7'
1 Cor
1
I C O R. VIIU 6.
But to 7is there is hut one
God, the Father.
^nHATnotwithftanding the Di- Salrers-
vine Simplicity and Unity^ there hall,T«f/-
is a Trinity in the D b i t y is a ^'^-^ ^ ^^"
diflinguifliing Dodrine of Chri- ^^^^5?"^^
flianity ,• into the Belief where- ^^* ^'^^^*
cfj all its Votaries are to be fc-
lemnly initiated^ and in which they are to
continue all their Days : And from the firft
Rife of our Holy Religion^ this both by
Friends and Enemies^ has been reckon'd one
cf its prime Articles.
As difficult as this Dodrine is^ it isciFer'd
to the Faith of fuch as defire Salvation by the
Help cf a Redccwer and Sancilfia-^ in the \Vay
cf the Gcfpel^ without any thing added to
quaiiiy the Harfhnefs cf it. And to con-
vince th* this fs no mere Speculation^ it is
order'd^ ttj^t bcth their Wcrfhip, and their
L'ves^ fhouid be ir.fluenc'd by this Principle.
And that the Belief cf it may be the more
firnily rocted^ Care is taken th.^t this Do-
drine (hould run through the feve;al Parts
o\ Divine Revelation^ and be interwoven
with the other Truths^ on which that lavs
B the
^.H,
2 The Dei t y^ ,
SERMfT thcgreatefl: Strefs^ and which it moft v/ai:m-
j^.. " ly recommends ^and inculcates.. The very.^
Frame <tf Xhriftiamty feems fotmded ti|)9n r
n, - - \ \ ■ ^-''^
^Fqh ,tho' it is aow as unqueftionatte-a
.TcutJi, .as. ever J, Tli^l jh^re neitXer is^ nigr,^
c^n be^any more than One God ; yet the Fa-^^
iher^ the /^/'W^ or the Son^ and the_Hb/y Ghofi,^
have their Parts and Ofiftces feverally affign'd ,
them in the Chrifijan Qecommy^ no One of ^
whiclx.c.an be left out^ but a great Chafm .
and Coafurion follows unavoidably. The
Trinjj cannot be either deny'd^ or mifta-
ken^ but Chriftianity muft be extremely
alter 'd^ and made a quite different Thing.;
from vvtat it was_^whenit wasfiril deliver'dto
the World. _.
And yet it cannot be deny'd^ and nee^.^
not be conceal'd, that there is hardly any
Part of the Chriitian Docftrine^ that has been
all along more oppcs d. Some have directly '„
deny'd our Bielfed Saviour's Dcity^ as did"
the C€rinthla7ts y Sa7r'cfaten'iansj and 0JOtlnfansy^
who are followed by the modern SociniansC^
Others have deny'd a Trinity^ and confound- ,^
ed the Three Perfons into One Perfon^'^
wiiich was the Way of the FatrifaJJians^Traxe
a7JSy Nce'iiansy and Sahelllans, Others have ;^
with vehemence afferted the Inferiority of;
the Son to the Father as to his Deity^ and\^
deny'd him to be Coequal and Coetemal \vix\\ ^
Himj freely owning that thfre was a Time r
when He had no exiltence^ f nd affirming^.,l
that a certain fuperangelick Niture of his^'>
animated his human Body^ inftead of a ra- .
tional Soul ; which was the common Way of.
the Followers of ^?7^/.f. And others have de-^
ny'd the Deity of the Holy Ghofl_, whigii^
was xhe difliij'giiifhing Principle of the Fol-:j
e/'^Z^e Father. 3
lowers of Macedonlm,' Thefe all had' their Serm.
dftferent Pleas and Pretences, which fliould j
he ccnfider'd by fuch as would fully eftabllfh ^^^.^^y^
the Truth as it \s reveaFd.
fXHis Doarine of the Tr'mn^ tls well as.
that oif Redewmon^ and that of the Hea'vemy
^Blejjednefs^ under the Old Tcfiafnent^ was co^
v^r-d with a cloudy Darknefs, the more di- .
ftjnd Revelation of it being referv'd for
t\ib Naij Tefiqment Difpenfation : And now
thkt ir is more diftindly revcai'd than rjt
wj$-:befofe^ by our Bleffed Saviour and his
Apcftks^ the Way and Manner of it remains
fthl *i"Secret; And yet the Dodrine itfelf
is^tO* be received and cwa'd^ notwithftand-
ing wi!^are incapable of comprehending it, or
fathoming the Depth of it. And in reality^
what Wonder can it be, that our weak Con-
ceptions fhould nor be able to reach to the
heighth and depth of To great and fubiim.e
a ..SubjIeiSt as the Divinity !
The Theology and the Oeccmmy of the
Trinity, are evidently of dillind Confi de-
ration. Each of the Three are God, and
all Three are One God: Kndt\-\tOeco?jomy
of all xhe Three Divine Perfons in this Tri-
nity is; very admirable. For each Perfon
has obligd Mankind by a diftind Title j and
tbiere is at the fame Time a Difcovery made
of the Right of each, to the hearty Love
and S^ryic_e^of Mankind, aiifwcrable to each
Perfon's diftin^ Title. We are to worfbip
the Father^ under the Title of Creator of the
Uniyerfe; and 'he vyas known to Men from
the very Creation of the World. We are to
w^orfliip the Son under the Title of our Redce-
wcr and Saviour, tho' his Divine Glory and
Government were not clearly difcover'd, till
He ]ia4 accompliOi'd the great Work of Re-
B i dempaog.
Tht D E 1 T r
demption. And we are to worfhip the Hot)
Spirit under the Title of the Comfoner and
SatiBfier^ . tho' his Divine Majefly did not
clearly fhine forth, till he came down upon
the Apofties and firlt Chnftians with a plen-
tiful Communication of all borts cf Gifts and
Graces ; after which Men were baptiz'd in-
'to the Belief of the intire Trinity *.
I T is my Intention, to confider both the
Truth, and tlie Improvablenefs of this Do-
<f^nne, as it is deiiver'd to us in the Holy
Scriptures, which plainly teach us the Divi-
. nity cf Father^ Son and Holy Ghofl^ that there
is but OneGon^ and that thefe three are
^this One Go d.; and very little more, as far
as I can perceive. And the Method I Ihall
purfue will be this :
I'll firft give a Scriptural Account of the
Deity of the Father^ and then of that of the
the 6o», and the Holy Ghofi.
That heing difpatch'd. Til confider the
Unity of thefe Three as it is difcover'd to us
i\\ the facred Scriptures 5 and that in Confi-
Itency with a Dlfiindion in the Godhead,
j^In the next Place, Til take the Pains to
compare together the Old and the Neu> Scheme
of Notions^ upon this Part of the Chnftian
Dodrine, and fhew which is to be preferr'd,
and for what Iveafons.
And then Fll add an endeavour on
the one hand, to check unwarrantable Cu-
ricfity, and on the other,';to convince you
that it is a very pollible Thing to have
air that Zeal for Truth that is requiflte
c/en in as momentous Points as thefe are,
without
* In flenam, (^ adunatam Trinitntcm, Cypf. Epift,
ad Jubai. lde Hicrec. Bapt.
of the Fatijer. 5
without breaking in upon that Brotherly S£km.
Lcve, on whicli^ the Gofpel lays fo . great a j
Stret^. _ ^ ,,'"; V ' s^r-^
I begin with confidering the fewrV Dei- ^' • '
ty^ which is what this Text fpeaks diredlly
to, when it fays^, To us there is but One God^
tbs Father. To us Chriilians, there is but One
God^ any more than there was among the
Religious Jt-ws^ and ' the Wifer P^^/««/ J- and
the hathcr is He : And He is manifefted to lis,
and to beador'd by us as the Father, Xhe
Ancient Creeds therefore began thus,- L be-
lleve in God^ or, / belie-ve in One God the Fa--
thcr. And this Word Fathtr intimates that
Jie has a5f?»,- and that tho' he has ieveral
that bear that Name and Title, yet that he
has one that is his Son in a very pecuhar
manner. Nor is it more evident that under
Chriftianity there is but 0»e GW, than it' is
that the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrifty who
through him has manifefted the Bowels of a
Father for us finful and wretched Mortals, is
that On.t God, and to be adher"d to, Icy'd
and ferv'd as fuch. And wiiatever bepojiies
of the many Gods whom the Apoftle reieds
and difclaims, he muft" be own'd to be G o d
by all that bear the Name ot Chriftians. For
tho' there be Gods many^ and Lords many ^ pt tQ
us^ there is but One Gody the Father,
And here I propofe,
I. T o confider the Scriptural Meaning of
the Word God^ which is by fome re-
prefented as a Word of doubtful Sig-
iufication.
n. To give Proof of the ivir/jer's Deity.
B 5 HI. To
^^The Deity
III. T o confider G o d as a Father^ which
is the ufual way in which he 15 r^-*
prefented to 115 in the Writings of the
Neiv Tefiament, -
IV. To return an Anfwer to feme Que*
ries about the Fathtr and his Deity.
Andj
V. T o add a few Reflexions that may be
of common Ufe.
1. I begin firfl:^ with the Scriptural Meaa*
ing of the word God ^ which is by fome
reprefenred as a Word of doilbtful Signifi-
cation. And hew can we wonder that Ca-
vils fhquld be multiply'd^ about the Senfe of
other Words and Phrafes that have been tts'd
in the Debates there have been in the
Church upon tiiis ArticlCj by fuch as can
think it worth their while to raife a Duft^
^bout the proper Import of the Word Go^ /
We are tDid * That the Title of God is gi'ven
in "very different Senjes in Serif tare ,* and that
fometimes it Jigfilfies the mofl Highy Ferfedt^ ^d
Infinite Beings 'who is of Himfelf alom^ and c^es
iitilhir his Being nor Authority ^ nor dny thing to
another : And at other Times y it Is fnadc'the Cha-
racier of Perfons 'who are in^jefied -with Jubordinate
Authority and Voiver from that Supreme Beings
^And it is faid_j Thus Angels are fiyrdGodj.VhL
'Viii 5". And 'Magiflratei are Gods, Exod. xxii.
'a8. Pfal. ixxxii. I. Joh. x. 34^ 55". And fomc-
'^H'mes' in lhe. fingular Number ^ one Ferfon It fiyl'd
God j ay Mofes is called a God to Aaron. Exod,
ivc
ii-^
* Emlyn'f Jr^^^, p. 3. 6cc.
of the Father*
if. H^. and a God to Pharaoh. Exod. vii. i. ^7jd
tbt4S the Devil is call'd /i^ God of thk. World.
a Cor. iv. 4. th^ is, the Wi7ice and Kider of it ,•
^|j6(>' kj tmjufi UJurpation and God's Tcrmljfion.
iTovJ as he who alone is God^ in the former
Senfey is irtf.ntdy above all thcfiy fo U'e find bim
^dffiingu'fiy'd from all others - who are called God^ by
^his Chara^ery a Gcd of Gods^ or the Ch.ef of aH
X^odsy &c. And the Texts ailedg'd in Proof
are_, Deut. x. 17. Joji^. xxii. 22. &c.
3d ^3 T b^ that thus reprefents the Matter^
would I doubtj upon Trials be hard put tor
it_, to give any fui table Proof, that it is iri
-.^ontradiftincftion to thofe improperly cair4
t.Gpds^ aud not rather in Oppofition to the
-MwnGods or Objeds of Worihip;, that the
-.J^ftHigh, is in tlic Places citedj ar elfe-
'ijwhere^ caii'4 the God of Gods. But waving
r f^3 CO me it evidently appears more natu-
- «fal, and a much more likely way to prevent
: Confufionj for u$ to fay that the word God^
^iis. fometimes us'd properly in Scripture^ and
- fometimes improperly and figuratively, Whea
^ the word God is us'd properly ill Scripture^ it
fignifies One of Infinite Wifdom^ Omnifcient^
Omnipotent^, Omniprefent^ All-fufficient_, and
t/in fliort an intinitely Perfect Being. And
-.M^Jicnthe Title of God is given to any low-
-,i)r inferior Being, it is given but iwproperl/
jipd figuratively; and at the far theft intimates
- Jiu mor(S_, than a Refemblance to G g p in
4onie or other of His ExceUencies. Kojr
-can I fee how this can be difprov'd. Perfons
.that . are c^ll'd Gods in this latter^ this figu-
.. 4'ative Senfe^ are no more truly Gods, than
\. Herod was a FoXy OV Dan B. Serpent y tho' we- Lukexlu.
^tapborkally they were fo ftyl'd. When Princes ^^'^^ ^j^
or Magiftrates are call'd Gods in Scripture, j^/
■*^ris \vi A mmphQrml Senfe : and they are not
' B4 ftriaiy
8 The Deity
ftr'dly or prcperly, or truly fuch. Tho*
Mcf s^ and Magiftraces, and Angels too are
caked Gcds in ;DC/ipcare^ yet we don't ufe to
fpeak cf their Divinay. The Ancient Father
Irem^tis \N2i^ much in the rjght^ \^iiti\ he fo
earneil:y contends^ That * neither ihe Lordy
nor the Holy "yirif^ nor the Afofiles^ tvould have
abfoluttly call'd One God^ that was not truly God :
And when he adds^ That the Scripture calling
them Gods that are ?^ot fo^ . does not altogether
jhcw thim forth as Gods^ hu:: fiUl adds [omethlng
that ^e-ws them not to he Gods^
But whatever it is as to the Old Tefiamenty
we may obferve w.'th refped to the Nc-Wy
that no Angel or King^ or Prince^ no Crea-
ture of any Scrt^ is there caiPd God in the fin-
gular Number^ by any cf tne Sacred Pen-
men : And have Keafon to remember in or-
der to our greater Caut^on^ that when the
Multitude fo extravagantly ccmpiimented He^.
Afts xii. rody as upon h:s taking Speech to cry cut^ 'Tis
93' the Voice of a God^ and not of a Man^ and he
did not rebuke them^ he was frefently [mltun
hy an Angel ^ becauje he did not give Glory to God.
Another celebrated Modern Writer^
will have it^ That the Word God is always a>
'Relative Word of Office ^ and that . he proper Scrip''
ture Notion of God is Dominion f- And he
that h generally reckon'd the mofl" fubtle
Writer among the 6'(;«»/>»/3 thought it worth
h^s wh'ie to Ipend an whole Chapter^ in or-
der cu the corroborating that IMotion 4- But
it '$ paft my Skill to diicern^ how either Do-
mmion fing.y^ or any other Particulars m
whicU
' "*■ Adv. Hisref: Lib. III. Cap. 6, t See Dr.^Chvke's
^eply, pag. 284, drtd 290. I Crellius d^ Deo, ^ ejus
Arcributis. cap. 13, • . -^^ -y^
df the Father.
which a created Being is capable cf refem-
bling the Mcft High^ are fufhcienc to dene-
rtinate any Being prcpe.ly Cj o d- That can-
not be without intiiiite l^erteclions *. St.
Taut rejeds thole as no God ^ which are ^ net
fuch by Nature. And it mull be own d 'that
the Learned Writer I refer to^ is fo confiftent
with himfeit^ as to give thcle Words ct the
Apcltie^ How'je'it^ then when ye knew not God^ ye Qd\, iV.8-
dtd Sew'ce un o ihem which by Nature are no Qods^
fuch a Glcfs as he thought would ferve his^
Purpvfe. For he reprefents the meaning of
this Expredion^ by Nature arc no Godsy to be
this j ye ferv'd them^ that have no Being m
Nature^ or that by Nature have none of thai Di-
vine Auihority and Dotninion 7vhich you vainly af"
cribe to them f. Whereas the Apoftle's real
intention appears to have been to intimate
to nSy that he only is truly and ftridly and
properly Gody who is God by Nature ^ and has all
the eiFential Perfedions of the Deity natu-
rally belonging to him. And the fame Apo-
ftie fpeaks tu the fame Purpofe in the very
Words before my Text^ faying_, There be that
are caU'd Gods^ ivhe.her in Heaven or in Earth j
as there be Gods war^y : By which he evidently
diitinguifties thcfe that are caifd Gods i^ the
large figurative Senfe^ trom him that is really
3nd properly fo call'd ; that is^ from him that
is Gcd by Nature. So that to make up the No-
tion of God in the true and proper Senfe,
there m.uft not only be Dominion ^ but a Di-
rine Nature and Divine Perfedions to be the
Ground of that Dominion.
Many
* ^eethAtUrgc'y and dlfiinclly pYovd, z« Dr. FiddesV
"hoYi^ 6f Dpvhifty. Vol: I. pag. 371, 372. ^c. f ^^^
£)r. ClarkeV .^'^-/y, pag, 76, 77.
/^
lo The Deitt
SeRM. . M a n y are .extremely fond of a Dififlm-
j^ dion between the Supreme, and a Suhrdhate
God: But as far as I can underftand jixy
Bible^ that is a Diftlncaion that has noFoua-
dacion. According to the Principks there
laid dawn^ as far as I can perceive^ whoever
i$ truly and properly God^ muft be Supreme^
as well as Omnipotent^ Omnifcient, or pci-
fefs'd of any other Excellency ; And a Stilor^
dinate God^ is no true and proper God at ajL
One way in which the Toljtheifm of t^he.P^r-
gan World is expos'd in Script ure^ is by re-
prefenting the Weaknefs and Folly of any
Suhardina.e Deities^ under one as Suprtmey whictl
--. . the God of i/r^e/ always difclaim'd. His coim-
**'* • x^oi^ Language was this: I am the Lord ^apd
\Wi. y\iv.^^^^^ ^^ ^^ne elje. There is no God befides me^ Ji
S^ ^ there a God befides me ? Tea^ there is no God, ^ /
llai. xlri know not any. 1 am God^ and there is none like me z
^' Before me there 7pas no Gad formed ^ neither jhall
there be after me. And Ir emeus feems very fairly
to have laid in againit the Diftinction fore*
mention dj between the Supreme and a Suhdr^
dina t God^ when he ftys^ That he that has any
Qm above- hlr/Ty and is in the Toiver of another ^ can
: neither _ be fad to be God^ ftora great King *,
,BuT there is another Diftiacftion as jto
the Word God^ that may I think be, admit-
ted ,. fa iciy^ and wkhout.any; Hazard; Ajid
that i^j That, that Wprd is fometimes to Jdc
tSLkcn/ibftrachdly znd indefnittly ^ and at ptjter
^t\mtsmQvtUmitedly;sin^:co7jfi7iedly. Sometiii)es
it takes in all. th^-Jnii^lte.PerfediQns of jjie
Deity 5\whe.rea$..a|:;^otiiej: tirnes it.dire^iy
. points iis. to the Jeveral diftinguifliing Rxo-
perties of tjie Perfon. in.. the Deity that, is
• ?? '^V-' niQre
^/LivJ^ Adv.Ha^ref. lib, 4. cap. 5.
of the Fathe r. II
more particularly referr'd to. And I don't Seru^
fee, why we may not admit this for a Gene- j^
ral Rule, that we are to underftand the Word ^,y>^.is^
God IndefirAtely^ abftrading from the Confide^
ration either of Father^ Son^ or Holy Ghofi^
whenfoever the Context, or fome other
;^Circumftances, do not confine its Significa-
-tion and Intent to One of them only.
The BleiiedGoD may be alfo conHder'd
by us, either ahfolntely or relatively, Abfo-
lutely fpeaking. His Name i§, I Am. He is
ihe hilgh and Lopy One^ that inhahiteth Eternity. Exod. iiu
vBut He is moil ufually fpoken of, as He itands jjt-
iTrtlated to his Creatures. Thus He is repre- J * **^"'
fented as the Objed of our Worfhip and Ser*
vice j and in this refped: we are to have no
^^ther Govt but One, The Gods of the Hea*
^ thens were the Idols they ador'd : And when
they form'd an Idol to worfhip it, they are
■fiid to make a God of it. And the Devil is Ifai- xHir.
\ therefore reprefented as the God of^ this WiHd; ^J' '^•.
-'the God of the Heathen World in general, ' '^^' ^^'
becaufe he Vv^as ador'd among them. But the *'
vGoD of JJrael \s reprefented as the Univerfal
^■Creator and Governor, and this joyntly with
his Infinite Excellencies, is taken notice of
as the proper Foundation of His Worfliip
^nd Service. Earthly Potentates may be
-•fcaird Gods improperly and metaphorically^
■ tjecaufe they have fome Likenefs to God
in Power ; as the Idols of the Heathens are
■ '^ Scripture cail'd Gods^ becaufe they are to
''^'tliem in the fame relation of Worlliip, as
the True God is to others: But the Pow-
tv of the former does no more make them
XT^^ 2Lnd frofcr Gods^ on the account of their
Likenefs to God, as to Government^ than
the Re;fped fhew'd to the latter could make
tfa^em true and ^roff^r Gods^ oxx the ac-
. . count
12 The Deity
count of their Likenefs to G o d with re-
fped: to Worlhip.
The Notion of Godhead as confifting in
Power only^ (feparate from the Infinite Per-
fections of the Divinity) has^ as far as I can
perceive^ no Foundation eitner in Reafon
or Scripture. And tho' it is pofitively afr
fertcdj that when the Name of God is ah[o^
lutely taken^ it h always meafit of the Per-
fon of the FathtVy yet A fhould think it more
prudent^ true and I'afe^ to fay_, that it is fo fre-
quently. That is fafficient : And to fay it i^
fo univerfahy^ will net held ,- for the two no-
bleft Defcripcions of Go d in all the N^w Tc-
fiamenty are thefe ^ That He is Dght and
Loye : which are as true of the Son and the
Sprity as of the Father.
And then as to the Supreme or Molt High
GoD^ it deferve§ to be obferv'd and re-
member'd^ that tho' the Mnjl Hlgh^ is fome-
times added to the Name of God under the
Old Tefiamenty yet in the New^ 'tis always
nfed as a Name of Goo itfeif, and is not
added to the Name of G o d above four fe-
veral times ,* one of which is by the Apo-
Hcb. vii. ftle^ when he calls our Saviour r^tr Trkft of
I. the Mo fi High God '^ and the other three times
are by the Devil^ who even when he con-
*|iark V. fg^gg ^j^^ 'Yl^:,xh, does it with an Ill-will.
Luk. viii. And the Reafon hereof perhaps may be this ;
28. ^ becaufe under tht Old Tt ft ament the Name of
Aas xvi. Gfl^is fometimes afcrib'd to Angelsj nay^ to
^^' Judges^ who were a fort of inferior Gods
under the Supreme ; But under the Nevj^ the
Name of God is appropriated to Him that
is Lord of Heaven and Earth ; even as it
Ifa. ii. 17. ^s foretold^ That the Lord alone fnould be exalted
in that Day,
Upon
of the ¥ AT HER. 13
' Upon the whole I think we may fafely fix Serm.
on this as a Principle^ That whenfoever the j^
Word God IS ufed in a proper Senfe in Scrip- ,,^y^>^^sj
ture, it intimates to us a Being that is infinite
in all Perfedlticns_, and that is a proper Objed
of Worfhip^ on the account of inherent Ex-
cellency. And fuch an One^ the Father is
reprelented to us in the Text before us ;
And therefore I go on_,
. II. T o give Proof of the Father's Deity.
Some perhaps may think this a needlefs
Attempt^ becaufe the Faiber's being Go d_,
is To readiiy own'd by thofe who are the
freed in arguing againft the proper Deity of
the Scn^ or the Holy Sph-it : But I think it may
not be amiis^j briefly to fct before you thole
Proofs of his Deity which the Father himfelf
has groduc'd in Scripture^ becaufe they may
be of Ufe to us when we come to confider
the Deity of the other Two.
Now the Proof which the Father hath, by
Himfeif and his Agents, given us in Scrip-
ture cf his Deity, lies in aeclaring and pro-
claiming his hrfeci'ionsy which are fuch as
can be afcrib'd to none but God^ in his
appealing to his JVorksy which are as peculiar
as the Perfections from which they proceed,
and which they difplay ; and in claiming
Worjl'jip as his Due, with an Ingagement to
treat People like a God, either in a Way of
Favour or Difpleafure, according to tneir
Carriage to Him.
I. The Proof which the Father hath gi-
ven in Scripture of his Deit^^, lies in his de-
claring and proclaiming his own infinite Fcr-
fe^ionsy which are fuch, that they can be
afcfibed to none but God. Not tiiat every
one
She Dei ty
<5ne mUft neceffarily have all the Vtrhdikyrip,
which he afcribes to himfelf : But . when he
^ _ whom v/e Chriflians own for the Father^
Hcb7i. a. and whom we acknowledge to have ffchn to
m in thefe lafi^ Days by his Sm^ ]^ found Upon
Search^ m his Addrefles to Mankind^ which
we have good Evidence came from Him^ to i
tell us with great Freedom in fo many AVords^ "
that He has fuch and fuch infinite VcrfeEHons^
and that th'-y elTentially belong to Him^ who is
he that fliail dare to gainfay^ oppofe^or centra-
did? Now this He has done abundantly. There '^^
is not a Ptrficrion can be mention'd^ that could
become a Divine Beings or be upon any ac-
count neceffary for fuch an One^ but He
afcribes it to himfelf^ or has others afcribing
it to Him_, with his Approbation and Allow-
ance. To Him belongs a proper Eternity ^ for
Pfal. XC.2. to Him it is faid_, From e^^jerlafiiTig to e'verlajf-
ing Tboii art God. To Him aljfo belongs Ow«/-
I Kings ^cimce ; for to Him it is faid^ Thou^ t^jen Ihou
viii. 39- oyjly knoweft the Hearts of all tl>e ChtUren of Men :
Jer. xvii. And He fays of himfelf^ I the L o r d fearch the
^°' Hearty I try theReir.s. YIq claims Ommpre fence ^
Ter xxiii. ^^^ Cries Out^ ^m I a God at hand^ and not
^h ^4- ^ ^^^ ^f"'^ ^ff^ ^^^ ^^'^y ^'^^'^ hlmjelf in fecret
Tlaces that IJhali not fee him ? do not I fill Heaven
and Earth ? To Him belongs Omnifotence ,• and
Jer. xxxli. therefore to Him it is faid^ lloere ts nothing too
^7* hard for TjJee : And^ He doth according to hts iVlU^'^
in the Army of Hcave'rj^ and amO'ng the Inhabitant t::
Dan. Iv. of the Earth. None can flay his Hand^ or fay un^\
35- to him y What dofr Tl)ou, To Him belongs /w-
Mal. ill. mut ability ; I (fays He) am the Lord^ / change
^- ^ not: And He is declared to 'be the Father of
J*^-i'i7- Z,i<rhtSj with Ttjhem is 'rwVariabUnefsy or Shadow
/ifTur?iing, In ftiort^ There is nothing that
belongs to the Divinity^ but what is afcrib'd
to Him ; nor can we torm any Idea of the
One
of the Father. ir^
O^f G*^..o£GhriftianSj wiebcut inekdirfg Him. Serm*
llhan't (lay to prove that the Texts cited be- j^
long to the Father^ becaufe I kngw of none ,^^^^^J!yJ
tbat pretend to deny it.
^%. T H H Proof v/hich the Father has given
of his Deity in Scripture^ lieth alfo in his ap-
pealing to his Works y which are as peculiar
«s tl^e Perfedions from which they proceed^,
and which they dilplay. Such IVorks of his
are often faflen'd on^ as prove Him to be
God, becaufe none but God could be ca-
pable of them. Creation, is a Work of this Sort.
'Twas the Father that produced all Things
originally out^of Nothings and his doing fo/is
appealed to^ ais a full and unanlwerable Proof
of llis Deity. Thou, euQn Thou art Lord alone, Tioou Neh. ir.
hafi made Heaven, the Heaven of Heavens 72jlth ^'
all thek Hofi 5 the Earth and all Things that are
therein^ the Seas and all that is therein. And_, Ifa. li. i j.
7 he Lord thy Makex bath firctched forth the Hea-
^jens^ and laid the Foundations ofthe Earth, A-
nother Work of this Sort is Vrovidence : For
th,e managing and ordering all Things
according to P..ule and Meafure^ is as
good a Proof of a Deity as the firit crea-
ting them. This alio belongs to the Father,
For the Lord hath prepared his Tyrone in the Hta- Pfal. ciiL
Tjensjp and hit Kingdom ruleth over all. His Do- '9-
minion AS an^ everlajHng Dominion , and his King- "• *^*
dam is from Generation to Generation. And^ the p^'^y
Comfel pf the Lord, that Jhall fiand. Another n.
Work belonging to the Father, is the giving
forth FrediSlions of contingent Futurities long
beforehand^which the Event has fully verify'd
and anfwer'd : And this alfo is otten men-
tioned as an unanfwerable Proof of his Dei-
ty. Remember the former Things of old, for I Ifa. xlvi.
sm God, and there ts none elfe ; I am God, and there 9. '''•
is none liAc m€ ^ declaring the End from the Begin-
ning,
XIX.
— X- 12.
i6 - The Deity
nhigy and from Ancknt Tlrnes the Ttj'ngs that ate
not jct dene. And / ha^je declartd the former
Thivgi fro'tn the Begmningy and they went forth
ir xlviij. out of my Mouthy and I fiiewed them : J did
3. them fudderdyy and they came to pafs. Tho'
Others might foretell Things Future When
God revealed them^ yet none but God
could certainly forelee and difcover them.
And then^
5^ Another Proof which the Father has
given of his Deity in Scripture^ may be
tetch'd from h:s folemn claiming Religious
IVorjh'ip as his Due^ join'd with an Ingage-
ment to treat People like a God^ either in
a way of Favour or Bifpleafure^ according
to their Carriage. Religious V/orfij'p belongs
peut. vi. to him. Jl^oti jhalt fear the Lord thy God^ and
13. fcwehim^ and jhalt /wear by his Name. And
now Ifraelj what doth the Lord thy God reojuire
of thee^ hut to fear the Lord thy Gody to walk
in all hts JV^jySy and to Icue h.Wy and to fer've the
Lord thy God with all thy Hearty and wiih all thy
Soul. Outward Worfhip alone would not do
under the Law_, any more than under the Go-
fpei : And God's Language then as v/ell as
now^ to every one ot the Children of Men^
Fro.xxiii ^yag this 3 uV/y Son^ gl've ?yie thy Heart. He
claims inward Heart Reverence and Adora-
tion as his Due. This molt certainly is the
Father's Language y and it could have
nothing in it_, li he was not God. And
then he hath often promised a Variety of
Bledings wiich Gon only cculd beftuvV_,
upon buppclition of Obedience ; and on the
ether Hand threatened a \' ariety of afFed-
ing Punifhments^ wnich God only could
infiicl, upon Suppofitiun of cont^nu d Dif-
_ . . obedience. Thus fays he to Ijra.l of cid^
- 6 n g ^f y^ walk in my iitamtes and ketp nj y^ommand-
II. mentSy
of the Father; 17
ntents^ I wlU gl^e you Rain In clue Seafon^ and the SerM."
Land jlmll yield her Incr cafe. Iwillgi've Peace in T
the Landy and ye fiall lie down^ and none jJjail v,/-v'n^
wake you afraid, Te jliall chafe your Enemies *
and I will make you fruitful. And I will fet my '^^'** 2- 1»
Tabernacle among you j and the like. But then ^^*
on the other hand he fays^ If ye walk con^
trary unto me^ and will not bearke7t unto me^ then ^
-will I alfo walk contrary unto you. I will fend
wild Beafis among you^ and bring a Sword upc7i yoUy
and fend the Pefiilence among you ^ and make your Ci-^
ties waftcy and bring the La?id i?uo defolatlony &C.
And He that ufes this Language^ as He is
by all own'd to be the Father^ fo muft it
be to all plain and evident that He muft be
God, or elfe He would be guilty of the moll
monftrous Abfurdity imaginable.
I fhall offer nothing Farther in Proof of
the Father's Deity ^ but cannot forbear ob-
ferving^ That I no where from the begin-
ning to the Qnd of the Bible^ can find the
Father's producing another God under
himfelfjbrought in as an Argument in. Proof of
his Deity ; which yet would have been a na-
tural Proofs and the very beft of Proofs^ had
there but been any juft Foundation for the
afTerting it. And now_,
III. I go on to confider God as a Fa^
ther^ which is the ufaal way in which he
is reprefented to us in the Writings of the
New Tefiament, fo us there is but One G O D_,
the Father. We Chriftians have One G o d^,
and He is the Father^ and as fuch He is
own'd and ador'd amongft us^ and He will be
fo to the End of Time. 'Twas not fo com-
mon with the Jews to call God Father ^ as
it is with us Chriftians. This of Father \s a
moft indearing and ingaging Notion of the
Blefled God. He is the Common Father of
^ - - - C AU
i8 The Deity
All. But among us Chriftians this Name or
Title carries in it fomewhat that is peculiar.
God is the Enher of the World_, as He is
the Maker^ Creator^ and Former of it : But
fome of h:s Productions more properly call
Him Father than other s^ which is the Cafe of
all his Rational and Intelledual Off-fpring.
^ Tho' He is the Maker of all Things ; He
Heb. xil. is in a fpecial manner the Father of Spirits,
9- Angels are ftyl'd God's Sons^ and are fald to
Job. 38. have fang together^ ayid Routed for Joy^ after
^' ... their Formation. Mam alfo is ^y\6.the Son
n ' of God J as he was his immediate Workman-
ihip. In this Senfe we have ail one and the
Mai. ii. fame Father ^ for it is One God that hath crea-
10. • ted m. By preferving and upholding^ God
continues the Relation of a Father. Redemp-
tion from Mifery and Ruin_, is another Foun-
dation of God's Paternity. Regeneration
Jam. 1. carries it yet farther. For where He of his
1 7. dwn Will begets any by the W^ord of Truth ^ He is
in a yet more fpecial Senfe a Father, And
he is by Adoption a Father to as many as
he is pleas'd through Christ to admit
into the Privileges ot fpiritual Sonfhip. But
after all^ the Title of the Father which St. Faul
in this Textj and he and other New Tefta-
went Writers oft elfewhere give to the Blef-
fed God, has a relped; to Ono: that is in a
peculiar manner the Son of G o d, to whom
therefore He is a Father in a pecuUar manner^
and in fuch a Way as He is to no one elfe.
Had He been only the Father of Men and
Angels^ Fie would not have been any thing
near fo Glorious as He is now^ that He ap-
pears to be the Father of our Lord J esvs ChRISt.
This is the moll comfortable and happy
Foundation of his being our Father. Our
Lord himfelf points to it^ by faying to his
Difciples;^
of the Father^
Difciples, when He was juft leaving them^ /
aCcend to my Father ^ and your Father : To him
that as He was my Father long before He _
was yours^ fo that is therefore your Father be j^hn^xx.'
caufe He is mine. ^ 17.
The Father's Relation to him^ who through
the whole Gofpel is ftyPd his Son by way of
Eminence^ points us to the higheft and moft
noble Notion of God's Paternity. He is
the Father of Chrifi Jefiis^ whom He own'd
publickly for his onely begotten So7t^ and or-
dered to be honour'd^ and reverenc'd^ and
ador'd as fuch. Nor did his Relation to
him as a Father begin with his affuming our
Flefh : Vov his goings forth hai-e been from ^Mic. v. i?
oldy from cverlafiing '^ ; Or from the Days of
Eternity. God was his Father before all
Woridsj before the Mountains or Hills were
brought forth '^ while as yet He had not ^'S''^^ Prov.viii*
the Earthy nor the Fields ^ nor the highefi Tart 25 , 26*
of the Dufi of the World^ &c. f And yet the 8<c!
Way and Manner of his being his Father^ is
beyond us to conceive^, and 'tis to but little
purpofe for us to pretend to pry into it.
Several Ancient Chriitian Writers have
made ufe of a variety of Similitudes in this
Cafe to help our Conceptions j but all of
them fall far fhort of an adequate Reprefen-
tation of the way of Fatherhood in the Di-
vinity. They alfo fpeak of a Threefold
Generation of the Son ^ the firffc of which
they reprefent as his Eternally exifting in
and of the Father , the fecond his coming
forth from the Father to create the World j
and the third his condefcending to be born
C 2 of
* See upon diat Text^ VUc^ei D'fmt. de Clnijli
Divinitnte, Vol. 1. pag. 175, 6cc. 't See P/^c. /)/^-
/wf. Vol, I pag, 19^,
20 The Deity
Serm. ^f ^ Vitgin^ and become man f. But I can-
T not fay that this is altogether Scriptural.
^y^'^^,..^ Iren^euSj and moil of the Fathers after
liim_, reprelent the Son's Generation as a thing
that is not to be explained^ and which no one
knows ^ neither Angels ^ nor Archangels^ nor Prin^
dualities nor Towers ^ hut only the Father that be^
gat^ and the Son that is born *.
Our Saviour had God for his Father y
and was his Son^ both as he was God^ and
as he was Man. The Scripture is plain as
to bothj and therefore it does not become
us to queftion either. We have no Occa-
fion from G 0 d's being our Saviour's Father
with refped: to his Deity ^ to queftion His
being His Father with refped to His Hu-
manity : Nor yet fhould we^ from our Savi-
our's being the Son of God^ as he was
the Son of Man_, queftion His having God
for His Father in a yet higher Senfe.
When a late Peculiar Writer f pretends to
argue that Matter and fay^ That no other
Vii/me Filiation can reasonably be fupps^d^ than
thkt cur Saviour Chrifi jvas the Son of God as
he \va5 the Son of Man ; for were he other-
Tvife the Son of God^ he could ?m be the Son
of Man ; he talks wildly. For where is the
Inconfiftency^ between His becoming the
Son of Man by affuming Human Flefh in
the Virgin's Womb^ in a. Way of Peculiar
Divine Difpenfation^ and His being the
Son of God by necejjary Emanation ? Nor
can I difcern any Abfurdity that attends
the fuppofing fuch a necejjary Emanation :
For
t He that isfo difpos'df may in order to the better judg-
ing what was intended by this Dijliti^ion, confult Dr. Wo,-
ter land's Defence of fome Queries, pag. 134, 135, 8cc,
* Iren. adv. Haer. Lib. 2. cap. 48. t See Cleiv
donV Treatife ff the word Perfon, pag. 34,
of the Father! 21
For it will neither imply a pafling out of Serm^
nothing into being on the Son's Part^ he
being ever a Son-^ nor a Pre-exiftence on
the Part of the Father ^ necelTary Exiftence
and Eternity being as effential to the Son
as to the Father ^ by reafon of the Deity
common to both.
So that the One God of us Chriilians is
the Eternal Father of an Eternal Son^ who is
of the fame Nature^ and has the fame in-
finite Perfections with himfelf. We have
no Occafion to be furpriz'd to hear of a
'Father \n the Godhead^ fmce there is an
anfwerable Son : Tho' to pretend to form
a Notion of Father and Son in the Deity^
from any Refemblance to Father and Son
amongft Mankind^ with refped to way of
Derivation^ or Subftance deriv'd^ is the
way to Confufion^ and expofes the Truth ,•
which is fo far reveal'd as to give us a
firm Foundation whereon to bottom our
HopeSj without gratifying our Curiofity.
And now
IV. I am to return an Anfwer to fome
Queries about the Father and his
Peity. And
I. I T is queried^ Whether our One God the
Father^ ever was any other than a Father ?
I anfwer ; He was not firit God^ and
afterwards a Father^ but without any Be-
ginning of Beings always was both God
and Father *. He is as neceffarily a Father^
C 3 a$
* This was the Senfe of Kovatinn^ who in his Dif-
courfe <^e Triw. c. 31. has this ExpieiTion, fpeaking of
the Son ; Semper enim in Patre, ne Pater non fempcr fit
Pfitcr, Denis of AUxmdrin was alfo of the fame
mind.
22 The Deity
as He Is God : The Charader of Father de-
pending upon His Godhead^ and not mere-
ly upon his Will. If he had not ever been
a Father^ there muffc have been an inftant
when he was without a Son : And then
could it not have been faid by the Apo-
Johni. I, ftie^ That the Word that was GoDj was in
7" the Beginning with God, And fmce our One
God the Father always was a Father^ it fol-
lows by a neceflary Confequence^ that he
always had a Son^ and that that Son of His
had no Beginning of Beings and could
not but be^ and exifl necelTarily : And that
this Son can no more be faid to have
been made out of nothing than the Father
Himfelf ^ and that it can with no more
Truth be faid of Him_, That there wa-s a
Time when he was not^ than \t can of the
Father Himfelf.
2. It is query 'd^ Whether that v/hich
has been often us'd^ be a proper Speech^
and ftridly juitifiable^ ^uiz^. That the Father
is the Fountain of the Deity ?
I anfwer^ it is no Scriptural Expreffion.
It feems to have been firit brought in by
the fpurious De?iis the Areofagite^ who calls
the Father^ the Fountain of the Snperfubftantial
Deity *. And tho' it was afterwards us'd
by
mind, faying ov -^ «*' ore a &ih ^k »v 'Tecrri^, Atha-
naf. Vol. I. p. 253.—- And Alexander Bp, of Alexan-
dria, reckons it among the fingularities of y^r/r/;, that he
would nor own the Father to have been always fo, but
pretended that God was once no Father. Alexnnd, Epift,
ap. Theod. L. C. 4. riarw? del -jr^rw^, y^, kV '^</ y^oj^^i ts
^tiK ^v 0 TATJif 'TTcLTti^. Epiphan. Hserei. 62. And Cyril,
Dial, de Trin. 2. ''A^it -^b th 0=0^ ^ ay^a, '^ATiif. Si*
fut niinquam fult non Deus, ita nunquam fuit nou
Filter. Gennnd. dc Ecchf. Dogm. c. i. .
? De Divinis Nc minibus, cap, i* p. 42,0c
of the Father. 23
%/^r"s;
by a good Number of the Fathers , and Sekm,
readily taken from them by thole that j^
came after them^ yet 1 cannot but think
it liable to fuch Obje^lions^ as that it were
better wav'd. Of the tvvo^ I fhould rather
fay_, That the Father is the Fountain of the Tri-
mjy than of the Deity ; tho' neither is
that a very juit Exp^^effion. As for the
Deity ^ 'tis belf-exiuent^ and flows from no
Fountain. Was the Father the Fountain of
His own Deity ? Did He give a Being to
Himfelf ? Or did He make his own a Di-
vine Beings when it was net fo original-
ly ? And if notj how is He the Fountain
of the Deity ? 'Tis faid^ That the Father is
God from himfelf^ and that the Sen and Holy
Spirit recel've their Divinity from hhn. But I
cannot perceive that this is fo Scriptural
a way of exprefling the Matter^ as not to
need fcanning. It is not without its DiiTi-
culties ^. As to both the Son and Holy Spl^
rity tho' their being fich is undoubtedly
from the Father^ yet can we fafely lay
they received their Being from him ? May
not this be well queftion'd^ Vs^hen we know
they always were in Beings without Be-
ginning to be ? Or would not the fuppo-
ling them to begin to be^ break in upon
the Immutability of the Divine Nature f •
Or were either the Son or Holy Spirit pro-
perly advanc'd to the Deity by the Father ?
Muft it not be cwn'd that each of them
C 4 ever
* Vid. Dr. PVhitby Pref. in DifquifiL. Mod. pag.
XX.
t Non poteft perfona allqua ex & in ipfa dh'ina
Effentia incipere exiftere, qu^e prlus non fuit, faha
natural d'lvinx immutabilitaie. Bulli Def. Fid. Nic.
Sed. 4^ c 2. p. 261.
The Deity
ever had the Divine Nature ? And how
then could either of them become God in
Procefs of Time ? \ cannot therefore help
declaring^ I am for dropping the Exprefli-
on^ as tending rather to confound our No-
tions_, than make them clearer.
3. It is query'd_, Whether the Father is
in this Text faid to be the One God to us
ChrifcianSj to the Exclufion of the Son ?
To this I am for returning a Negative
Anfvver^ for this Reafon^ becaufe it appears
from a Variety of other Texts^ (as we fhall
fee in the Sequel) that the Son Is as truly
and really God as the Father Himfelf :
Kor have we any Reafon to fuppofe that
to be always excluded in Scripture^ that is
not particularly exprefs'd. 'Tis eafy to give
Inftances and Examples to' the contrary.
When the Chief-Priefts enquir'd by what
Name or Power the lame Man was made
Ads iv. Whole_, St. Teter anfwer'd^ it was done in
.7* ^^' the Name of Jefus Chrlfi : But it does not
therefore follow^ that the Name or Power
of the Father and Holj Spirit was excluded.
'— -viH. We are alfo told of fome^ that were Ipap-
y-^' tized in the Name of the Lord Jefus. And it
is intimatedj That St. Peter order'd Cornelius
^""^ 2c. and his Company to be baptized in the Name
^^' of the Lord j i. e. of the Lord Jesus:
But it does not follow^ that the Name of
the Father and Spirit was excluded. And
when the Jailor was told by Fatd and Silas^
Adls xvL That if he would heliezfe 071 the Lord Jefus
32. Chrlfi he ^wuld he faued^ we have no Reafon tp
fuppofe that believing on the Father and Holy
Spirit was dellgn'd to be.excluded. And when
"II Cor. ih St. Faul fays^ I determined not to ]^now any thing
'^^ among yoii^ fave Jefus Chrifi and him crucify^d^
we hant the lealt Reafon to imagine^ that
"• ■ 'the
of the Father^ 25
^he Knowledge of the Father and Holy Spirit Serm'
was thereby infinuated to be needlefs j or j *
that the Knowledge of Christ's Refur- i,^-J!>^
re6Hon and Afcenfion^ was not as requi- ^"'^'^
fite in its Place as that of his Crucifixion.
And when our Lord Himfelf fays_, This Joh. xvlt
is Life Eternal y that they might know Thee the 3«
only True God^ and Jefus Chrifi whom Thoti
hajt fenty we han't the leaft Reafon to lup-
pofe that the Knowledge of the Holy Spirit
is difcarded ; or that Love is not in its
Place as neceflary as Knowledge. Such in-
Itances make it plain^ that we are not to
fuppofe that that is always excluded in
Scripture^ that is not particularly exprels'd.
And therefore St. Paul's here faying^ That
to us there is hut One God^ the Father^ is no
Argument that the Father only is the Chri-
llians God^ fince it appears from a great
many other Texts^ that the Son and Holy
Spirit are joint Sharers with the Father in
the moft Effential Perfections of the Deity^
and joint Objeds of Adoration. And be-
fides^ the Son being in this very Text^ re-
prefented as the One Lord^ hy whom are all
Things y and we hy him^ is that Way as tru-
ly pomted out to us as the One only God of
ChriftianSj as the Father Himfelf^ of whom
are all Things ^ and we in Him. Nay unlels
Christ was One God with his Father ^ he
could -not be the One Lord of Chriftians^
whom we were to invocate and worihip.
And if the Apoftle's reprefenting the Fa-
ther in the firft Part of this Text^ as th.e
One only God of Chrifl:ians_, is an Argument
that the Son and Holy ' Spirit is not that One
enly God as well as He^ it will follow that
when he in the latter Part of it reprefents
Christ a^ thq Qn^ only JUord^ neithejf the
• " ' - \ Holy
26 The Deity
Serm ^^^y ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ Father is Lm-d as well as
y * He^ which is very abfurd. Nay^ I think
^^^V^ we may very juftly lay our Argument thus^
^^^"^^ and fay^ that as tho' 'tis here afferted
that there is but One Lord^ yet the Father
having naturally an Univerfal Lordihip can-
not be excluded ,• fo tho' 'tis here declar'd
that to us Chnftians there is but One God^
yet the Son being by Nature G o d^ cannot
be excluded_, tho' the Father only is mention-
ed. How fiiould the Son be excluded in this
Cafe, when we are fo exprefsly told_j That
the Son is in the Father ?
4. 'T I s query'd. Whether when it 5s de-
clar'd^ that to us there is but One God the Father^
it was intended to be intimated,, that the
Father had any proper Supremacy ? Some con-
tend for this with great Vehemence, and are
as warm upon the Subject, as if nothing were
more certain, or had more depending upon
it, which is a thing not eafily to be account-
ed for. But for my Part, I mult own, I can-
not fee any proper Supremacy of the Father
here intimated. I take the Son to be as truly,
and in all refoeds as much our One God sls
the Father himfelf, and not inferior to Him
as God; the Proof whereof will hereafter
follow in Courfe. And I mult own I am
the more backward to give in to a proper
Supremacy of the Father y tor fear of laying a
Foundation for an Inference of the Inferiority
of the Son ^. I am not indeed infenfible that
We
* J muji own myfelf the more confirrr^d, hy ohferving
how profef/d Arians infuh, upon its being granted 'em,
that the Father is fo the Origine and Fountain of the
Son, ns that he has a Sort 0/ Supremacy, tho on the
Son's Party there be not a proper Infcrioricy. Cui
. bono
of tie F A T H E rJ 27
We have had^ and ftill have^ among us Per- Serm,
Ions of great Worthy that have been and are j
for a Supremacy in the Father^ as a Father^ and ^^>^^-^^
a Subordination of the Son^ as a ^Si?;/ to the Fa- ^
ther^ declaring in the mean time^ That the
Sup-ewacy and Subordination intended^ is only .
that of Order y and not of Nature^ and with-
out allowing any effential Dilparity or Ine-
quality. This was the Way of Bp. Vearfon
and Bp. Bull formerly^ and Dr. I^Vaterlani
more lately. But tho' by the Guard which
they fixj 1 think they go a good Way to-
wards preventing the Danger of which I am
fearful_, yet can I not fay that I am fat if-
fied to fall in with them^ nor can I fee
any Neceffity of going fo far. I am lefs in-
clined to itj becaufe 1 obferve Dr. Clarke f
makes a greater Advantage of this their Con-
ceflion^ than I can be willing to give liim_,
unlefs conftrain'd to it. And whether I am
not able to give a tolerable Solution to the
fever al Texts that are brought in Proof of
this Supremacy^ will belt be judg'd of by the
Sequel.
5-. 'Tis query'dj Whether any Inftaaces
can be given of Texts in which God is Ityl'd
Father^ where any good Realon can be al-
ledg'd to prove the Son and Holy Sprit to be
included ?
I anfwer^ There are Texts in which God
is llyl'd Father^ in which the Son and Holy
Spirit
bono (obfecro) eft ifta Orlginalitas, quse nihil realls
Superioritatis vel Inferlorirads ponit in Perfona five
priginante, five orlginata, prserer merum notlonalem
aliquem conceptum, ordinis alicujus causa ? Gilb.
Clerke. Tractatus Tres. fag. 72. t I^i his ^epl^ ta
Mr, NelfonV Friend^ mi oft elfevphcr?.
28 rif'^ Deitt
Spmt are evidently included. Thus when
the Apoille fpeaks of our callmg on the Father^
who without refpe^ of Perfons^ judgeth according to
e^ery Man's Work ; 'tis not a tiling at all lup-
pofable that Christ fhould be excluded^ fince
we are plainly told_, That the Father judgeth no
Man^ but hath committed all Judgment to the Son.
Heb. xli. And when the Apoille fays_, We ha^je had Fa^
§• thers of our Flefi) which corrected us^ and we gaue
them Reference ; and thereupon queries^ Whe-
ther we fhould not much rather be in Subje^ion
TO the Father of Spirits a-nd live ? It cannot by
any Means be fuppos'd^ that the Father alone
corrects^ and not the Son ; lince our Lord
Rev. ui. himfelf has fo pofitively faid_, As many as I
"^9* love J I rebuke and chafien.
6. 'T I s query'dj How may we bell come
to know this One God the Father i
I anfwer^ The beft Way we can take^ is
to apply to the Son^ who came from his very
John xlv. Bofom. Let us look to the Sen ; for he that
I* ^ hath feen the Son y hath feen the Father. The ivr-
2tStth xi ^^^"^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^
^- " * ' Father, And no Man knows the Father but the
Sony and he to whom the Son jhall reveal h'm,
John X, Nay^ the Son and the Father are One *. And
ja now it only remains_, that
y. I add a few Reflexions that may be
of common Ufe.
We fhould confider God's being a Fa-
ther as an Ingagement to pay Him the
Jiigheft Fearj Honour and Obedience^ and
to
* Pater & Fillus unum funt fecundum Deitatem,
non unus fecundum perfonas. Hac una voce 8c Sabel-
lius excludirvir, 8c Arius confutatur. Faujiintis ds
Trinitate*
of the Father.' 29
to put cur Truft and Confidence in Him. Serm,
The Nominal Gods of the Heathens deferv- r
cd no Homage nor Regard : But our Com- v^/-v^>^
mon Parent deferves alt the Refped: we can ^^^^
pay him. Tis the Duty of all Children to
honour and obey their Parents ,• but our
Obligation to our Heavenly Father rifes
much higher than it can do to an Earthly
Parent. God argues upon this by his
Prophet. A Sen honour eth his Father. If /"Mai. l^'
then be a Father^ 'where is my Honour ? With-
out Care about this_, the Relation is dif*
own'd. G o d's being a Father jQiould in-
fpire our Devotions with Life^ and encou*
rage us to hope that no proper or becom*
ing Petitions fliall remain unanfwer'd. Our
L o R L. bid His Difciples when they pray'd
fay^ Our Father^ and we are all to do fo.
And the G o D we apply to being our Father^
we may conclude he wont be backward to
hear and fupply us. That Argument of our
S A V I o u r's has great Force in it ,• If ye being MattK
Fvil^ know how to gi've good Gifts mito your ^^^ ^^*
Children^ how much more JJjail your Father which
is in Hea^jen give good Things to thern tlmt
ask him ? We fhould from hence alio forti-
fy ourfelves with Patience under all Affli-
<!iions and Corredions. How can any mur-
muring and repining Thoughts of God
be cherifli'd in that Soul^ even under the
greatell Hardlhips^ that in every Stroke
lees a Father's Hand^ and difcerns every
Vifitation to be a Demonftration of his
Love ? Under the greatell Difficulties that
can beimagin'djitis comfortable to know that
He that Imiteth pitieth^, and that no Father Pfal cUL
can pity his Children y more than the Lord fitieth t^*
them that fear Him.
30 The Deity
Serm* Again; By confidering God as a. Father^
j^ * we fhould ftir up ourfelves to be all ourDayst
^^^.1^,^^ returning back to him_, with an hearty Con-
cern and Sorrow for our Sins. In our apo-
flate State we Ihould remember^ That it is
in Accefs to this Father^ and in being brought
back again to him^ that our Salvation and
Happinefs lies. We cannot be brought back
again to him fo as to regain his Favour^
under any other Notion fo well as that of a
Father : And none can bring us back again to
him but the Son^ and therefore to him fhould
we lilten^ and him fhould we follow.
And fmce this One G o d^ the Father ^ is
the Father of our Lord Jefm Chrift^ let us
adore him accordingly. And fmce He is
through him ready to be our God and Fa-
ther^ and to embrace us with a moft tender
AiFedion^ let us thankfully accept the Mer-
cy which He offers us^ and gladly bind our-
felves to fpend our Days in his Service^ re-
ckoning it (as it is in Reality) a great Ho-
Bour^ as well as a mighty Security to us
to have the one Eternal Father fo ready to
fet his Affedion upon ^s^ and give us an
Inter eft in all his Excellencies and Perfe-
iftionsj as far as a Difplay of them in our fa-
vour^ may be needful for us^ or for our Be-
nefit and Advantage.
And finally^ Since we are fo happy as
Col ii 2 ^^ ^^ favoured with the Knowledge of the
" My fiery of God the Father and of Chrift^ m which
are hidden all the Treafures of Wifdom and Know-
led^e^ let us endeavour to grow in the Know-
ledge of itj till we arrive at that fidl af-
furance of TJnderfianding which thel Apoftle
fpeaks of ^ the promoting of which will be
the Thing I fliall endeavour and aim at_, in
the feveral following Difgourfes.
SERM^
5
3«.
SERMON IL
I John V» 20.
:- — This is the true God^
and Eternal Life.
AVING coiifider'd the Deity of the Salttri^
Father y I proceed to the Deitj of the |\^^^» ^"^^
ScTij who by that very Difciple that ^^^ }:^^7
in his Bofom^ is here declared to be the ^^^l^^?
Gody and Eternal Life j and higher he
could not go. If He is the true God, He muft
beftow Eternal Life : And if He can and does
give Eternal Life, He muft be the true God : For
this K the Gift of G o d alone. And here
I propoie,
I. To give Scriptural Proof of the Sons
Deity y both from a variety of othcc;
Texts^ and from this in particular.
II. To make a few Remarks upon the
Deity that is afcrib'd to the Son in the
Holy Scriptures.
III. T o offer fomewhat in return to the
Pleas of thofe who make him but d
f^bordimte Deitj.
IV. To
32 The Deity
Serm.
jj^ IV. To add fome Dodrinal Inferences
and Dedudionsj and Pradical Inftru-
«5lions.
cor\;
I. I begin with the Proof of the Sofis tro-
fer Deltjy the denying which_, or fo much as
demurring about it^ cannot but confidera-
bly afFed the whole Chriftian Scheme. And
I ihall firft argue from a great variety of
TextSj which I fliall confider as they offer ;
and then draw an Argument that I take to
"be very ftrong and cogent from this Text in
particular.
I muft own I think we have as full Proof
of our S A V I o u r's Deity as we need defire.
Thomas made a free Confeffion to our
Lord himfelf It was fhort indeed^ but very
John XX. fuU^ when he cry'd out_, My Lord^ and my
^^^-* God. Our Saviour accepts the Title^ and
praifes Thomas^ which it is not to be imagined
He would have done^ had He not been true
and real God. In this Speech of his there
was no Apoftrophe to the Father^ as fome
have fuggefted. For it was to the Lord
Jesus that Thomas addrefs'd himfelf, and
He accordingly made him a Reply. And
Thomas having learnt from the Law and the
Prophets^ and from Christ himfelf, that
there was but One G o Dj who was the God
of Ifrael^ could not more fignificantly have
declar'd his full Satisfaction,, that Christ was
that One God oflfrael^ than by thus exprefsly
calling him^ his Lor d^ and his God. Can
any one believe that Thomas fhould be turn'd
from an incredulous into an idolatrous Per-
fon^ and yet be approv'd of ? which mult
have been the Cale^ if by owning him
/ ^ God
of the Son. 3^
G0D3 he confounded the Creature with Serm.
the Creator *. jj^
H E is exprefsly calFd God in a great ma- ^/^v'v^
ny Places f- At the fame time as we are
told^ That the IVord was with God 4.^ before John i. i-
He was made Flefh^ are we alfo alTur'd that
He truly was God : He had not the bare
Name of God given him^ on the account
of an high Office defign'd him^ but He was
as truly G o d^, as He whom He was widi
before the World was. The Jr'ord was God.
He was by Nature G )d ; and to be honour'd
and ador'd accordingly. He was always Gor^
without ever beginning to be fo. And we
are faid to be pnrchaftd with the Blood of God : Adsxx;
That is^ of him that was truly God, the -^•
God of Ifrael. For the Apoftle addrefling
himfelf to the Overfeers of the Ficck^ charges
them to feed the Church of God ^ which He bad
ptrchafcd with his own Blood \.\.. So that He
that ^ur chafed the Church with his own ^ Bloody
was true and real God. He was fo when
D He
* I here refer the leader to Dr. Whi:by, de Dei-
tare Chrlfti, ;pag. 47. and Bifloop Pearfon on the
Creed, f. 131. /?W P^acaei DIf u:. de Div. J. Chrifti.
EiTenna. Par. III. f. 1S7, and 192.
t Gilbert Clarke {Antenlcenfm p. 10,) fnys five or
fix times : Erafmus in his Anfwer to Stunica, fays in
two or three Places.
4- On which Text, See Whitby de Dei:-.te Chrlfti,
T^Z' 47. Jof. Placa:i Difputar. Part I. Ar^. xxiv. pag.
2"? 5, ^c. Dr. Warerland'j Defenfe ot^ fome Qiie-
ries, frtg. 66, (^c. And his Eight Sermcfis, p. i. ^c.
4-1- Onr common Copies have it J^ja n ]J'U Aiu-xfi^ :
Bui Bull, cont. Z^uickerum, p. 41. obferves, thar, the
Ancient Alexandrian MS. has it J'id rk aiucTlQ- t6 }/|«,
which is yet more emphatical. See on this Text B-.
Pearfon on the Creed, p. 128. - G? Placei DiCput, ^
Div, J, Chrijli Effentil Par. HI. p. 203 &c
s^'V^*-'
3^ The Deity
Serm, K^ made the Purchafe ^ and had He not been
TT i^Oy his Blood would not have been a fafficient
Price for fuch a Purchafe. Upon this Text
Dr. Clarke obferves^ That the beft and moft
ancient Copies read it_, and the moil ancient
. Fathers cite it^ The Church of the Lord -^ and
he feems not pleas'd vs^ith his Animadverter
for not taking notice of it ^. But Dr. Mill
affures us^ That feveral Manufcript Copies
read it as we do^ Jhe Church of God ^ as well
as that ic is fo in all the Latin Copies of the
Vulgar ; and that it is fo cited by St. B^fl., Efi-
j)hanhfSy Athanafii^s^ Amhrofe^ Occumenlm^ Ful-
genthfSy and Bede ; and therefore he is not
for departing fr^n the ufual Readings nor
is there any Occafion for it.
Philip, ii. The Son was In the Form of God^ and that
6, 7. fo as to be equal with God^ before his taking
upon him the Form of a Ser%'ant. And his being
in the Form of God ^ intimates his as fully par-
taking of the Divine Nature^ as his being
hi the Form of a Ser-vant^ does his partaking of
the Humane Nature f. And it is declar'd_,
That
* Commentary on Forty felecft Texts, in anfwer to
yiv.Nelforiy pag. 127.
t Hilary dcTrluit. Lib. XII. fays, Ejje autem in
forma Dei 7ion alia intclllgeyitU c/?, quam in Dei ma-
nere nntura. The Syrincll renders this Verfe thus :
iVho when he vpds in the Likenefs of God, thought no^
this very Thing a robbery , that he was equal with God,
The contrary Giofs, That wh^he was tn the Form of
God, he did not arrogate or take up07i him to be equal
with God, is bottom Vi upon this Criticifm , that
"A^ziTcLytMa «>«<&^, has that Signification in profane
Authors. Buttho' that fhoujd be own d, yet the word
tt^-TTcLyuo?, plainly has another Senfe.For af-^^^^*, figni.
ii^es paiiiveiy, tbmeching taken as a Prey : Buc dfrf^yy-ou
of the Son.
That his being thus equal ivlth God^ was
what He thought no robbery. He had an un-
queltionable^ indifputable Right to it. 'Tis
the higheft Injuftice to call it in queition.
D 2 'T IS
ctfTcr^H, intimates the very Adlon of Plundering and
Robbing. So that tho' AfTctyixA ^yel^Ky may (ip.nlfy
to arrogate or afTume, yet el^-srctyij.oi' tiye!^, will not
admit fuch a Senfe ; but according to the Genius of
the Greel^ Tongue is rightly render'd, He thought it no
robbery. On our Side in this Cafe, are the moft an-
c"ent Verfions, and the Fathers, both before and after
the Council of AVc^; as Si.Irencefn, Origen, Theodoret,
St. Atharwfiw, Jerome^ Aujiin, Chryfoftom, Thccpbyi^c},
and Oecumenius. Juftly therefore may we adhere to
the Interpretation that has been moll commonly re-
ceiv'd, and that Equality of the Sen with the Father,
which this Text afferts, let the Cavillers againfl us be
ever fo anjrry.
Bifhop Bull Def. Fid. Nic. Sed. If. cap. ii. p. 37. fays;
That this one Text, if it be but rightly conlider'd,
would be futficient to beat down all Herelies concern-
ing the Perfon of the Lord Jesus Christ. See his
particular Explicadon of it. Contra ^ickerum, p. 38.
Seealfo Dr. iVaterlnnd^s Defenfe of feme Queries, p. 16,
17. And his Volume of Sermons, Sermon V.' And
Placci Difputat. de Deitate Chrijii. Vol. I. p. 46, (3c,
And Bp. Pearfon on the Creed, p. 121, (3c. And Bp. .
Burnet's Expojit. of the XXXIX Articles, p. 45.
Mr. PVhiflon, in his Account of the Primitive Fnith^
pag. S6. endeavours to argue away this Phrafe, Equal
with God : And then, />. 87. fays^, That this being the
only fret ended Text, which lookj at firjl leiw, in cur
common Verfions, as favouring the Sous Equality to the'
Father, that firange and modern Do^rine ynujl vayii^j
with that Interpretation. Whereas I think we may on
the contraiy fay with fafety. That our Interpretation of
this Text being fo well fupported, that truly ancieru
Dodlrine Hands firm, and they that oppofe it, are nei-
ther like CO get Comfoi't nor credit bv fo doine. To
"Mr.
The D E I T r
'Tis declar'd^ as to Jobnthe Baptlfi^ That
rnanj of the Ch)ldr<n of Mr acl jha^ Id he turn to the
Lord their God. And Dr. C-ke himfelf ovvi s
liike i. *^ That this in Itridnefs of Conitrudion^
j<5^ mufl: necefiarily be under flood cf Christ.
The Children of Ifrael therefore were to
elteem him^ and carry it to him as the Lord
their God. The Dodor rays_, Hardly any Com-
wentators took r.otice of this ^ and feems to think
he merit.ed from us by the Obfervation. But
he by giving us this Text for a Proofs is
far from making us a Compenfation for the
many Texts he has done his utmoil to take
from us 5* in which he has gone fo far^ that
he can't find in his Heart to allow us above
three or four Texts in which the word God^
is apply'd to the Sen f-
^ . He is ftyl'dj The Mlgky Gcd; and faid to
lla. IX. 6. "^g Gf?^ manlfefted in the Fltflj. And here
iTim.iii. Dr. Clarke \. frankly owns^ That the De-
^^' bate about the various Reading cf the
Text is of no great Importance ,• for the Senfe ts
eindent , That that Per/on was manlfefi In the Flejhy
ivhom St. ' John In the Beginning of his Gojpel
fiyles God : And that is Proof fufficient that
'He was by Nature God.
He
hlr.l'l^jij'ionf wlrh all his Aflurance, I oppose St. Chy-
joftomef who Horn. 6. in Ep. ad Philip, declares, That
all the Hereiies that were agalnft the Divinity ofjESvs
Ch BIST, were overthrown by thefe Words- And Fan-
fiinus de Trinitnte, exprefTes the Matter thus : Sivere
homo eji Chrifius, cum formnm fervi accipif, vere quoque
Dens eft cum iii forynh Dei ejfe pcrhibetur ; nee alia
ratione ^qualem diceret, nifi i7i forma Dei ejfe verum
Deum voiuijjet intelligi.
* Scripture Dodrlne of the Trinity, N^* 534.
t Commentary on Forty ^tlt^^ Texts, pag. 74.
.1 Scripture Dodrine of the Trinity, No* 540.
of the Son. 37
He is faid to be Imwanuel^ God with us. Sekm.
Nay^ with St. Vaul He is the Great Gorl ; and jj^
o«r Sa^icur. And if He that is our Sai^uour^ is ^^r-J'.^^
the Great God y He cannot certainly be an in- ifa. vii.
ferior^ a fubordinate God. This Expreilion^ 14. com-
fZ>e Great God^ is by Clement of Alexandria un- par'd wth
derftood of G(7^ the .Sow alone * ,• and 'tis the ^"^^^tth. i.
fame as to Gregory NyJ]ef:e f^ and others of the i?- ..
Ancients *. And Dr. Clarke owns^ 4. that the ^^'^' ^^'
^rJy U7*^ bear this Covfiruclion : But then he
fay5^ it ts much more reafo?iable^ and more agree-
able to the whole Tenoitr of Scripture to tmderjtand
them to relate to the Father. And he elfewhere af-
firms^ that thefe Words^ the Great God, are in the
.Old Teitament the Character of the Father^ and
in the New Teitament never ufed of Chrift^ but
of the Father only \.\. To which it has been re-
ply'd^ That the Son ts not excluded out of the
Great Gody but as the Father and He are the One
God, fo are They the Great God t^t ? which is
confirmed by a variety of Citations from an-
cient Writers. And at the fame time 'tis
plain from the Conftruclion of the Words
themfelves. For it is Christ that is at lalt
to appear y as the Judge of Quick and Dead.
And there being no Article preiix'd to 6"^-
floury it follows^ that the Great God^ and the
D 5 Sa'viour
* Clem. Prorreptlcon feu admonir. ad Genres. />. 3.
t Contra Eunom. p. 165.
* Among them we may reckon St. Jercm. And up-
on Occafion of his applying this Text to Christ,
Father Simon freely owns Hift. Crit. des Comment, du
N. T. p. 255, that this is one of the plaineft Texts we
have, to prove the Divinity of J e s u s C h r i s t.
t Scripture Dodrine, N^- 541.
tl Comment on Forty Texts, p. 86.
t-i-t True Script. Dodrine of the Trinity continued,
^ng. S4, ^c%
38
The Deity
Serm. Saviour fpoken of, muft be the very fame^
jj^ even Jefas Chrlfi^ v^ho is mentioned.
s,^r\/-Kj All the Fuhefs of the Godhead is faid to
Col. il 9. have dwelt in Him hodtly. Where the Apoftle
fpeaks not of C h r i s t's Dod:rine^ but his
Perfon. And he does not fay that God
was in C H R I s T^ or did abide or dwell in
him^ as He was faid to do in Stony and
in the Samts ; but that all the Fulnefs of the
Godhead dwelt in him bodily ; which Was ne-
ver faid of any other. And this Godhead
cannot bur il!?;nify the Divine Nature and
Eiicnce ".
Rom. ix. He is declar'd to be God o'ver ally hlejjed
5» for euer. Dr. Clarke fays thefe Words are
cf ambiguous ConfiruBion t- But the Pretence
for it IS really weak. The Father cannot in
this Text be referr'd to^ as God blejjed for
e-ver^ without manifeft Force. And fuppo-
fmg the Son to be referr'd to^ to bring in an
Exception of one above him^ when He is
expij^fsly declar'd to be God ouer ally is fo
plainly calculated to ferve an Flypothefisy that
I can't imagine it fnould at all aifed fuch
as fearch after Truth with Impartiality.
When with the ApoMe^ we affert the Sen
to be God over all blefj'ed for ever^ we don't
pretend He is above the Father : All that
we mean is^ that He \s infinitely above all
Creatures^ and in that Superiority equal to
the Father. ^ The fame Writer elfcwhere
fays
* See Pl^ithy de Deitate Chrijii, p. 48.
f t Scripnne Dodlrine of the Trinity, N®* 339.
\- This Text, Ilpm. ix. 5. is quoted in Proof of the
Eternal Delry of rhe Son, in the firft Council ac
Anrlcch^ againft: P/itd of Samofntum. Concil. Paris.
tTorn. X. rag. 545. 'Tis quoted in the fame S^nfc
of the So N. 39
alny •yuhether the v:crd God
Text 5* and if It wasy whc-
D 4 ^/-^^^
fays th?lt It h uncertain^ whether the wcrd God SsRM,
war or 'finally in this Text ; and if It wasy whe- JJ^
h^ Ircn^tw, Lib.- 3. cap. i8. And with him agrees
Tertullian, Lib. conr. 'Prax. cap. 8, & 13 , 65 15.
Kovntiati de Trlnir. cap. 13, 8c 20. Cyprirtn. Lib. 1.
Teftiinon. cont. Jud^eos. Origen. ad ^om. ix. 5. A-
thmnf. Orar. 4 & 5. conr. Ariano*?. Hilfir. Lib. 4,
& 8. Greg. KyJJen. Lib. 10. cont. Eunomium ; and
many others of the moft celebrated Ancient Writers.
And among Moderns, fee iVhithy de Deittite Chrifii,
p. 47. &c. and Piacvi Dlfputr.t. de Chr.Divln. Par.
III. p. 210.
Mr. iVhiJlon in his Account of the Primitive Faith,
p. 13. tells us, That he inclines to i?itcrpret thefe
M^ords of God the Father^ contrary to the common Ex-
fofition : And I done fee that we have any occallon
to wonder at It, confidering that without doing fo,
the Scheme which he is fo vaftly fond of, tails to the
Ground. But when he fays, he does 7wt expect that
any Admirers of Modern Notions fiOOuLl embrace his
Expofition, He mfults a little too much. In my Appre-
henfion he would have talk'd more rationally, had
he intimated the little Ground there was to expedl,
that any but the Admirers of Modern Notions fhould
embrace his Expofition. He pleads that On>e?i. conr.
Celf L. VIII. p/387, 388, will not allow our Saviour
to be G o D over all. But had he been at the Pains
to look into Origen, in E^m. L. 7. c 9. he would
have found him exprefsly affirming that Christ
is God over all ; and adding, that he that is over
allj has no one above him. However it may not be
amifs to put Mr. pyJoiftcn in mind, that when Father
Simon had mentioned Erafmms explaining this Text
of the F A T H E R, he fays that that Refledlon of his
in Favour of Arianifm, is a Subtlety of Grammar,
unknown to all Antiquity. Hift. Grit, des Comment, du
N. T. p. 319. And that the fame Writer, pag. 406.
quotes this Glofs of TheophylaB upon this Text : Ariui
(fays he) is confou?ided by this Teftimony of St. Paul,
0? JO pofitively ajfures that Jefus Qhrifl is God over aU
Things, UpoJ^
The Deity
ther It he not fpoken of the Father. * But at this
Rate we may make the whole Scripture^
or any Part of it uncertain^ and it will
be no eafy Thing to know where we fhall
fix at laft. I hardly think any Man that
has not a Turn to ferve by it^ can after
re?.ding Dr. Ailll upon this Textj either
imagine or reprefcnt it as tmccrta'n^ whether
the word God was in it orlghiaUy. And as to
its be'vg Jpoken of the Father ^ 'tis agauilL the
whole Stream cf Ancient Write rs^ who re-
prefent it as belonging zc the Sen : . Ot which
by way of Addiciju to Dr. M:ll^s Isiotes^
tiiis has been added as a farther Proofs
that Et<fihlus gives us an Account t that in
the Diocletian Perfecution^ the Soldiers fur-
rcunding a populous City of Thrygla^ and
letting It on Fire^ burnt the Mtn^ Worn en ^
and Children^ cahlnir upon Chr^fi the God O'ver
all. And if (as is mofl: probable) thofe were
the Terms of Invocation us'd by thole di-
ItrelTed People^ they give us an ample Te-
ftimony of the Opinion of the Chriifians of
that Age^ as to the Senfe of tliis Text.
T H E moil diilinguifliing Divine Names
and Titles are given to the Son. He is
t Tim.- ftyPd the Blefj'ed and onj Potentate : The Khig
'^■i. 15- of Khtgs and Lord cf Lords : The Mofi H^'-rh :
Rev.xvii. j-/^^ (,,,iy j^ord God^. Tlie Original Word &rQ
2"^' . is A^tTTOTH^j which Dr. Clarke in Oppofition
^ * to Grot I us J afferts^ Is nez;er affiled to Cbrlfi
Judev.4. ^'^^
Upon this Text, I alfo refer the Render to Bp.
Stil!ingflcet\ Vindicntlcn of the DoHrine of the Trinity,
p. 15-}. &c. and Bp. Pearfon on the Creed, pag. 132.
* Comment, on 40* Texrs, p. 86. in the Margi
na} No:e.
t Mift.Eccl. L. 8. c. II.
of the Son.
in the Nev^ Tefiament *. But what does A?<r^iTMf
/ignify^ but one that ruleth over Things,
as it he had them tied with Bands ? And
why may net that agree to the Son as well
as t\\^ Father'^ For my Part I fhould fooner
judge Dr. Clarke miftaken, in denying Chrift
to be the Lord that hcught tfs^ than Grot ins in i Per. 'iu
affirming it : Nor can I fee what fhould i.
hinder us from owning him for the Buyer
that paid the Price.
He is alio ItyFd the Lord cf all ; the Lord Acis k,
of Glory ,• Our God and Sa-viour ,• and that in 36.
liich a vvay as that the very Conftruct':on i ^ox, iL
of the Words feems plainly to intimate that ^•
Jesus Christ is our Gcd^ as well as our ^ Pet.i. r.
Sa'vlour t*.
H E is jAlpha a7jd Omega ^ the Begwnwz; and Rev. i. 8^
the Endmg |, and this Title is hve Times
given him in St. Johns Apocalypfe ; and
this is a proper Title of God, and incom-
municable to any other. Now this is al-
crib'd to Chri.t without any Rellridion
or Limitation. So that He is as truly the
Flrfl and the La ft even as the Father ^^mi-
felf It;
H E is the Lord God of the Holy Trophets. Rev.xxU.
This alio Dr. ChrJze fays lignifies the Father : 6, 16.
And he gives thiis Reafon for it ; that in the
fii;e foregoing Ferfes of the fame Chapter ^ the word
Cody and Lord Gody are us'd two or three Times
in
* Comment, on 40 Texts, p. iic.
t See true Scrlpmre Dodrine of the Trinity con-
cinu'd, pag. 83. &c.
^ I See on this Text, Jflnc.ti Difputnt. de Chrifii Di-
I in. Par. !: pag. 387. and Bilhop Pearfcn on ths
Creed, -p. 124.
i-t See JVhithy ds Deitnts Chrlfi, p. 40.
The Deity
exprefs ContracUfihcllon to the Lamb *. And
it muft indeed be own'd that we meet with
the T^hrone of God and of the Lamh^ twice
& mention'd before ^ but it is but one Throne : -
And when the Lord Gqd is faid to give his
Servants Light ^ there % fo far from being
any expref ContradiftlnBion to the Lamh^ that
I cannot fee why God and the Lamb may not
both be taken in^ as giving Light from
their Throne : But llill^ that our Bleffed
Lord Jesus is the Lord God of the holy Pro-
phets who fefit his Artgel to Jhew unto his Ser-
%-ants the Th'mgs which mufi jlwrtly be dc^ce^ to
me appears piain^ from its being faid a few
Ver. 1 6. Verfes after^ I Jefus have fcnt mine Angel
to tefiify unto you thefe 'Things in the Churches,
Such Titles as thefe^ are evidently much
too high^ and tend to delude and impofe
upon US-, if the Son were not true and real
Gody and by Nature fuch.
And there being no one Name of G o d
that IS more celebrated^ or own'd to be
more incommunicable^ than that of Jehovah^
I think it not improper to add^ That the
Son has that Name alfo given him. Jehovah
Zecb.xii. being the Speaker^ fays by his Prophet^ They
'^^' , jimll look upon me^ whom they have pierced :
John XIX. ^y^j^j^ Words are dn-edly apply'd to
^^' Christ, and explain'd as meant of him
by St. John. And in another Prophet God
Hofea i. faySj, I will have Mercy upon the Houfe of Ju-
7. ^^ dahj and will fave them by the Lord (J e H o~
Luke ii. V A h) their God ; which PalTage is directly
apply'd to C H R I s T by St. Luke, f The
Sen
* Comment on 40 Texts, pag. 123. t Of the
Applic.iiion of chls Name Jehovah to C h R i s t, fee
^anchim
ii.
of the Son*
Son then beiiie Jehovah as well as the Fa-
ther ^ mult be God as well as He. At which
we han't (as far as I can perceive) the
leaft occafion to be furpnz'd^ fince He and John
the Father are One : That is^ One God. So 3 c.
One^ as that the Son Is In the Father^ and the John xiv.
Father In the Son. And they are reprefented ^'^*
as one Temple , and as having but one Throjie^ ^^' ^^**
and as making one Ught, Rev.xxiL
AgaiNj, The greatefl and the molt emi- j
nent Works are alcrib'd to the Son as well Rev. xxi.
as the Father. Creation is plainly of this 25.
Kind. From thence there is derived in the
Scripture a diftinguifiiing Charader^ by
which the True God was to be kncwn^ and on
the Account of which He claims to himfelf
all Homage^ Worfhip and Adoration. The I
raifmg this glorious Fabrick of the Univerfe
without the Concurrence of any material
Caufe, from nothing ^ \^ often mention'd
as the diftindive Cliaracler of the Deity
from all falfe Gods. The Fpdmlft declares^
The Lord is to be fec^red ahoi;e all Gods ; for Pf. xcvL
all the Gods of the Natlo7is are Idols ^ but the Lord 4, 5*
made the Heavens ^ under which^ all Things
that were made ar^ comprehended. Now
we are ^ITur'd as^o the Son^ whofe Name Is Rev. xlx
called the Wurrhof God^ that all Things were 13.
made by him^ and that -without him was w<?f John 1.3.
any Thing made that was made f* And 'tis
faid^ That by him were all things created ^ ?/^^f Col. 1.16,
Z^nnchlus de Trihus Elchlm. Lib. 2. Dr. Oxven againft
Biddle, Chap. 10. Dr. ff^aterlands Vindication of
C H R I s t's Divinity, or Defence of fome Queries,
pae. 57. Sec.
t On this Text fee Dr. JVaterknd^s Eight Sermons^
pag.4?. &c,
44 The Deity
SbrM.'^^<^ ;w. Hia^'Cfiy and that are In EaYth t, 'v'^fi-
jj^ ble andln^j'Jible '^. This maaifeftiy proclaiiiiS
x^/^-s,^^.^ his Gcvihead. For tK^ Apoltie is very ex-
Heb. iti. prefs as to this^ that ^3^ that ?nade all thhigs
4. is God. Vs/Yiic^ Declaration is therefore the
more remarkable^ becauTe it is made with
a dired Eye to the Son. And fo alfo h
Heb. i. that faying^ Jhou Lord' In the beginning baji
10^ II, laid the foundation of the Earthy and the Hca-
/^-' ^i,:ens are the lijcrk of thine hands. They fliall
per/fljy hut Thou rewainefi : And ^hcy all jhali
7vax oldy as doth a Garment , and as a Vefure
Jhalt Thou fold them t/p^ and they Jhall be chang-
ed: But Thou art the fame ^ ii?^d Thj Tears Jhall
mt fall ■\. A PalTage io fnil and clear^ that
neither Sodnlans^ Sabelllan:^ nor Arlans^ can
any way work it into any cf their Schemes.
t| Some will have it^ that the Father made
all Things by the Sov^ and that he was but
an Inltrument m that great Work : But if
He really and truly ?p.ade all Thh:^;^ He Is
God in the Senfe of the Apoltie^ vdio leaves
CO room for fuch a Diftindion. Nor is
that Way of arguing peculiar to the Apo-
ilie. For if we cart our Eyes upon the
Writers of the OddTfiaimnt^ we fliall find
no Work reprefented as more peculiar to
G o Dj than that of marking the World. 'Tis
by this that the God of Ifrad is diftin-
guifh'd
* See on this Text, Pitied Dlf^utat. de Chrijli Di-
wn. Par. I. p. 325, 8<c.
t See on this Text, Placj^l Dlfpunt. de Chr. Dh,
Par. I. p. 352, 353 &c. and Par. II. p. 150. &c.
See alfo Dr. lV/iterlmd\ Reafons for Underftanding
this Tex: of Christ: Defence of fome Qiieries,
P^g- 95.
t| See Dr. ^^4m7/i«i's Eight Sermons, p. 63, 64.
of the Son. ^c^
guifh'd from Idols and falfe Gods^ as may
be feen by confulting the Texts
cited in the Margin. If then Christ Keh. Ix. 6. Ifa. xT:
was the Mriker of all Things^ He 12, 13, 1*8,19, ef/.
mult be true and proper God. Ifai. xlii. 5, %, lia.
And they that take him to xllii. i, 10. ]er. x.
have been himfeif created^ and ^°> ^^> i--
afterwards to have been the
Father's Agent in creating the Univerfe^
run into a manifeft Inconfiftency^ in al-
lowing a Creature the Power of creating,
which is a dired confounding the Creature
and the Creator. And in Reality the great,
the true, the S/iprcwe God^ will have no di-
Itinguifliing Mark or Character at all left,
if the creatmg the Heavens and the Earth,
be not allow d to be, and to pafs for fuch.
As St. Paul reprefents the Order and Frame
of the Vifible World as an evident Demon-
itration of the Eternal Power f.nd Godhead cf |^qj^ T
him that created it, )lO is it by Confe- 20.
quence as evident a Demon fir ation that
none could create it but the Eternal God f-
But then there are yet other Works that
are manifellly pe^^iar to the Divinity, that
belong to the Son. Thus 'tis proper to Go d
alone to be the Prefer ver and Upholder of
all Things that are. Now the Sen has this
alfo afcrib'd to him. By him aU Things ccv-Coi.Li7-
[if. Dr. Clarke himfeif owns, that nothing
can he ryiore forcd and unnatural^ than the Sc-
cinians Interpretation of this Vajjhge ,* 7vho ttn-
derfiand it figuratl'vcly of the Neii' Creatiojt by
the Gofpel *. And we are told. That He up-
holds
t Of this Argument for Christ's Deity from the
Creation, (tt WlMy de DeitnteChriJli, t?. 24, &c.
* Scripture Dodrine. No. 550.
4<J
The Deity
SeRM. holds aU Things hy the Word of his Tower, Hcncc
TT it is that our Lord diredly compares himfelf
^^_^^.^1^ with his Father with refpect to Tro'vidence^ fay-
Heb. i. 3. ing, ^y Father worketh hitherto ^ and J Tvork.
Joh.v. 17. Often does our Lord refer to his Mira-
cles^ in Proof of his Deity : And it is very
obfervable^'that his miraculous Power was of
infinite Extent^ and that he wrought many
of His Miracles in a way only becoming a
Divine Perfon ^.
I T is hard to mention any Ad or Work
Matrh.lx. more Divme^ than that of forginjing Sins :
6. And yet our Lord had Power for that^ even
while he was on Earth_, as well as after his
Afcenfion to Glory.
Nor can any Work be more Divine than
that of raifing the Dead^ which alio belongs
Joh.v. 21 to him. For the Son ^uickneth whom he will :
' And he declares as to him that truly be-
John vi. lieves in him^ that He will raife him up at
54- the lafi Day, Poffibly it may be faid that
this is a delegated Power^ wnich was given
him by the Father : But it is eafily anlwer'd
that that Delegation only refers to the
Exercife of fuch Power in the Human Na-
ture of our Saviour^ which neither was»
nor could be originally^ and of itfelf the
Seat of it. -
But farther ^ the moft incommunicable
Attributes of God are alfo afcrib'd to the So?i.
Omnifcience is moft certainly of this Kind.
For who but G o ^ can know all Things ?
Now this belongs to our BlelTed Saviour^
7vho knew all Men even when he was here
Joh.i1.24, below. He kneji^ what was in Man, So that
25. St.
* See Mr. John Hughes's, EfTay towards feme farther
Evidence of our S a v 1 o u r's Divinity.
of the Son.
St. Teter applying to him directly, might
with Safety^ and without any Figure
thofe Words_, Lord thou knoweji all Things _ _
And it defcrves our Obfcrvation^ that ei-john'xxi.
ther that Saying was ftridly true^ or it 17.
was diredly blafphemous. And therefore
we may conclude that our LorI^ Jesus
who was fo free to reprove Teter upon a
much lefs important Occaiion^ when he
dilTuaded him from going to Jerufakm ,
would have freely fignify'd his Abhorrence
in fuch a Cafe as this^ had he been aware
that he had attributed to him fomewhat
that is peculiar to God^ if it had not tru-
ly belonged to him. Nothing can be more
peculiar tb G o d ^ than the knowing all
Things^ even the Hearts of Men. Thou^ i Kings
e-ven Thou only (fays Solomo7i in his Prayer vili. 39.
to God) knoweji the Hearts of all the Children
of Men. Now this Knowledfge is not only
afcrib'd to Christ by St. Peier^ but is af-
firm'd to belong to him by St. Juhn with
the utmoft Emphafis. For in him we have
this remarkable Paffage ; And all the Churches Rev. ii,
^mll knoiv that I a?n he which [e arch eth the Reins '^'^'
a7id Hearts f- Now in this all the Apoftles t r
concurr'dj faying^ l^ow are we [ure^ that Thou^^^^ ^^^'
knov;cjt all Thmgs. And I may add that c-
ther remarkable Text alfo. Neither is there Heb. \\\
any Creature that ts not manifeft in his Sight -^ but *^*
all Things are naked and opened tmto the Eyes of
him with whom we have to do. \. To fay in fuch
a
* See on that Text, Tlncxi Dif^ut. de Div, Jefu
Chrifll Effent. Part III. pag. 201. '
t See on this Text, Placxi Difiutat.de Chrijli Di-
vm.Vznll. pag. 184. &c.
4- Of the Argument fcr Christ's Deity from his
Umnilcience, fee m.ithy de Dcitdtc Chrijli p. 52.
See
48
The Deity
Serm, a Cafe as this^ with Mr. Whlfion^ That C^-//?
TT^ knew all Things^ In no other Stnfe than the /^pofiles
^^'\rs^ themfelies wtre taught all Tmngs^ i. e. aU Tiolngs
neceffiirj to their Office fj, is very jejune and tri-
fling, to fay no worfe. Thefe are not hare
Words of Admiration from the Dlfclples not yet ln~
fp/dy as Mr. Emlyn reprefents them 1^ but
folemn Declarations made by the Apofties
under Infpiration^ for the Inilruclion of the
Church in all Ages. Thefe are not Words
that barely exprejs a 'very great and comprehenffve
Knondcd^e^ but they exprefs an infinite^ divine
Omnifcience. No Words in all the Scrip-
ture declare that more fully or fignificantly.
And as for our Saviour s> tree difclaiming thQ
Knowledge oi the Day of Judgment*:^ that will
come in courfe to be conlider'd hereafter.
Another Divine Attribute that is afcrib-
Rev. L8. ed to Christ^ is Omnlfote7ice, J^ fays He_, am
Almighty. The original Word is h 'TrctvjoK.^c/Ta^f
than which no Word can be mention'd that
is more peculiarly appropriated to the Divi-
nity. Mr. WhlftG?i therefore will have it to be
the Father that is, meant tt- But it fhould
Rev. i. I. be remember 'd^ That it is the Rc-vdatlon of
Jcf^'S Chrlfiy fignlfed by hps Angel to his Ser-
'vant John^ of which we have an Account
here given us -^ and that it is Chriji^ who by
John here addrefs'd himfelf to the Seven Ajian
Churches^ and whofe future Coming is the
thing diredlyt fpcken of: And theretore no-
thing can be more likely-, than that He
lliould
See alfo the Senfe of the Ante-Niccne Fathers as to the
Son's Omnifcience in Dr. PV^nterlnnd\ Defence of
fome Queries, p. 109, no.
t Account of the Primitive Faith, f. 109.
4 Trads, p. 24.
tt Account of the Prlmid', e Faith, p. 88.
of the So N.
fliould in this Cafe be the Speaker. And
the Thing fpoken if it be apply'd to him^
is but agreeable to what we elfe where meet
with : For we are told that He has fuch a
Power and Energy^ that He js able even to [uh- p^ii^ iij^
due all Things unto himfelf "^. 21.
A third Attribute proper to GoDj is Eter-
nity : And this alfo is afcrib'd to C h R i s t.
For behold^ He is t/je e-verlafilng Father, Tho' Ifa. \s. 61
He is the Son of G o Dj, yet He is a Father
to his Churchy and fuch a Father as never
began^ never will ceafe to be. He is fo
eternal^ as to exift neceifarily. He is the
Brightnefs of Us Father's Glory. And. therefore Heb. 1. 3',
unlels Glory could be witnout a Brightnefs_,
and Light without any cf7rcLvydL(Tyt.dL or iliining
forth^ 'there could not have been any In-
ftant when He was not. So that He was
not from the Father^ or of the Father^ by
any fuch A<5t of Will intervening^ as that it
might have been pollible He fhould not have
been ; but by natural^ necelTary^ eternal Pro-
manation. And therefore to him it is faid.
Thy Throne y O God^ is for e'ver and ever. And_,
Thou^ Lord^ in the Beginning hafi laid the Foun- Keb. 1. 8.
datlon of the Earthy and the Heavens are the ver. 10,
Work of thine Hands. They Jliall perlpy hut Thou ^^» ^^*
remalnefi^ and Thy Tears jlmll not fall. Inwhich
Words He has an Immutable Exlfience afcrib'd
to him ; and it is intimated^ that fmce He e-
ver continues the fame^ before the World v^^as
created^ and lifter its Deltrudtion^ He is eter-
nal. He has neither Begl/mlng of Days^ nor Keb. vll
E End3'
■ * Of the Argument for Chris t's Deiuy from
his Omnipotence^ fee P0nthy dc Deitate Chrlfti, p. 50.
And on this Text, I{ev. i. 8. fee Dr. fVaurUrnTs
Defenfe of fome Qvieries, ^-451.
^o The Deity
Serm. ^'''^^ ^f L'-fi' Tho' it is Melchlz,edeck that h
jj^ there directly fpoken of, yet are we thereby
,^^ -'-^ ■ pointed to ViiQ Son of G o d^ who is that tru-
CoLi.iy. fyj> ^h'^- Melch'z.edeck was but typically. He
Rev. i. S. is faid to be before all Tfomgs j and to be Alpha ,
the very Beginning. Nay^ to him it is faid
|, ^ .by the whole heavenly HoUy We gl've Thee
" _ * ' ' 7 hanks J O Lord^ God Almighty ^ which art^ and
wafi^ and art to come. And if the Son was
eternal^ He could not be a Creature : Which
is as evident^ as that if He was a Creature^
(tho' He in other ref]De6ls was ever fo excel-
lent) He could not be eterjtal '^.
A fourth Attribute proper to God^ is^
"Heh.]. 11, XJnchangeahlenefs. Thou art the fame^ a7id Thy
Ih. xlii. 8. Years pall not fall. And He Is the fame ^ Tefierdayy
to Day^ and for e^er. Dr. Clarke tells us_, that
the meaning of that celebrated Text is this^
That the Doclrlne of Chrifi once taught by the yipo-
files y ought to be prefer^u^d unchanged f. Which
is a very great and awful Truth^ that de-
ferves to be well confider'd^ and the bringing
in and fpreading Innovations in any capital
Articles of that Dodrine cannot be without
its Hazard : And yet it does not follow but
that that Text may rather referr to the Dig-
nity of Chrlfi^s Perfon^ than the Stability of
his Dodrine^ and be defign'd to repreient
it as a great Duty conftantly to adhere to
Jefm Chrifi y who is not a mutable Beings Ca-
pable of faihng^ or difappointing the Expe-
• Nations of his Servants^ but is ^the fame eter-
naHy_, and unalterably ^ fo that He never
" can
* Of the Argument from Christ's Eternity, fee
Plac^ii Dlfpitnt, Part I. p. 362, and -^66. And Dr.
PVaterlancts Defenfe of fome Queries, V, I2i, ^c.
t Scripture Dodtrine, lN^« 66i.
of the Son. 5 i
can difappoint fuch as regularly put their Serm,
Truft in him. ^ jj^
A fifth Attribute proper to G o d^ is;, On7- ^^^->^
niprefence : And this alio belongs to C/jr^T?. John iii.
For He was m Heazietiy even while He was 13.
on Earth. He not only was {o^ before He
came dow^n into this lower World ; but He
was there even during the Continuance of
his earthly Abode. And He promis'd^ That
if Two or Three 7vere gathered together In his Mctrh,
Name^ He ivotdd he In t/je mldfi of thc?n. Now xviii. ic.
He that could at one and the fame time^ be
both in Heaven and Earthy and that could
ingage to be in any Place^ (be it what ic
would) where any Perfons fliould meet in
his Name^ mull be Omniprefent. He has
promis'd to be with his Church and People j^.^.tih.
(ilway^ e^uen unto the End of the World : And we xxviii.20.
are told^ that He fdleth All In All *. Eph.i.23.
In fliort^ we may fay of the Son^ That
aU Things jvhatfoeuer the Father hath are his -^ and John xvi.
therefore all the Perfections that the Either i'^.
hath^ belong to him. And tho' fome vv^ould
willingly except Independeitcy and Necejfary Ex-
ifiejice 5* yet if they belong to the Deity,
as fuchj it follows by a necelfary Confe-
quence^ that they alio mult belong to the
Son as well as to the Father^ if H^ is truly
God. And in Reality^ an inferior and de-
perrdent God^ is no God at all : At moft^
he neither is nor can be more " than an ex-
alted Creature. Since the Son is J e h o v a k
as well as the Father^ Fie mull exiil neceffa-
rily and independently as well as the Father
himfelf • fmce the Name Jehovah^ intimates
E 2 One
* Of C H R I s t's Omnlprefence, fee Jf1:ithy ds
•Pehjtte Chrifli^ P* 51.
The Deity
One that has independent or necefTary Ex-
iltence. So that when Dr. Clarke fays^ That
dllDlijine Towers are communicated to the Son^
except abfolute Supremacy and Independency "^ j he
makes an Exception in which I cannot fee
that he has either Scripture or Reafon ac-
companying him. He has not the Scrip-
ture with him ; becaufe that tells us^ That
the Son hath whatfoe^uer the Father hath. Nor
has he Reafon to fupport him : Becaufe who-
foever is truly and properly God, muit have
every Thing that is effential to the Deity
belonging to him. Now it appears from the
whole Current of the New Tefiament Writings^
that the Son of G o d has every Thing attribu-
ted to him^ that can tend to raife our Ideas
of his Dignity^ and to denote a Perfon ftri-
3i\y and elfentially Divine. He has all that
the Father has^ except his being a Father.
Once more,- Dl^'me Wbrjhlp is alfo very
diftindly afcrib'd to Chrlfi^ and therefore He
muftbeGoD t- Religious Invocation alone
IS an unanfwerable Proof of Divinity. For
it evidently implies Ground for depending
upon obtaniing what is regularly fought
for ; and a Knowledge of our Hearts^ and
an Omniprefence in him_, that is fought un-
to. And yet nothing in all the New Tefia-
ment is plainer^ than that Chrlft is to be re-
ligioufly fought to^ and call'd upon. For
Rom. X. He is Lord o-ver all , rich unto ail that call upon
*2.. hhn : And Salvation is connected with the
calling upon him^ when it is added^ That
Ti'hofocver
* Scripture Doclriney Part II. ^. xxvii.
t Of the Argument for the Deity of Christ from
his being the Objed:of Worfliip, fee Vf^at cr land's DQr_
fenfe of fome Qiienqs, /. 22.9, ^c.
of the S o N. 53
Tvhofce'ver jlmll call upon the Name of the Lord^ jliall Serm*
he faved. And this is the genuine Character jj^
of Chriftians as fuch^ That they called upon ^r-^J-^^
the Name of the Lord *. Ver. 13.
All the ylngels of God are bid to worjhlp kdisix. ^:
Him f. And He was vvorfnipp'd by theHeb. i. 6.
Saints of God under the Old Tefiame^it^ In.
the Form of an Angel^ in which He appear-
ed \. frequently to them. And we are all
under the Goipel charg'd to hoyiour him^
\eve7i as 7ve do the Father j and yet the do-
ling of it would be Idolatry^ if He were not
'as truly and elTential God as the Father
himfelt. For it is a fix'd and ftanding Mea-
furewith God^ That his Glory He will 7;or Ifa. xlil. 8.
gi've to another '^. And we may yery fafely fay^
That He neither could nor would have re-
quired or allow'd divine Worfhip to have been
given to the So??^ if any ellential Divine Per-
fedion on which Worihip is founded had
been wanting. Often do we find the Son
diHindly and perlbnally invocated in a way
of Adoration. Grace^ Mercy ^ and Veace^ or
Grace and Teace^ or Grace Only ^ are in twenty
feveral Places of the Neiu Jeftament implor'd
of him together with the Father, He is wor- ^^^'- ^^'-9?
E 3 ihipp^d^'*
* I muft own I take Novntiaris Argument for the
Deity of Christ, to be ftrong and unanfwerable,
which he has thus exprefs'd : Si homo tantiimmodo Chri-
JiuSj quomodo adefi ublque invocntus ; cum h£C homiiii^
iiatura non fit fed Dei, tit adejje omni Icco pojjit, (^c.
Lib. deTrin. C4/?. xiv.
t See oti this Text Plac. Diffutnt. de Chrifli Divin.
Far.II. /». 118, ^c.
\. See Ahndie Trahe de la Divin. de Jefu Chriji.
SqH. II. cap. v. p. 107, 108.
^ On this Text, fee Placvi Dlf^utnt. de Div.
Chrifii BJfentia. Par, 11. p. 109,
54- The D E I T r
SeRm. ^^PP'^ in Heaven by the Church triumphant
'^jj with a VVorfhip that is common to him with
the Father. And whereas it is faid by fome.
That firce Cbrlft as Man is own'd to have'
been a Creature^ we in Worfhipping him^
pay Worfhip to a Creature. I think Athanafi-
m has return'd a fufficient Anfwer^ when he
fays^ Let them know^ that we that ivorjlji^ our
Lord in the Flejh^ do not worfinp a Creature^ but
the Credtor^ cloathed ivlth a created Body ^.
Matth. V*^ E ^^^ ^"^^ baptlz^'d in the Name of the
xxviii.19. ^^?^j as well as of the Father ^ which In my
Apprehenfion carries Divine Worfhip to the
utmoft Height. And we are allow'd to fwear
Rom. ix. by C H R I s Tj, as did St. Faul. Now Crea-
^ ' ' ' ture-worfhip is oppcs'd and difciaim'd both
bv Law and Gofpel. And nothing can be
tth.iv. plainer than that fix'd and unalterable Rule
Ma that is given^ Thou jlialt wcrjh/p the Lord thy
T^' Gody and him 07ily jlmlt thou Jer^ve. The Ido-
latry of the Heathens lay in Worfiiipping
the Creature. And the Keafons which Gjd
infifts on \n the Old Ttftament^ Why He^ and
He aione^ in Oppofition to all others^ was to
be worfliipp'dj are fuch as exclude ail Crea-
tures. They are his being Jehouah ^ the
Creator^ Suftainer and Prelerver of all
Things^ and having no G o d before nor af-
ter him 'j as appears from the Texts cited in
Ka. xl.26. the Margin. And Creature-worfliip is as
J^.xlv. 5, real Idolatry now as ever. And therefore
^, 1\ the Anfwer that was made by St. Bt^fd to Mo-
2 Kings j^p^^ the Arlan Preie(5r^ appears to me un-
XIX. 15. anfwerable. l^or can I^ lays he^ be e'ver brought
\j [2 ' ^^ 'ii^orjhlp a Creature y when 1 77^yfelf am God^s Crea-
ture ; or one that is a made God^ when I myfelf
am co'tnma^ided to become a Fartaker of the Dl^jine
Nature, And
* S.Ath^.n.Epift. adAdelphium Epifc, & Ccnfejforem,
cent. Arrinnos.
of tide Son.
A K D I niuft confefs I cannot help think-
ing the repeated Commands we have in
Scripture to worfhip Chuist^ and pay
him Divine Honours^ a much better Argu-
ment to prove He is G o d., than to jultify
the Worfhip of a Creature^ tho' ever fo ex-
ceJIcntj which is a Ihing that God uni-
verfally prohibits^ and which would evi-
dently be a much greater Contradiction to
the Principles of natural Religion^ than a
Tr'm'ity in Unity can be pretended to be to
natural Reafon.
And now^ do but put all this together^
and carefully obferve how exprefsly Chr'ifi
is called G o d ^ what Divine Names and
Titles are given him^ and how freely the pe-
culiar Works and Perfedions and Worfliip of
God are afcrib'd to him^ and I fhould think
you could not forbear concluding with me_,
That if He was not true and proper G o d^
and effentiaily fb^ both He and His Apo-
^\qs were very much to blame^ and we may^
be excus'd in laying afide our Bibles_, as of
little ufe.: As aifo that it would be unrea-
fonable in us to run-down the Jeivs^ who
call'd him a Blafphemer^ and punifli'd him
as fuchj becaufe He made himfelf the Son of John xls
God. The Apofdes mult impofe upon us at 7.
a Itrange Rate^ in taking fo much Pains to
make us beheve He was G o d^ if He really
was not fo in a true and p-o^er Senfe^ but
was at belt no more than a made God^ an
inferior and a fub ordinate God^ which is a
Notion to which they appear to have been
utter Strangers.
I N a Word j If the Evidence from Scrip-
ture that proves the Son to be God in the
Itrid and proper Senfe is defedive^ I doubt
we fliall upon Search find that we are hard
E 4 put
\\
The Deity
put to it to prove by fatisfadiory and con-
vincing Arguments^ that the Father himfelf
is God in the Itrid: and j)rofer Senfe : For the
So?t plainly appears to be God in the fame
Senfe with the Father.
And thus having given Proof of the Son^
Deity from a Variety of Texts^ I proceed to
draw an Argument for it from this Text in
particular ; which I take to be Itrong and
cogent. This is the true God^ and Eternal Life.
'Tis Chrifi is meant^ who is fpoken of in the
Words juft before. 'Tis pleaded^ that the
true God is here fpoken of with an Article
prehx'd ^ and therefore we can only under-
Itand it of him to whom that Title belongs
in the higheft Senfe ^. But tho' this Criti-
cal Remark has made a mighty Noife^ yet it
deferves but Httle Strefs. For^
I. The Article may be wanting^ and yet
the word God^ may lignify God in the very
Q^^ highcil Senfe. W'lien St. Fatd fays^ That
ii A* there is none other God but one ,• and that to
Ephef. iv. tfs there is hut One God j and fpeaks of 07ie God
6. and Father of all; and again fays^ There is
X Tim. ii. One God^ tho' no Article at all be us'd^ yet
5- not the leafl Shadow of a Reafon can be gi-
\ ven^ why God in the higheft and compleateft
Senie fliould not be underftood f. And^
2. T H E
viii. 4
* Sr. Chryfoftom,Hom. 4. in Joan, declares. There's no
proving the Son to be inferior to the Father, from his
having the word God apply'd to him without an Arr
tide.
t Sl Chryfcjlom l^om i. in Epifi. ad Gnl obferves.
That vi'hen in the firft Vcrfe of that Epiltle, Paul is faid
10 be an A-poftlc, by Jefns Chrift and God the Father,
J^id 'Imck Xe^ra r^ 0£k tolJo^ j the word ©sS* is wich^
ovLu an Article, tho' 'tis appiy'd to the Farh^r^
of the So N.
2. T H E word God is fometimes us'd with
an Article prefix'd^ and yet he that is meant
is not truly and by Nature God, Thus we
read of the God of this IVorld^ who bhnds the 2 CoV. iv.
Minds of Unbelievers^ and an Article is pre- 4.
fix'dj and yet it is plain that the Devil is
meant. And it is laid of Idols that they by
Nature are no Gods^ and there is an Article GsAAw.^^
too. So that the having an Article cannot
deferve fo great a Strefs as is pretended iii
this Cafe.
I doubt they that would make a Trial^
would find it hard to give a good Reaion
why an Article prefix'd in the Greek to the
word Lord, or to the Words Holy and Trucy
when apply'd to G o d^ Ihould not have the
fame Force^ as when it is prefix'd to the
word God. The Article can't be fuppofed to
borrow its Force meerly from the word God:
And if it has any real Force of itfelf, I
can't fee how it can be alter'd or lelfen'd by
its being join'd to other Words. New Chrlji
is fometmies called the Lord^ with an Article Rom. 1.4;
before : And He is alfb called the Holy One^
and the True^ with an Article before. And if i Cor- L
He really is the Lord^ and the Holy One^ and 2.
the True^ in the higheft and compleateft SeniCj,
I cannot fee wh]|||ffe is not God alio in the
higheft Senfe. "^
'T I s the Son that is the True God and Eter-
nal Life. Many Confiderations concurr to
prove it.
We may argue from the Pronoun 2l>/V,
which might have been tranflated He^ or
Whoy and had it been fo tranflated^ the En-
gltfl) Reader would have found no room for
a Demurr or Debate. Had the Words been
render 'd thus j And we are in him that is true^
ivtn in his Son Jefus Qhrifi : He is the trite God
(ind
The Deity
and Eternal Life ,• or Who is the true Gcd and
Eternd Life; it would have been obviouSj^
that it is ChrJfy who is the true Gody the
knowing whom leads to Eternal Life. How-
ever^ taking the Words as they ftand^ This is
the true Cody and E-ernal Life^ 'tis moil natural
by this to underftand the Perfon lail nam'd,
who is jefus Cbrifi^ the Son of Him that is
Jrwe.
Tis pleaded^ That i^^/^^ii;^ Pronouns do
not always referr to their neareit Anteudmt^
but to the chief Subjed difcours'd cf^ tho'
that may fometimes be remote. Thus St. Faul
z Thefl* fp^^king of one ivhofe coming Is after the work-
ii. 9> ' ^^S f^f ^(^^^^"^3 does not refer to the Lord J e-
3 u s^ the Perfon lait mention'd_, but to An-
tichrift that is fpoken cf a little before. And
jl^Tj .^r - \vhen the Apoifle fpeaks of one_, -who in the
Dap of his Flefiy offered u^ Frayers and Supplier^--
tlons^ &c. the Word 7vho does not referr to
Melchlz>edeck (tho' he vv^as laft nam'd) but to
Chrlfi^ whcfe Priefthood was there the main
ijoh.vii. Subje^i: of Difcourfe. So aifo "tis faid^ M^^-
ny Decelx'ers are efitred Into the IVbrldy who con-
fefs not that Jefus Chrlfi Is come in the Fkjli.
This is a Decei-ver^ and an Antlchrift ^j and yet
the Pronoun this cannot be fuppos'd to re-
ferr to Chrlfi^ the next ant^dmt^ but to one
more remote^ tho' of aWlifFerent Number.
And like Inftances are frequent. This is a
fubtle Plea of Sochms'Sy but it need not move
us. For in fuch Places as thefe^ the Senfe
fo plainly direfe to the Reference of the
kelatl've Pronouns us'd^ that there is no great
Danger of a Miftake. But Twenty fuch
Inftances as thefe would be nothing like a
Proofj that when 'tis here faid^ Tms is the
true God J we are not to underftand it of
Chrl(i our Saviour.
I
of the S Q N.
I can't fee any good Reafon to referr it
to the Father^ who is not pointed at in all
this Verfe^ except it be^ when Cbrlfi is ftyi'd
the Son of God^ or when we are fa id to kmju
hm that is true. No notice is here taken of
the Father^ but with a Regard to Chr'ift^ who
is defcrib'd with Exad:nels^ and twice ItyPd
Son in the Compafs of this fingle Verfe.
Both his Name and his Office are mention'd^
and He is call'd Jejits Chrlft. And then^ a
double Adion is alcrib'd to him. For it is
faid^ The Son of God is come^ and that upon the
nobleft Defign imaginable ,- JrJ hath gi^en us
(in Under fandmg in Things Divine^ which is
a vail Ad\^antage. 'Tis added^ a^rd we are
In him. And He is farther alfo defcrib'd as
One that is true. So that there is a great deal
more here faid of the Son than of the Fa-
ther. And therefore Chrijl being both the
Perfon iaft namfd^ and chiefly fpoken of in
the whole Verfe^ is the more likely to be the
Perfon meant by the Pronoun thJs^ when it
it faid^ Ihis is the True God.
And thus underltanding the Pronoun this
the Senfe is plain and fmooth. But if we re-
ferr that to him that is true^ that is before
fpoken of^ then the Subject and chePredicate^
the Perlbn fpcken of and the Thing fpoken^
will be exactly the fame^ and all that will be af-
ferted3 will only be^ that he that is the true God ;
is the true God ; which is a Sort of a Tautolo-
gy ^ cf which we have no Reafon to fuppofe
the Apoftle fo weak as to be guilty.
Besides,- either we muft hold that it fig-
nifies little or nothings whether the Pronoun
this be referr'd to Father or Son^ or that it is
of fome Significance. If we hold that it real-^
ly fignifies little or nothings whether of the
tvv^o we referr it to^ then ic mult be a Truth^
thac
6o The D E I T r
that the Son is the true God ; for elfe it would
be a Falfhood to r^ferr it to him^ and a Thing
that would not be by any Means to be allow-
ed. And if (on the other hand) the Thing
here depending be really of fome Significance^
it muft be of very great Concernment, and
the Apoftle could not but know it too ; and
it highly became him^ both in Prudenge and
Charity^ to prevent the Panger^ and take
Care that fuch a Pronoun as this^ might not
give Occafion to any^ to have much higher
Thoughts of CbrlJIr than they ought to have^
and than could be juftify'd.
And when it is here faid^ jTjd hath gi'ven .
»J an JJnderfiandlng that 7ve may know him that is
true^ J query^ whether it referrs to the Father
only excluding the Son^ or takes in Father and
Son both f It^can t I think well be fuppos'd^
to referr to the Father ^ to the Exclufion of the
Kev. lii. So?i, For if the Son really be He that is trm^
7* which He has declared exprefsly of Himfelt^
and He has gi-ven us an JJnderfiandlng to knonv
blmfelf^ He may that way be as properly faid
to have giuen us an Undcrfianding that -we may
know him that is true ; as by helping us to know
Johnxvii. the Father. And withal^ Life Eternal is exprefs-
^> ly declared to lie in the Knowledge of Father
and Sen both. And our Sa-inour giving us an
Underfiandi?7g to k?iow him[elf\ hath given u§
an Underftanding that we may know the
John xiv. Father alfo. For as it is declar'd^ That /c
9. that knoweth the Son^ knoweth alfo the Father^
J^.xii.45. and that he t\\2Lt feeth the Son^ feeth alfo the
Ibsm.K^. f^j-^^j, , fo is it plain 3 that the Son in
iliewing himfelf^ fheweth alfo his Father,
The Father therefore that is true^ being then
known^ when the Sen that is true^ is known^^
and the Knowledge of the Son being in
QUI Csfe a§ confi4erable a Benefit even as
the
of the So N. 6i
the Knowledge of the Father^ it is not to be fup-
pos'd^ that when it is here faid^ That the Son of
Gff//upon his coming ^h ath ginjcnus anJJnderfiandin^
that we may know him that is true^thQ Father fhoul
be meantj to the Exclufion of the Son. And
if He that is trnCy does not fignify the Father to
the Sm's Exclulion, but together with him^
and the Pronoun this referrs to hl^ that Is truej,
Qjj whom alfo we are^) the Father only can't be
pointed to without the 5^?;^ but both muft be
taken in ; and it muft be the Son as well as
the Father, that mull be here affinn'd to be
the true God,
It alfo well deferves our Obfervation^That
Eternal Life is here exprelsly added to This is
tb<; true God. And if the Pronoun thls^ were
not to be referr'd to Chrifi, but to the Fa-
ther only_, as it would evidently follow that
Chrifl was not the trae God, fo would it alfo as
plainly follow^ that He was not Eternal Life:
For both thele Charaders^ of being the tru^
God, and Eternal Life, are here afcrib'd to one
and the fame Perfon. If then the Father is
here faid to be the true God, to the Exclufion
of the Son, it moit certainly is the Father
without the Son, that is faid to be Eternal
Life : And this being abfurd, we may very
well concludej that fo alfo is that.
We muft own^ that Chifl truly is Eternal ^ 1°^^ ^*
Life. He is often fo ftyl'd by this Apoflle. ^' ^"^^.
And He is alfo faid to giue unto us Eternal Life. ^ ^ ^^ '
Often does He promife Eternal Life to fuch as 1q^^ ^L
believe in himfelf^ but never to fuch as believe 25.
in the Father, while He is excluded. And xlv.
fo infeparable is the Son from Eternal Life, 6.
that it is exprefsly declared in this very Chap- ^•
ter^ That he that hath the Son, hath Life ; and he ^^*
that hath not the Son of God hath ?70t Life. And ""^ ^^^'
yho then can belicve_, that the Father fiiould y^j.^ ^^^
in * '
62 The Deity
Serm. i^ ^^^^ Verfe which follows fo quickly after^
II.
be faid to be Eternal Life^ to the Exclufion of
the Son ? And if He is not faid to be Eternal
Life to his Exclufion^ neither can he to his
Exclufion^ be faid to be the true God. And
therefore we mull fay^ that the So7i as well as
the Father^ is the true Ucdy and Eter-aal Life,
And we may yet farther argue from the
word true. For when 'tis here faid_, This is
the true God^ the word true, is either opposed
to what IS falfcy or to what is impe-rfefL If
true is here oppcs'd to falfe^ then if the Son
IS here deriy'd to be true God^ He is excluded
from the real and true Deity as oppcs'd to
a falfe one. And fo the Son mult either be
no God^ or a falfe God, But if true be here
opposed to what is iwperfecl^ then the true God
being here oppcs'd to Idols^ He will be op-
pcs'd to them not as to falfe Gods^ but as to
lels perfect and excellent Gods ; which will
not fimply take the true Deity from Idols^
but rather feem to afcribe it to them^ which
may be eafily difcover'd to be abfurd^ and
very remote from the Apoftle's Deiign and
Intention.
Nor is it an eafy Thing to imagine^ with
what Defign the Apoftle Ihould here repre-
fent the Father as the true Gody and Eternal Llfe^
to the Exclufion o^th^Son^ and with a defign-
ed Oppofition between him and Idols.Where-
as let the Pronoun this be taken as referring
to the Scn^ and his Defign is very plain and
wife. For then he wiil this way teach us^
That Christ may be both efteem'd and
worfliipp'd as God^ with ail imaginable Safety :
And that Eternal Life (than which nothing
can be more valuable) both may and ought
to be fought in him : And that whatever be-
fides him^ is propos'd as an Objed of religi-
ous
of the Son
Ous Worfliipj or as capable of afFording Eter-
nal Life ^ ought to be eitecm'd an Idol, of
which we are to beware. And if it Ihould
be faid, that this way the Son only would be
the true God^ to the Hxclufion of the Vather^
and the Holy Ghofl ; I reply. That the Father
and Holy Ghofi are One God with the So?i : And
we are exprefsly told. That whofoe^er denl-
eth the Son^ the fame hath not the Father : But ^ J^*^^ ^'
that he that acknowledgeth the So?j^ hath the Father
alfo.
And fince the true God is in this Text
plainly oppos'd to Idols, I farther query, whe-
ther He is fo Oppos'd hmmd'iately or medlatly ?
It cannot I think be faid that there is a me-
diate Oppofition. For then there would be
fome middle Being that would partake of
both ; whereas it is flatly inipoflible that there
ihould be any Thing that fliould be partly
the true God^ and partly an Idol^ or that fhould
include in it the Na'ture of both, fo that
compared with the true God, k might be faid to
be an Idol, and compared with Idols, it might
be faid to be the true God. And if the Oppo-
fition be immediate y it is neceffary that Christ
who is to be religioufly worfliipp'd, fhould ei-
ther be the true Gody or an Idol, there net be-
ing a middle Being between both. But He
cannot by any means be faid to be an Holl-
and therefore He mult be the true God.
And finally ; If the Pronoun Th^s is re-
ferred to him that zs True^ who is opposed to
the wicked One y fpoken of jult before, and true
Believers are m him that 2s True^ while others
are in the wicked One^ it cannct have a Refe-
rence to the Father y to the Exclufion of the
Son : For the Son is He that is True as well as
the Father. And no other Senfe can be fa-
ften'd^ without running into Abfurdities.
To
The Deity
To comproniife the Matter^ it is faid^
that this Claufe^ This is the true God^ and eter-
nal Life^ referrs to the whole PafTage forego-
in^y and intimates to us^ That the Know-
ledge of G o D in C H R I s T^ is the whole of
Religion. This is Dr. Clarke's Glofs. This-
Knoivledge of God (fays he) in his Son Jefus
Chrilt 3 is the trije Religion ^ and the Way to
Eternal Life ^. But methinks ^ fome Dif-
ference fhould be allowed for^ between the
true G o Dj and the true Religion f. There
appears a plain Violence in this Interpreta-
tion^ upon federal accounts. There muft
be Ifrange chopping and changing _, be-
fore there can be Room for any fuch Senfe as
that. For in order to the applying this laft
Claufe^ to the whole Sentence toregoing^, the
Pronoun Thls^ mult be chang d into the Ad-
verb Here; and inltead of its being faid,
TIols is the true God^ and eternal Life j we muft
fup-
* Scripture Dodlnne, N^* 410.
•f For the farther clearing of this Text, I referr to
the Scripture Dodtrine of the Trinity Vindicated,
f. 28, (3c. compared with Dr. Clarke's Commentary on
Forty felevft Texts, j>. 96, (3c. And the True Scrip-
ture Dodrine of the Trinity continued, j>. 106, (3e,
Together with the Letter to the Author of the True
Scripture Doctrine of tiie Trinity continu'd, ^. 258.
(3c. And can freely leave him that will compare all
together, with what is here offered, to judge for hitK-
felf. Tho' after all, I (hould think it might not be
ami (s If he coniulied P lac c£us's Difpit at. fro Div.Jefit
Chrijll EJfentia^ Part III. Difputat. xin. f. 103, &c.
(from whom I am not aibam'd to own myfelf to have
been a Borrower, both here and elfewhere.) And alfo
Dr. Fiddes's Body of Divinity, Vol. I. /. 380, 381.
where the moft material Objedlions, againft the Appli-
cation of this Text to the S o N; are fairly ftated, and
briefly aafwer'd.
of the S o N". 6^
fappofe it to be faid_, here^ or herein is the true Serm.
God and eternal Life. And then we mult fiib- JJ^
ftirate a vojjljjlve Verb^ in the room of a ftrb- ^^/-s^^X^
fianti've Verb^ and change i^ into ha^jc^ that fo
it may come out thus^ Here or herein we have
the true God and eternal Life : And yet even this
won't do^ iinlefs we alter the Claufe forego-
ing^ and inftead of faying^ and ive are in him
that Is True^ c'ven in his Son ^efus Chrifi^ render
it thus^ and ive are m him that is triiej by his Son
Jefiis Chrlfiy which is what Dr. Clarke vehe-
mently contends for 1. Which methinks car-
ries in it fach Licentioiifnefs in racking and
torturing the Scriptures^ as Men of Senfe
may be well afhamed of,* and is fufficiently
cxpcs'dj by being barely mentioned.
But when Men have (Hifted^ and quibled^
and caviird ever [o long^ the Son muft either
be a Creature^ or the true God. A Creature
He cannot be ; becaufe feveral Things are
iaid of him^ and afcrib'd to him in Scripture^
cf which a Creature is not capable. He muft
therefore be the true God. A God without in-
finite PerfedionSj is only a nominal God.
And to fuppofe G o d to produce an Infinite
Creature^ carries m it more of Abfurdity,
than the greateft Difliiculty which the Do-
ctrine of the Trinity nas attending it^
can be juftly charg'd with. And now I am
II. To make a few Remarks upon the
Deity that is afcrib'd to the Son m the Holy
.scriptures. And as to this^ I obferve^
I- That it carries in it more than bare Pow- Macth'
er and Authority. He fays, indeed. All Po7ij- xxviii*t8.
cr
* Comment, on Forty Texts, /». icj.
66 The Deity
SeRM. ^^ ^^ glt'en unto me in Heauen and In Earthy and
Jl^ that may very well be alledg'd as a Proof of
^^^ry^ his Divinity^ in as much as He could not be
the capable Subjed of fuch a Power^ if other
divine Perfections were wanting : But his
Deity does not lie barely in that Power.
For that would not make him the True God,
if infinite Wifdom and Goodnefs, and all
other effential Perfections of the Deity, were
* not joyn'd with it.
2. The Deity afcrib'd to the Son in Scri-
pture, isfomething that is widely diiferent
from his Medlatorjhip. There mult be a great
Difference between thefe two, becaufe the
one is natural and effential to him, and the
other fuperadded ; the one will ever be retai-
n'd, whereas the Time will come, that the o-
ther will be quitted and laid down. To afcril^e
therefore thofe Things to him as God, which
are fpoken of him as Mediator ^ and to draw In-
ferences with refped to his Deitj^ from what
relates to his Mediatorial Office, Is very falla-
cious, and mftead of helping to clear Mat-
ters, tends to nothing but Confufion.
3. To fuppofe the Deity that is afcrib'd
to the Son in Scripture, ever to have had a
Beginning, is moft miferably to detrac^l from
and leffen it. We may be affur'd that if the
Son had not been the true God from the
firft. He would never have become fuch.
He could no more ever begin to be God,
than He could ever ceafe to be God. If
there ever was a Time when He was not
God, there might alfo come a Time when
He Ihould no more be God. And fuch a God
as this, would not be able to command that
Fear, and Love, and Truft, and intire De-
pendence, which the trt4e God always claim'd.
"THo' the Son was truly G 0 d^ yet He was
not
of the Son. 6j
not a made God. We read indeed of his SfrmJ
being wade Flefi^ made 'in the Likevcfs of Men ^ tt
made of the Seed of David according to the Flejlj^ v^^^VvJ
and made of a Woman ,• but never of his being
made God.
4. T H E Deity of the Son of God is not
weakened or lelTen'd^ and yet much lels
overthrown by his Incarnation. The Word was
made FleJJ} ; but did not thereupon ceafe to
be G o Dj, or become lefs God than He was
before.
' f . The Deity afcrib'd to the Son^ in Scrip-
ture^ carries in it an Emallty^ to the Father in
Nature^ Attributes^ and Pcrfedions^ without
any Inferiority to him in either : JNay it car-
ries in it fuch an Equality ^ in every Thing el^
fential to tlie Divinity^ as to leave no Necef-
iity for that Subordination as He is G 0 Dj, for
which fome contend with as much Vehe-
mence^ as if the whc4e x)f Chriftianity de-
pended upon it ; the Proof whereof will be
contained in fome fubfequent Difcourfes.
But upon Occafion of what has been
offer'd^ I move^ That fince the Scri-
ptures are Co plain^ that Christ Jesus^
our Bleffed Saviour ^ is the trtie God and Eternal
Llfe^ we without being ihaken with the Sug-
geftions of Cavillers and Gainfayers^ may
own him as fuch^ and exped: Eternal Life
in and from him alone. Let us dread
the Thought of denying his Divine Na-
ture^ without which He could neither give
eternal Life^ nor hear and anfwer our Pray-
ers^ when we call upon him ,* nor fearch tlie
Hearts^ and try the Reins of the Children of
Mcn^ nor be prefent with us in all Places,
nor raife the Dead^ and judge the World,
nor fave loft Sinners. Let us heartily rejoyce
andbeglad^j that as it is here intimated' by
V z the
The D E I T r
the Apoftle^ Tloe Son of God is come ; and "be
thankful^ that iince his comings He by his
heavenly Dodrinc^ and quickning Spkic
has fo nilighten'd us^ as to gi've m an Under-
fiandmg^ that ive ?nay know him that is true^
while a great Part of the World worfliips
falfeGods^ nay^ adores the Devil himfelf. Let
us take Care to be found of the Number of
thoie^ that are in him that is true ; not only vi-
fibly adhering^ but vitally united to him. Let
it be our earneft Requeft^ when we are look-
ing upward with the greateft Serioufnefs^
That we may by Faich be implanted into
Christ Jesus^ who is the Author^ Pur-
chafer^ and Donor of Eternal Life^ and who
therefore^ and upon that Account^ neceffc;-
rily mult be the true God. Let us chearfully
glorify and confide in him as our GoDj, ex-
peding Eternal Life from his Hands ; with full
Affurance;, that continuing faithful to him^
we cannot mifs of it^ if He be able to help
us to it. Let us the more heartily honour and
rejuyce in our BlelTed Saviour^ becaufe He is
the^rue God^ a7id eternal Life. And fmce He is
the true God^ let lis not attempt to make a
mere fuhordinate God of him^ on the Account
t)f his Subordination as Mediator. And Iince in
him is Eternal Life^ let us not exped: that
from any other Quarter. Let us but take
Care to be truly as well as profelTedly his>
and we need not tear but eternal Life in the
final IlTue fiiall be ours^ to our compleat and
never-ending Satisfadion.
S E R Mv
of the S o N,
69
SERMON III.
John V. 23.
That all menjhould honour the
Son, even as they honour
the Father.
f^^ A V I N G as was propos'd^ given Scri- Salrers-
H^M ptural Proof of the Son's Deity ^ and made hall,Tw^/l
"^^^ a few Remarks upon the Deity that is ^^y ^■^^-
afcrib'd to Him in our facred Writings^ I now '^^^'^ '•>^'^P*
proceed^ ^3- 1719-
III.. To offer fomewhat m return to the
Pleas of thofe who iT.ake Him a meer
Subordinate Deity,
There being fome that own the Son to be
God, that yet deny his Equality with the Fa-
ther in Nature^ Attributes^ and Perfections^
I delire thefe Words may be well confider'd^
which reprefent an eaiual honour as due to the
Son with the Father; which is a thing
not to be accounted for_, but
liippofition of a proper eftalityy
thing that is eiTential to the Deity.
it is my intention^
F,
upon the
in every
And here
I. To
The Deity
I. T 0 ftiew the Aptnefs of this Text to
ferve the Purpofe for which it is pro-
duced ; ^ulz: to prove an ^^W Honour
due to the Son with the Father,
II. To point to the Confequences that will
follow.^ upon denying the fame Honour
to be due to the Son that is due to the
Father.
III. T o reply to what Arguments I have
met with^ in Proof of a proper Subordl^
nation^ or Inferiority of the Son to the Fa^
ther^ in Nature^ Attributes or Perfedi-
ons. And then_,
IV. T o fubjoyn feme fuitable Refledions.
I. M Y Firfl: work then^ will be to fhew the
aptnefs of the Text propos'd to ferve the pur-^
pofe for which it Is produc'd^, which is to
prove an equal honour due to the Son with the
Father, In order to our difcerning this the
better^, 'tis requifite we fliould diftindly con-
fider the Connexion of the words^ which
Hands thus :
The Chapter begins with an Account of a
wonderful Cure which Our Lord Jesus
wrought at Jerufalem^ upon one that had been
a noted Cripple for Eight and Thirty Years.
The malicious Jews^ wno dreaded any thing
that tended to make him famous^ were the
more enrag'd at this Cure^ becaufe it was
wrought on a Sabbath-day^ at which time
„ . they told the poor Man it 7vas not laivful for
Join V. ,,-.j^.^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ Q^^ Lord anfwer'd them
-■ ' with a very remarkable Declaration^ faying^
Ver. 17. My Father worketh hitherto and I work. q. d. My
father and I having the fame Perfeclions^ our
Operations
of the Son.
Operations are the very fame^ and under no
confinement or limitation^ as to Time_, or o-
ther Circumftances^ any farther than we think
good. He does not now as_, at other times,,
plead neceffity^ nor does he declare (as he
might have done) that this was a Work of
fuch a Nature as not to violate the Sabbath j
but He takes Occafion to Ihew forth the Glo-
ry of his Godhead, and plainly tells them^
tnat as his Fathn- had been continually Work-
ing at his own Pleafure^ from the Creation till
this time^ without any Intermiffion ^ fo had
He^ who was om with Him^ been continual-
ly Working alfo ^ and that one Time was as ,
proper as another^ for any Work^ by which
his Glory would be fhew'd forth^ and made
confpicuous. At this we are toldj they were
but the more confounded and inrag'd^ ^f c^^/^ Joh. v. i C.
He not only (in their Apprehenlion) had hroktn
the Sabbath y but fa id alfo that Qod-u^ai his Father ^y
making himfelf equal with God. • Our Lord does
not hereupon charge them as miftaking or
calumniating him^ in fo interpreting his Irank
Declaration : He does not^ hke a modern
Writer '^^ accufe them of fer^verfly ftr etching y
but goes on to clear and confirm what he had
advanced. He tells them^ That ivhatfoeuer Ver. 19.
Things the Father doth^ thefe alfo doth the Son like-
-ivife : And intimates^ that they Ihould have
yet farther Proof of his Equality with his Ver. 20.
Father ; and that He wrought jointly with the
Either in raijing the Dead at Pleafure. And then Ver. 21.'
He declares^ That all Judgment was committed Yq^ .2.1,
unto him ^ i. e. that an abfolute Dominion and
Sovereignty over Men and all other Crea-
?ures_, was therefore put into his Hands as
F 4 Mediator^
J Bml)n% Trads ^ng. 1 0,
ThQ Deity
Mediator^ That Men m'ght gh>e the fame Ho-
nour to him the Son^ as they did to the Father
himfelf^ in the ulUal and proper Inflances
and Expreffions. So that now_, no Honour
can be due to the Father from any of the Crca-
rures^ that is not equally due to the Son ^
and to pretend to With-liold any from the
cne^ that is given to the other ^ is to diflio-
nour both.
B u T as plain as this is^ they that cut of
Zeal for the Father leek to ieffen the Son^ are
not out of hope fbme way or other to obicure
it. Wc arc to hcnour the Sony e^ven as we honour
the Father ^ that is^ fay they^ as truly ^ not as
greatly. \. But this methinks is very Mat. We
are to honour Saints and Angels^ as truly as
the leather himfelf ,• and it is as real a Duty
in its proper Place. And if this be all that
can be faid as to Hofmrr due to the Son com-
par'd with the Father^ there is nothing that is
peculiar; our Lord could net be charg'd
with alluming, ncr had the Jews any Occa-r
ilon to be difturb'd. This would not leave
the leaft Room for that Equality with God^
which they thought to have been afferted by
him.
Another tells us^ That K^tQ^y^ which
we tranflate ^x_, often fignifies ^ ^e^/^r^/ 5/wi/.-
ttide or.ly^ not an cxaci Equality : f Which is
what we have neither Occafion nor Inchna-
tion to deny. And it mud be cwn'd this
would have been much to the Purpofe^ had
we laid our whole Strefs on that Particle as.
But as Dr. Waterland ^ has very well obferv'd^
What
1 Emiyns Trads, f. -^J.
t Reply ro Mr., Ne!fo7i, 8cc. f. 260,
f DeVenie of foQie Queries^ v. 23 1.-
1
of the Son. 7^
What ive Injifi on^ is, that our Blejftd Lord in Serm.
this Chapter, drav^s a Parallel between the Father jjj^
and himfdf, hetvicen the Father'/ Works and his ^^y^-^^^
own, founding therecn his 7 irle to Honour -, which
fujficiently i7isimatcs what KaO^jV means ,* ejpecially
if it be conjider^d that this was In anpver to the
Charge of waking h'lr/ifelf equal ivlth God.
But 'tis faid_, That f our Lord had fur pofc-
ly defign^d. In the mofi exprefs and emphatlcal
wanner, to declare his Real Subordlnatioit and
Dependance on the Father^ he ctuld not ha-ve done
it 7^ ore fully and clearly, than he hath in this wholt
Chapter f. Whereas I fliould have thought
He might with a great deal ot Eafe have
done it much more clearly. It had been but
his declaring^ that he abtiorr'd the thought
of an Ecjuality v^ith G o d^ and really was no
more than a Creature^ and He would have
much more efFeduaily quieted them^ and
given tnem much more Satisfad;ion^ as to
liis Dependence and Inferior ity_, than He
could be fuppcs'd to do^ by telling them
that Things were io ordered on Purpofe^
that He inight be honoured even as the Fa-
ther ; and tnat Fie therefore had all Power
lodg'd in his Hands^ leait the World fhould
not be fufficiently lenfible of his Original
Worthy Eminence^ and Dignity.
And in Reality^ lince our Lord Jefits in
this Context claims to himfeif the fame
Rights Pcwer^ and Authority which the Fa-
ther hathj and allerts that He is able to do
whatfoevcr the Faher dceth^ and that the
Exercife of thefe Pov/ers is left to him^ for
this very End and Purpofe^ That all Men may
honour ttje Son, e-veji as ihey do the Father, if
this
•j- Colle(3:icn of?' QiierleS; p- ^6.
The D E I T r
this does not prove his being equal to the Fa-
ther^ I think 'twould be Itrange and unac-
countable. I proceed then_,
: ' 11. T o fliew what Confequences will natu-
rally follow^ upon denying the very fame Ho-
nour to the Son J that is given to the Father,
We are to honour the Father ^ in the E-
Heem and Veneration of our Minds^ in the
Subjedion of our WilLs^ and in the Afcent
of our AiFedions to hini^ as their chief Ob-
jed. We are to honoto' him^ by having an
intire Faith in his Word^ a firm hope in
his ProniifeSj an holy Jealoufy about what
peculiarly concerns hira^ and a Religious
Care in his Service : And by expreffing our
Reverencej Love^ and Dependence on hinij
in our Prayers and Praifes. And the Scrip-
ture requires us to pay the very fame Honour
to the Son m every Inltance.
W E are ordered to honour the Son by hdie-
*vmg In hlniy about which our Lord hirnfelf
gives us an exprefs Charge^ faying^ Te helieue
John xlv. in God ; belle-ve alfo in me. We are to honour
^' him by adoring him : For to him is every
Phil. ii. ^^^^ ^0 bow^ which does not fo much re-
io. ferr to the Proltration of the Body^ as to
the Veneration of the Heart. And we are
alfo to honour the Son by cbc^'ing him. For
fays he^ if je love me^ (and that Love ne-
ceiTarily takes in Honour ) kee^ my Command-
John xiv. ments. In all the requifite Inft ances of Ho-
15, nour there is a plain Parity ^ and the very
fuppofmg an Inequality _, runs us into
Confufion.
The Honour that is requii'ed to be given
both to Father and Son^ hath, a Foundation.
And the Foundation of the Honour that is
req^uiT
■
■ 1 -
of the So N-
requir'd to be given to both^ is either the
fame or different. If the Foundation be
different 3 the Honour requir'd could not
be the fame^ when yet there is no Inftance
of it reprefented in Scripture as due to the
onCj that is not due alfb to the other. And
if the Foundation of the Honour that is due
to them be the fame^ then the Honour that
is requir'd cannot be different.
The Foundation of the Father's Honour is
infinite Perfedion. And there muft alfo be
the fame Foundation for Honour in the Soris
Cafe^ if he is truely and by Nature God:
For He could not be fuch^ if any Thing that
is requifite to infinite Perfection were want-
ing. The Honour of the Son \s indeed in
Scripture often reprefented as bottom'd up-
on the Work of Redemption. This is the
plain Language of that Heavenly Cry^ Wor- Rev. vj
thy is the Lamb that was Jlain^ to recei'ue Power ^ 12.
and Riches y and Wifdom^ and Strength ^ and Ho-
nour^ and Glory ^ and BleJJlng. But that is as Me-
diator. And yet He would not in that Capa-
city^ have been worthy of tr uly Divine i/o»^Afr_,
the fame Honour with the Father ^ had He not
been by Nature God as well as He. He that
ha'v'mg by him (elf purgd our Sins^ fat down^ on pjej^. \^ ,
the Right-hand of the A^ajefiy on High^ is faid tO i, 3.
be the Son of God, by whom alfo He made the
M^orldsy and the Brightnefs of his Father's Glory y
who ufholdeth all Things by the Word of his Pow-
er, So that we have fuch noble and rich
Benefits accruing from his Office as Media-
tor^ that that is defervedly reprefented as
a powerful Inducement to us^ to pay him
that Honour and VVorfhip^ which the Ef-
fential Excellency of his Perfon^ and his
glorious Works demand. And that^ as far
as I can perceive_, is the molt we can make
ot it. But
The Deity
Bu T if after all^ we are to give one Sort
of Honour to the Father^ and another to the
Son^ we fliOLild be miferably confounded in
our Faith^ Worfiiip and Obedience j and left
in Perpetual doubt whether we don't ex-
ceed in each to the one, or fall fhort
to the ether : And I don't fee whieh way we
Gould be reiitv'd.
And befidesj if we Honour not the San
ss we do the Futljr^ we truft in one for our
Salvation, who is wholly under Superior con-
croul, and who for any thing we know^
may have undertaken what He may not
be able to acccmplifli. If the San is not
worthy cf the fame Honour with the Father^
it muii be becaufe He falls ihort of him in
Perfedion : And in Proportion as He does
fo, mult our Hope upon Confideration be
abated, and our Fear rais'd, with refpect to
the IfTue of his Great Undertaking.
I F the Son is not to have the fame Honour
with the Father y it muft be becaufe He is
not One God with the Father: At leait that
will follow from thence by a necelfary Con-
fequence. For if the Son be Ont God with
the Father^ He mult have the fame Honour
with Him : The Honour being due to the
Godhead, rather than to the Fatherhood or
Sonjinp. If then the Son is not to be honour d 2t?>
the Father y it mult be becaufe He has not the
fame Godhead with the Father, And if He
has not the fame Godhead with Him, He
has no proper Godhead at all , He is at beft
but a digmfy'd and exalted Creature ,• Fie is
undeify'd, and Contempt and Contumely is
pour"d upon him .• which cannot be a hnall
Crime, nor unattended with con fidcr able
Hazard.
AR=
of the S o N.
fARTHERj, if the fame Honour was not
given to the Son as" to the Father ^ they would
be TwOj and not One^ as they are re'preient-
ed. The Son would not then be in the Fa-
ther ^ nor the Father in the Son^ tho' that be "26.
alfo our Lord's own Aflertion : Whereas John xlv.
if they are in one another^ the one cannot be ^^'
honour d without the other , the Father cannot
be honour d^ but the Son will be honour d even
as He. Nor could our Lord then have faid
with Truth^ in any Senfe_, He that has feen me John xiv»
hath feen the Father : For if their Honour was 7-
different^ they that favx^ the one might be
fo far from feeing the other^ that they might
fee and Honour the one^ and yet not fee
but defpife the other. jNor could it without
this have been faid by our Saviour^ ^//John xvL
Things that the Father hath are mine *. For i5-
then the Father would have an Honour that
the Son was a Stranger to. And thefe are
fuch Confequences^ as I think it becomes
us to take any Steps^ by which they may
be avoided^ provided they are but fafe.
But,
IIL I go on to the Arguments for that
Subordination or Inferiority ot the Son tO the
Father y in Nature, Attributes or Perfections,
which is pleaded for by fuch as are not
for honouring the Son^ equally with the Fa-
ther. And^
I. It is faid. That our Lord plainly
owns another above him, and acknowledges
his Subjedion to his Father. He fays in
I
fo
* See on this Text, Dr. TVrjterhfuT^ Eieht Sermons.
1S6, 235.
The Deity
fo many Words^ My Father Is greater than L
t And if fo^ how then can the Son be equal to
the Father i
Johii^xlv. ^ ^ T let it be obferv'd^ our Lord does
2,8. * ' not fav^ God is greater than I, but my Fa-
ther is io : For which Reafon^ he plainly
Phil. li. referrs to his Mediatorfhip. Tho' being in
4 7. the Form of God^ he thought it no Robbery to he
equal vjith Gody yet maktJtg himfelf of no Re^
putation^ and taking upon him the Form of a
Ser'uanty on Purpole that He might ad: the
Part of a Mediator^ between his Father and
iinful Men^ He in that refped^ without
any Impeachment to his proper Divinity^
might fay his Father was greater : But ftill as
to Godheadj there was an Equality. Tho'
the Son^ in the Text cited^ owns the Father
Tohn X. gy^^^^^y He yet fays elfewhere^ I and the Fa-
ther are One , which Declaration St. Hilary op-
pofes to the other^ and that very juftly ^.
There can therefore be no greater Inequality
between them^ than is confiltent with an One-
nefs that is every way pecuhar. Father and Son
are not barely One in Agreement^ ading by
Concert^ but One in Power^ and all confe-
quent Perfed:ions which the Divine Nature
has belonging to it. And had not fuch an
Onenefs with the Father been there meant^ the
7^ W could never have thought He made him-
felf God in pretending to it. Now the Son
could not be thus One with the Father ^ and yet
the Father h^ greater than He was_, as Go D.
OvK
t St. Hilar, de Trinit. Lib. 9, thus explains this
Text. The Father (fays he) is greater than the
Son, confider'd as Man and Mediator.
t ^c Trin. Lib, IL pag. zi.
30
Ver. 33-
of the Son.
xu.
Our Lord alfo fays^ All things that the Fa-
ther hathy are mine f. So that He has ail the
Pertedions and Rights^ the fame Nature and _
Godhead^ the fame Honour and Glory with John'' xvi.
x.\it Father. Confider him as G o D^ and the 15,
Father hath nothings but what the Son hath
too : In that refpe^d: therefore the Father is
not greater ,* nor can he be truly faid to have
more Power^ Wifdom^ or Goodnefs_, or more
Excellence than the Son, But as for the Of-
fice of Mediator^ that the Father hath not.
And therefore all the Difference between Him
and the Son^ belides what is Perfonal3 arifes
from that. It is alfo faid in this Context^
That -what Things foei;er He [the Father"] doth^ John vJ
thefe alfo doth the Son likewife. It is iOy not only *9«
as to fome^ but all Things. And again^ our
Lord fays_, He that feeth me^ fceth him that /^^ John
me : Which could only be^ becaufe their Na- ^^.
ture and EiTence^ Excellencies and Perfecti-
ons were the fame^ notwithftanding the dif-
ferent Form afilim'd in order to our i5alvation3
in the Oeconomy of which^ He that was
fent aded the Part of a Mediator with him
that knt him^ and in that refped was io far
inferior^ as that the Father might be faid to
be greater. Whereas if C h r 1 s t as G o d was
lefs than the Father^ or had lefs of real Per-
fedion in him or belonging to him^ then
might the Father do feveral Things that the
Son neither did^ nor could do ; and then alfo
might People fee the Son that was fent^ with-
out feeing him that fent him. They might
fee only that which was lefs^ without fee-
ing what was greater ^2Lnd infinitely repleniih'd.
Our
i:
"t See Dr. H^tcrUnd's Sermon on this Text. Serm,
yi. pag. 195.
8o The Deity
Our Lord ufing great Freedom with his Dil^
ciple ThU:^y upon Occafion exprefs'd himfelf
thus j Belk^je we^ that 1 am in the Father^ and the
Father In me : Thereby intimating^ that the
Father and He were lo in one another^ that
he that had {q^ti the one^ had {ccn the other
as to all Things that were elTential to either.
Should he then declare prefently after^ that
his Father 7v as greater than He^ as to any e&n-
tial Divine Excellencei, any thing but what
related to his Office as Adcdiator^ Fie would
lay and unfay^ and fo his Office and Divinity
both would be overthrown at once. And
the Harmony which this Way appears be-
tween the Text objeded, and other Texts of
Scripture^ beyond what can be made out up-
on any ether Bottom_, is to me a very good
Argument that this is the true and proper
Senie of it.
But J, fays Dr. Clarke ^ the plain Adeaning of
the Words ^ my Father is greater than Jy isy Tuat
, God the Father is greater than the Son • that He
that begat y mufi needs ^ (for that Reafcn^ aitd upcn
that ijery Account) he greater than be that is be-
gotten of him *. Flowever, it deferves to be
obferv'dj That our Lord is not there fpeak-
ing of his Generation ^ but his Mjfion^ nor does
He drop any thing that intimates any parti-
cular reference to his Father's begetting him^
but diredly referrs to his own ading by his
Commifiion as Mediator ^ which is the refped
in which his Father is greater. Among Men in-
deed in the very ISiame of Father^ there is
imply *d lomething o-r^^rer than in that of Son :
But it does not follow that it mi^fi needs be
io in the Deitj^ where the Son no more
had
J Scripture Dodrine. N^f 830.
of the Son. 8i
had any Beginning of Being than the Fa-
ther ; nor could in any Inllant not have
been ^ any more than the Father himfelf
could not have been. I don't fee how
we can with Safety pretend to draw any
Thing of a juft Parallel between Father and
Son amonglt Men^ and Father and Son in the
Deity^ between which there is fo wide a
Difference. Amonglt Men^ Father and Son
are two ; they net only are two feparate
and divided Perfons^ but they have diffe-
rent Endowments : Whereas in the Deity
Father and Son are One ; not One Perfon^
but One in all Excellencies and Perfedi-
ons. Amongit Men^ the Father has his
Things^ and the Son his Things : But in
the Deity^ the Son hath all Things (without
any Exception) that the Father hath. Among
Men^ the Father doeth fome Things^ and the
Son other Things : But in the Deity^what-
Ibever Things the Father doth^ the fame dotb
the Son like wife. Amongft Men^ tho' the
Son IS from the Father^ yet he is not in the
Father j and tho' the Father produced the
Son^ yet he is not in the Son ; and tho' a
Son may be very like the Father^ yet it
cannot (fpeaking ftridly) be faid^ that he
that has feen the Son^ has i^^Qn the Father :
But in the Deity, the Father is fo in the
Son^ and the Son in the Father, that he that
has feen the Son,^ has alfo feen the Father,
Arguments therefore from Father to Son a-
mongit Creatures to prove how Things Hand
between Father and Son in the Deity, will not
hold, nor be of any proper Force.
Long before Dr. Clarke appeared upon this
Argument, Crellius the Famous Soclnian Wri-
ter, in his Dlfcourfe of One God the Father, re-
prcfented it as an Evidence^ that Christ
82 The Deity
Serm. asHeisthCiS'^w of God^ could not be tht Sw
jTT freme God^ becaufe as He is fuch^ the Father
,^^y>^,,J^, is greater than He : But I take ByfierfieUrs An-
fwer to be very fatisfadory ^ .^iz., that this
Declaration of our Saviour^ does not point
to any real Dignity or Perfedion in which
the Father excells the Son^ who may ftiil be
the One Supreme God^ equal with the Father,
notwithftanding that as Mediator the Father
is the greater. Nor can I lee any Thing like
Proof produc'd to the contrary.
2. 'T I s faid that the Apoltles have de-
clared Christ's Subjection to another^ not
only as his Father, but his God. We read of
God thy God:, and our Lord is faid to be
anointed by his God. And the molt Blefled
GoD^ is called the God of our Lord Jefus Chrift :
even after his Humiliation was over : And
1 Cor. xi, we are told in fo many Words_, That the
3 Head of Chrifi is God. Thus then ftands the
Argument. Tho* the Son is called God, yet he
is fo a Gody as that he has a God ahoije him.
And fays Mr. Fmlyn, If he have a Ged above
him, then Is he not the Supreme God, tho* in
Relation to created Beings he may he a God (or
Ruler) over all "*'.
I anfwer ; that our Bleffed Saviour
having an Human Nature as well as a Divine,
we- need not wonder that the Father with
refpect to that_, fhould be ItyPd his God, or
that He fliould pay him Worfhip^ which
is often taken Notice of This Human Na-
ture was anointed or fandify'd, by its being
united to the Logos or Word_, without any
Ground left to conclude an Inferiority, witn
refped to the Divinity. I cannot therefore
fee.
T:r4clsp^, 3»
of the So N.'
fee^ why we may not allow the Father to
be caird the God of our Lord Jefus Chrifi^ after
his Humiliation was over, as well as be-
fore_, by Reafon that the Human Nature that
was retain'd, was not only of his forming_,
but under his fpecial Management, after its
Removal from hence to Glory, as well as
while it continued here below. And then
as for God's being the Head of Chrifi^ that is
as Mediator, in which Capacity, all own his
receiving his Kingdom and Dominion froni
the Father, The Father is the Head of Chrifiy
becaufe He as Mediator does all Things ac-
cording to his Will, to his Glory, and by
Authority deriv'd from him. Tins Senfe is
confirmed, from what is connected with it.
For thus does the Text run, th^ Head of e'very
Man is Chrift ,• ajtd the Head of Chr'ifi Is God. So
that as Christ is Man's Head, by Vertue of
the Power and Dominion given him over all
Flefli ^ foisGoD or thQ Father the Head of
CHRrT,by Vertue of his .9:iving hnn th-^.t Pow-
er and Dominion as Mediator. And then as
for that Exprellion, God thy God^ it is exprefsly pfal. xlvj
fpoken of the *,on as our Redeemer, as is 7.
plain from his being faid to be anointed -with
the Oil of Gladnefs above h:s Ft Hows. So that
as our Lord was the Ecernal Son of G o d^
he had no G o d above him ; 'Twas only
as He became Man in Order to our Re-
demption, and had in the Nature he afTum'd
a delegated Power, that He could be faid
to have any Superior.
3. 'T I s pleaded. That ChrJj^ is to ^^'g^^ i Qot xv:
till he hath put all Enemies under his Feet : That 24 28.
at length He fhall ddlvcr up the Kingdom to
Gody even the Father : And that then jhall the
Son alfo hlmfelf be fubjcdl w7to him that put all
Thwgs under hlm^ that God may be AU in AIL
Q z It
84
The D E I T t
It is from hence argu'd^ that fince the Son
is to refigii to the Father ^ and be in Subjecti-
on to him after that Refignation^ as well as
before as Mediator^ He muft of Neceffity be
naturally inferior to him. Mr. Emlyn tells
uSj That this great Text^ is full of Irrefifiible
Ez'idence for' -proving an Inferiority In the Son to
his Father '^. But after the ftridelt Search_,
I mufl: declare I cannot perceive^ the Apo-
ftle meant any more than tliis : that the Me-
diatorial Kingdom having been receiy'd ^
mult when it has ferv'd the Purpofes which
it has been ereded for^ be at laft refign'd :
And that after that Refignation our Lord
Jesus Christ as Man (and fo a Crea-
ture) flaall be for ever Subjed to the Deity :
But I can't fee why we may not Hill hoid^
C H R I s t's Equalitj to the lather in all Di-
vine Excellencies and Perfections^ both be-
fore this Refignation and after it f. There
are a few Things that here deferve to be
confider'd. As^
I. We fhould confider what that is that
is to be refignd. 'Tis not the Deity^ but
the Mediatorial Kingdom. At the End of
that admirable Difpenfation that was cal-
culated in Order to our Redemption^ fhall
the Kingdom be delrver'd up. The King-
dom to be refign'd is not the Rule of the
Deity3 nor any of the Perfections necelTary
to the Exercile of Univerfal Government^
but that Kingdom which commenc'd in Pa-
radife^ and is to be continu'd till all oppo-
* TrnBs, p: 7.
t See on this Argument, Mr. Jofeph Bqyfes Vindi-
cation of the True Dairy of our BlefTed Saviour^'
Third Edition, ^.30, C^g,
of the So N.
fite Powers are fubdu'd and vanquifh'd^ and
all the hearty Subjeds of it are fix'd in
compleat Fehcity. From the very going
forth of the firil Promife did God admJni-
Iter all Things by his Soti^ as imiverfal Lord
and King • and 'tis the grand Defign of the
Holy Scriptures to give us an Account of
that Adminiftration. Man having fhameful-
ly revolted^ God would not any longer
^xvern him alone^ or immediately as He
had done before^ but He would have a Pre-
sident General to manage for him^ or in his
Name^ and by Authority and Power derived
by Commiffion from him. This Commiffi-
on He executed before He was incarnate ;
but his executing it was more vifible^ after
he aiTunVd our Nature^ and therein iuffer'd
and dy"d^ and then had all Power gi^'cn him
in Heaven and m 'Earthy and a 'Name abo-ve e-very
Name. This Kingdom was given him by
Commiffion^ in Confideration of his intend-
ed Humiliation J by which He afterwards
acquired a Right to it^ becaufe of his ful-
filling the Conditions upon which the Grant
was made. This Kingdom was not natural
to Christj but adventitious^ and given
him by the Father^ and the Power he exer-
cifes in \t was deriv'd from him. Our Lord
often declar'd this^ faying^ A^ Things are Matth.xi.
ddi'vered unto me of my Father. I am come m 27.
my Father'j Name, And It Is my Father that John v.
honour eth me^ of -whom ye fay that He is your 43.
God. And after his Afcenfion to Glory^ HeJ^'^^^ ^'^^^•
plainly declar'd to the J/ian Churches that ^'^•^, -.
as to his peculiar Power J 'twzs received of his ^ '
Father. And I mult own I take it for a "
dired: Inlet to Jriamfm^ and the very Thing
that has led feveral afide that way both for-
merly and lately^ that they have taken thofe
G 3 Texts
S6 The Deity
Serm. Texts that fpeak of the Conveyance and
III. ^^^^^ of ^he Mediatorial Authority^ under
^^-y^i^ Limitations^ as meant of the Conveyance of
the Divine Nature iiom Father to Son.
But be it as it will as to that^ this re-
ceived and delegated F^v^er that was com-
municated to Christ in order to our Sal-
vation_, it is intimated by St. Taul in the
Text objeded^ is^ when that is accomplifh-
ed^ to be at hit delivered up ; at which
we have no Occafion to be furpriz'd. For
why fliould a Commiflionary Power be re-
tain'd any longer, when the End for which
it was communicated is fully anfwer'd ?
When then the Honour of the Divine Go-
vernment is fully fecur'dj and our Salvation
intirely accompiifh'dj it could anfwer ncEnd^
either \vith refped to cur Biefled Saviour^ or
as to us^ for him to keep his Commiflion
any longer.
2. W £ may alfo confider ^ who it is
that is to make this Rcji'j?jatkn of the King-
dom. 'T:s the Eternal cqh^ who had an O-
riginal Pcv/er as G o r^ and was in Pofieffi-
on of all Divine Perfedions from Eternity^
as well as had a Ccmmiinonary Pcwer^
which He received upon Man's Apoftacy.
And of him we may obferve^ that feeing it
/ Vv^as his Human Nature that properiy fulfer-
/ ed^ and his Divine Nature was incapable cf
/ being exalted^, or having a New Dcminionj
'tis evident that the Kingdom granted him^
that h at laft to be refigncl^ could be given
him according to his Human Nature only. For
tho' the Godhead alone could enable him to
execute the kingly Office to any Purpofe^ and
he had been wholly incapable of it if that
John V. "w^i*^ wanting^ yet He had this Authority gl^
%j, t'cn him^ bccaufe he was the Son of Man,
And
of the So N.
And it is alfo worthy of our Notice^ that
tho' for a Time^ in order to our Salvation^ He
was pleas'd to Immhle hlmfelfy and appear in
our Nature as an Inferior^ and ad in Sub-
je(5lion3 yet He can as well ceafe to be at
all^ as quit or lofe^ any Part or Branch of
his Original Excellence. So that it is He
that was at firft the Receiver^ that is to be
at laft the Refigner of the Commiffionary
Power receiv'd^ when the Purpofes that were
to be thereby ferv'd are fully anfwer'd. The
Refigner is the very Perfon that before reign-
ed in his Human Nature in the Right of his
Sufferings and Death. He that h^a all Things
fut under his Feet by Go D, in the Human Na-
ture aiTum'd^ when his Mediatory Work is
finifh'd^ is to refign his fubordinate Power.
It could not be taken from him by Force^
or without his Confent. He will deliver it
up freely : And that at the Time^ when he
Jhall ha've put down all Rule and all Authority
and Tower; i. e. when He (liall either have
converted or deftroy'd all oppofite Powers.
The End for which our Saviour's Mediatory
Kingdom was erecled^, was to fubdue a re-
bellious World to G o D 5 and captivate Men
to a free Subjection to his heavenly Will j
or if they will not yields to niake them the
Triumph of his Everlafting Vengeance. And
this End will be fully accomplifh'd at the
lalt Judgment. By that Time^ He will ei-
ther have reduced his Enemies by the Pow-
er of his Grace^ and brought them volunta-
rily to proftrate themfelves before him ^ or
have trampled them under his Feet. And
when once Things are brought to this pafs_,
the End and Reaion of the Mediatorial King-
dom will wholly ceaie ,• and therefore it will
b? refignd. And then.
G 4 3. We
88 The Deity
Serm. 5- We may farther confider^ to whom this
III. Refignat'ion is to be made. 'Tis to the Father ^
from whom the Kingdom was at firit received ;
but who as He e^er was a Father^ and never
without a Sony fo can no more ceafe to
have a Scn^ like himfelf in all his effential Per-
fed:ions_, than He can himfelf ceafe to be. The
Kingdom is tO be dell'vcrd up to God^ e^jcn the
Father 'y who tho' greater than his Deputy^
ading as, his Commiffioner^ yet had not
more of the Power and Glory that is effen-
tial to the Deity^ than He v/ho for a v/hile^
and in order to the ferving of the highelt Pur-
pofes^ condefcended to ad: by his Commii^
fion. And indeed^ into what Hands could it
lb fitly be refigned^ as into thofe from which
it was at firfl: receiv'd ? And what can appear
more natural^ than for the Father ^ who there-
fore gave our Lord J e s u s, in his humane
Nature^ the Government of the Univerfe^
that there might be nothing in the whole
Compafs of it capable cf fuccefsfully oppo-
fing him in his Deiign^ to re-affume the
Power intruftedj when the End of fixing this
Vicegerency is accomplifli'd ^ But it is eafy
to obfcrve^ (and it is fit we fiiould obferve)
That in the great Worxk of our Redemption^
when the Father is fpcken of^ we are to look
upon the whole Trinity as having a joynt
Concern^ as well as to reck'jn the Father con-
ce.rn'dj when either the Son or Spirit are par-
ticularly fpoken of, in any thing relating
thereunto. So that in this Cafe of the Re-
figtiat';on oi the Mediatorial Kingdcni;, which
is defjgn'd to bring Things to that pafs^ that
God may he All In All; tho' the Father IS meii-
tion'd^yet fliould not the Son and Spirit be rec-
kon'd unconcerned. For He to whom the
Me//gnation is made^ will not be more All in AU
after
of the So nJ 89
after it is over^ than either the Son that makes Serm.
the Refignation ^ or the Spirit ^ to whofe Effica- jjj^
ey it IS to be afcrib'a _, that the Ends of ^y-^J^
the Mediatory Authority were fo far an-
fvver'dj as that there could be room for fuch
a Refignation. And now^
4. Let us confider what this Refignation imr
plies and carries in it. It imports no AcceP-
lion of Power to him to whom the Refig-
nation is made_, who* had no Rival before^
any more than He will have afterwards. Nor
does it intimate any real Diminution of the
Refigner^ as to any thing effential : For lie
wili always continue in nimfelf as Great and
Glorious^ and as Divine a Perfon as ever. All
that it properly implies^ is^ That there will
be a laying down of the Ccmmiffion re-
ceiv'd^ when the Ends of it are fufficiently
anfwer'd. There will be a ceafing of the
Gofpel Difpenfation^ or of Christ's exer-
cife of his Mediatorial Kingdom^ in the Rule
and Government of his Church and People^
and his fubduing his and their Enemies. The
Son will give up a fort of an Account to the
Father of the Office committed to him. And^
as the Difpenlation began with an KOi of
Subjection to the Father from the Son^ (who
tho' He was under no antecedent Obligation^
yet was fo ready to undertake the great
Work of our Redemption^ that^ as the A~
poltle obferves ^ when • He came into the
Worlds He faid^ Lo, I come to do thy Will, oHeb.x.7:
God ;) fo it will alfo conclude with a Hke A6I3
when the Son returns the Kingdom into the
Hands of him that gave it. And this laft Kd:
of the Difpenfation may not unfitly be
compar'd with feveral of thofe that went
before itj as with our Lord's Incarnation^
Death, Re fiir region, Jfcenfion, and the Lafi Judg-
ment. B X
90 The Deity
Serm. ' By his Incarnation the Son took our Flefh
III. upon hiiTi^ and confecrated it in his own Per-
^^^i^^^"^ fon. By his Dcath^ He latisfy'd Divine Ju-
Itice^ and open'd us a Way ot Accefs to the
Divine Mercy. By his Rtjtm-ettlony He be-
came the Depofitary and Truftee of that Life
that He has purchased for us. Upon his Aj-
cenfion^ He went to take Pofleflion of the
Heavenly Glcry in our Room^ and became
capable of communicating the fame to us.
And at the Lap Judgmtnt^ He will intirely
deliver us from the Power of all our Ene-
mieSj to that Degree that we fhall never be
molefted by them more. So that when we
ihall be together taken up to Heaven^ and
the Mediatorial Kingdom (hall be refign'd^
this laft Ad will be the Confum.mation of
the whole Work. For we fhall not then any
more be confecrated by the Firlt-fruits of the
Flefh^, as at our Lord s Incarnation -^ nor will
there be a bare Redemption in a Way of
Rights as at his Death ^ nor a mere reaching
Lite by Proxy, that it may be hid with
Christ in G o d, as at his RefurreBlon ; nor
a fimple Pofleflion of Heaven in the Perfon
of our Headj as at his Afcenfion ^ nor a mere
Deliverance from the Hands of our Enemies,
as at the Laft Judgment , but there will be a
full and perfect Communion of the whole
Church, Head and Members, with the Blei-
fedGoD, and that v/ithout Interruption, to
all Eternity.
y. L E T us alfo confider, what will be
confequent upon this Refignatlon of the Me-
diatorial Kingdom and Government. 'Tis
faid. That the Son alfo hlmfelf\ will then be ftih-
jeB to the Father. That is. He will be lo in
his humane Nature, which He will Itill re-
tain. And God JIj^II he All In AH* That is, the
Divine
of the S o N.
Divine Excellencies will moit illuftrioufly
(hine forth in Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghojl^
without any farther Need of an interpofing
Mediator ; tho' the glorify'd humane Nature
of our Sa'vlour will ftill continue a bright
Mirrour of the Divinity.
The Son himfelfwlU then be fuhjeB to tbeTa,^
ther. He is fubjed to him now^ in the Pof-
feffion and Management of that Kingdom
that will at laft be deliver'd up. He ads by
Deputation from the Father; and what He
doesj is in his Name_, and by his Authority :
But hereafter He will be otherwife fubjed to
him than now. His humane Nature fhall
tranfmit the Rays of his Father's Glory thro'
it^ to Perpetuity^ to the raviftiing and tran-
fporting of all Beholders. ^efore_, He chief-
ly exerted the Fathers Regal Power^ accord-
ing to his Commiflion received ,• but that
being refignd ^ all the other Parts of the
Divine Glory Ihall fliine forth in the fame
Humane Nature of ChrisTj, which will
for ever continue the Temple of the Deity.
The Son himfelf then laying down that
Power which He now exercifes as Mediator,
fliall as Man, together with the Church He
has redeem'd, be fubjed to that Government,
which He that fut all Tmngs under him fhall let
up. Our Lord indeed ftiall ever continue
in his glorify'd humane Nature at the Right
Hand of God ; He fhall be always higlily
exalted in Honour, Dignity, and Beatitude ;
always having religious Refped and Vene-
ration paid himj and the ElFeds of this
Kingly Power fhall for ever continue ; his
Enemies being deftroy'd,and his Saints reign-
ing in confummate Blifs through cverlafting
Ages : And yet as Man, He Ihall then be
fttbjea
92 The Deity
Serm. fti^jeB to the Father ; in the fame manner with
III. Saints and Angels.
^„oy^s^ H o w E V E R:, we fhould in this Cafe take
heed of feparating the Fatber and the Son^
and cf oppofmg the one to the other. We
fhould remember that the Father reigns in
the So?i^ and the Son alfo will reign in the
Father. As to this^ I cannot but much ap-
prove of a Paflage in St. Bajil. If (fays he)
the Son v^ill be [libje^ to the Father -with re-
fpeSl to his Dlzfinitjy then was he fubjeci to him
from the Beginning of his being God : But if he
"ivas not fubjecl to him from the firft^ but will
he ftibjeci to him at laft^ (which is the very
Thing St. Taul intimates) this Subjeciion will
yefpeU his Humanity ^ and be for our Sakes^ and
not refpeEl his Divinity _, or he on his own
Account. "^
Tis added^ God jloaU be All in AIL All
Power and Dominion will from thencefor-
ward be immediately exercis'd by the Deity_,
that is the Father ^ Sen and Holy^ Ghoft. The
Variation of the Perfon in this Part of St.
TauVs Difcourfe fhould be carefully noted.
He does net fay^ Then fhall the Son alfo
himfelf be fubject to him that did put all
Things under him^ that the Father^ but that
God may be All in All- When the Son has re-
fign'd his Kingdom^ He and the Holy Ghofi
will not fit Itill^ and leave the Fa'ther to
reign and ad: alone : But no Power or
Dominion fhall be exercis'd^ except what
is Eifential to the Godhead^ in which the
Son and Holy Ghoft fubfifling together with
the Father y iliall for ever reign together with
him. God will then be All in All, He will
rule
* St. BafiL Op. Tom. i. p. 769.
of the So N.^ p^
rule and govern all Things immediately by Serm,
himfelf, and his immediate Will fhall reign tjt
alone in all^ and be the proximate Guide' of ,-.^^^
all the Inhabitants of the BlelTed World ^"^^"^^
above. So that there will then be no inter-
mediate Governor between him and us^ to
exad: Obedience from us^ and to convey
his Favours to us, but we Ihall render all
our Duty to him immediately, and receive
our Happinefs from him diredly.
The Apoftle obferves. That as Things
now Hand, Chrifi is AH in All. It is by him Col iIk
that the Father now does and governs all i \.
Things. But when this Difpenfation comes to
an end, God alone or the Triune Godhead will be
All in All. So that whereas the Father at prefent
only lets himfelf forth to us through his Son,
he will then let himfelf forth immediately
to us : And all remaining Sin being taken
away, the Mediation of the Son will be no
longer neceiTary to our having Communion
with the Divinity. And whereas the Son
now communicates his Favours to us with
a difcernible Inequality, giving one Man
one Gift and another another ,• and diftri-
buting one and the fame Gift in different
Degrees and Proportions, as He fees to be
molt for the good of his Church ,• G o d will
then communicate his Favours fo liberally to
us, that the Light of his Knowledge, and
the inexpreffible Brightnefs of his Holinefs,
fliall then fill all the Bodies and Souls of
thofe that are near him. God will be All in
All. Not that the Nature and Subftance of
all Things will be turn'd into God,- or
that all without Exception will at laft be fav'd,
and made Monuments of the Divine Mercy^
as fome have vainly and groundlefly ima-
gin'd ; but that all that are regoyerable, being
brought
The Deity
brought back again to G o d as their Princi-
ple and End^ all the Divine Perfedions^ one
as well as another, will be illuitrated and
made confpicuous, in them_, and in the Ma-
nagement of them.
b o that upon the Whole_, I can find none
of that irrefifiible Evidence^ that Mr. Emlyn
fpeaks ofj no nor probable Proof neither_, in
or from this Text, of that Inferiority in the
Son to the Father ^ which he fo indultrioufly
endeavours to fpread and propagate. And
when he intimates. That Jejus Chrifi in his
highefi Capacity^ being inferior to the Father, ca7i^
not he the fame God to "which he is fubjeB^ or of
the fame Rank and Dignity ; * I reckon it a
fufficient Reply to fay. That Christ as God
being equal to the Father ^ tho' as Mediator
His Inferior, was naturally of the fame Rank
and Dignity with him to whom he for
certian Ends became fubjed, and will be
fo, after that the Authority and Power com-
mitted to him, is refignd. And I can't per-
ceive that this is difprord, by any Thing
that he has ofFer'd.
Reserving other Pleas of the fame
Nature to the fubfequent Difcourfes, I fhall
only add a few Hints by way of Caution.
It is certainly highly needful we Ihould
take heed of being fo zealous to magnify
and exalt the Father^ as to deprefs the Son,
Hardly any Thing is more common than
for People out ot fear of one Extreme to
run into another, and out of Concern for
one Truth, to run down another : But this
is neither prudent, nor fafe. How often do
we find fome that are afraid to have Rea-
fon depretiated, which is molt certainly the
Candle
* Trndsy p. 9, lo,
of the Son pt
Candle of the Lord^ free in their Reflecf^ions gg^j^^
wpon Re'uelationy as imperfed and defective I ttt'
And others that for fear Revelation fhould be lJ~
difefteem'd^ inveigh againlt Reafon^ as rather ^"^^^"^
an Enemy than a Friend to Religion ! Where-
as both of thenij if rightly us'd^ and kept in
their proper Place^ may accord very well
together. But is there any Senfe in this ? So
may I alfo fay^ why fhould the Father be
magnify 'd to the Sons Difparagement ; or
the Son advanced to the Father's Diminuti-
on ? We fhould not let our Zeal run all
one way^ for fear we are infnar'd. Far be
it from us to lefTen the Father. But do our
Obligations to the Eternal Son of G o d run
fo I0VV3 as that we fliould be lefs afraid of
detrading from him^ or denying him the
Honour that is due to him?
W E have had fome that have been fo in-
tent upon magnifying our Obligations to the
Son of Godj that they have comparatively
overlook'd and made light of the iandifying
Work of the Bkffcd Spirit ^ altho' that is not
either lefs neceffary^ or lefs valuable in its
place^ or lefs matter of thankfulnefs^ than
any thing for which we are oblig'd to our
BleiTed Redeemer himfelf And it has often
been query 'd of fuch^ why they fhould think
the Holy Spirit to be more alham'd of his
Workj than the Son was of his proper and pe-
culiar Work ? And it is a Query to which
they have never hitherto been able to return
a fatisfadory Anfwer. In like manner would
I ask of thofe who are fo earneft in mag-
nitying the Father^ as we find fome are^ for
what reafon they fhould think to pleafe him^
by lefTening the Son ? And it is fuch a Quefti-
on as they w^ill not eafily be able to anfwer.
I mult own therefore I thiak that but a nced-
The Deity
ful Caution that was given by St. Hilary ^^ one
of the earliell Chriitian Writers uponthe Sub-
jed: cf the Trinity we have now remaining ^
who when he was dealing with the Artansy
tells US^ That -we muji- take heed^ leafi under Pre-
tence of honouring the Father_, ive;^^ lejjen the Glo-
ry of the Son. And Gregory Naz.ianz.en f COn-
CurrSj faying^ If you deffife the Son that you
may Honour the Father_, he does not recei-ve your
Honour, When the Son is deffis'd^ the Father is
no way gJorify'd.
Tm afraid 'twill prove but a poor Excufe
at lalt for any of us to fay^ as one does at
prefentj I ho^e the Great Redeemer^ ivlll neijer
he ojf ended with any^ who ft and by his own Words ^
viz. The Father ts greater than I 4- For tho"*
they are Chris t's own Words^ fpoken by
him in the Time of his Humiliation^ yet can
they not by any Means juftify the feeking
to advance the father^ by lefTening the Son^
which is what I verily think fome are much
more juftly to be charged with^ than others
with exalti?ig the Son aho^ue his God and Father^
that are freely accusal cf it t|.
I T is obferv'd by a late Learned Writer on
the Trinity j That as on one hand Men by
guarding unwarily agalnft Trjcheifmj ha've in the
ether Extreme run into Socinianifm^ to the Dimi"
TJUtion of the Honour of the Son of God., and to
the taking away the ^uery Being of the Holy Spi-
rit J* fo on the contrary^ uncautmis Writers in their
Zeal agalnfi Socinianifm^ and Arianifm^ ha've
no lefs frequently laid themfelves of en to Sab ell i-
anifm^
* Lib. III. De Trin. pag. 35.
t Orat. XXXI. pag. 507.
\ Emlyns Trads, J)ag. 45.
tl ScQ Mr? Eml^ny ^pp^nkix to his Narmm, p. 58;
of the S o N.' 97
"RJlifm^ or Tritheifnij hy negkBlng to 7naintain SerM,
the Honour and Supremacy of the Father. And ttt
he tells US^ It was the Defign of his Writing {jr^-^
to dlrcB to the a'voldlng both Extremes f . If
that was the Defign of his Writings he ap-
pears to be very unhappy in his Meafures y
which are fo calculated to guard againll
Sahelllanlfm and Trltheifm^ as dire(5lly to drive
thofe that imbibe his Principles^ into Aria-
nlfm for Shelter. He is fo clear againft Sa-
beUlanlfm^ in. afTerting a Diilindion between
Father^ Son^ and Holy Sfirlt^ that few that
read him will I believe offer to charge him
with making them but one Perfon^ as did
the Sabelllans, But in the mean Time^ he
plainly brings in fuch an hferlorlty of both '
the Son and Spirit to the Father ^ as leads to
dired Arlanlfwy if we may judge of the Prin-
ciples of that Party^ by thofe remaining
Writings which are moft in Credit^ that
came either from fuch as efpous'd and fup-
ported them^ or fuch as oppos'd them. And
if it be Trithelfm^ to hold one Supreme and
two Inferior Gods_, it would be very diffi--
cult to clear his Principles from thatCharge :
So eafy is it for Men to run in to Extremes^
even when they feem concern'd to avoid
them. Our observing this_, fliould make ua
the more cautious.
We ought alfo to be very cautious of
fetting up one Paflage of Scripture in Op-
pofition to feveral others^ or making one
Text or two a Standard^ or fetting the Scrip-
ture a clafhing with itfelf. If we meet with
fome Paffages that are not eafily to be re-
concil'dj 'tis our fafeft way to hold them
H all^
* See Dr. Clark/s Introdu(5lion, p. xxvil, xjtviii.
The Deity
allj without quitting or denying any Ofie :
Which is no more than becomes us^ confn
dering under whofe Condud they were
drawn up. Safely may we conchide there is
a way of reconciling them_, whether we
can tind it out or no. Thus when we are
told_, That Chrifi and his Father are one^ and
yet that the Father is greater than the Son ;
that the Son is at lafi to refign to the Father,
and yet that He is to be honoured e^jen as
the Father ; we fhould remember that He
from whom all thefe PalTages came^ knew
what He faid in all of them : And there-
fore we have not the lealt need to part
withj or demurr as to any one of them,
tlio' we may not prefently be able to dis-
cern how they hang together. Let us not
cry out in a cavilling Way^ How can thefe
Things he ? Let us rather conclude that thus
they are, and that they hang well together,
becaufe they are thus reprefented^ by one
that neither could deceive, nor be deceiv'd.
This is what Itrid Reafbn would jultify.
But if inftead of this^ we will fall to cavil-
lings and wreft the Scriptures^, arid it proves
to our own Deftrudion in the Iffue, we
muft thank ourfelves, and the Fault will lie
at our own Doors.
And confidering the infinite Obligations
we are under to the Lord Jefus Chrifi^ for the
ineltimable BlefSngs He has procured for us,
by his amazing Condefcenfion and bitter
SufFeringSj it very much becomes us to be
afraid of giving way to the leaft diminifh-
ihg Thought of him ; and that the rather,
leaft if we once give way^ we may by De-
grees be carry'd farther than we could at
fir ft imagine.
of the Sojj. pp
v-/"V^
For my own Part^,^ I am never for fu- Serm,
fped:ing Perfons of being erroneous^ or in- ttt
clinable to give into pernicious and dan-
gerous Opinions^ without good Reafori. Far
be it from me to fay or think^ or give the
leaft Encouragement to others to think^
fuch or fuch a Perfon to be in a dangerous
Error^ or inclin'd to favour thofe that are
fo^ becaufe perhaps he fs not for expreffing
himfelf as I may choofe to do^ or may have
lefs Fondnefs than Ij for certain Methods
of guarding againft apprehended Errours^
that may have been proposed : And yet
give me leave^ with Freedom_, to warn you
to beware of failing in any Part of the Ho-
nour that is due to the Lord Jefus Chrlfi^
leait you fliould at length be carry'd into a
farther Oppofition to his Truth^ and Caufe_,
and Gloryj than you had at ifirft any Ap-
prehenfion of. I think verily this may be
the rather allow'd me^ becaufe there have
been fome^ who from queftioning whether
fuch or fuch a Text would prove our Sa-
viour's Divinity^ or whether Self-Exiftence
or Independence might be fafely afcrib'd to
ChrisTj, have come by Degrees to queftion
his proper Deity^ and make him a mttv fubor-^
dlnate God^ a God by Office^ or a deify'd Crea-
ture. It will concern you'td ftop at the firft^
if you would not run to Extremity.
A T the fame Time it alfo highly Concerns
us to take heed of relling in any Know-
ledge of C H R I s T we may attain x<by with-
out heartily devoting ourfelves to his Ser-
vice^ and ingaging in his Intereft. Let us
take Care-, fo to Regard and Ufe the Son
as our Mediator^ as that we may by hira
be at laft brought back to the i'^r^^r^ the
y^ttntain of a JBlelTed Isimortality^ and to
Hz €on-
I oo The Deity
confummate Felicity with himfelf above."
Without this^ we may be affur'd our krlow-
ing him ever fo diftindly^ and any Con-
cern we may exprefs for his Honour and
JDignltjj will in the Iffue turn to but a
poor Account to us.
L E T us never think to court the Father y
by leffening the Son^ and making him his
Inferior ,* but let us^Honour the one even as we
do the other^ and reckon we detract from
both^ when we leffen either. Neither let
lis think lefs Honour due to the Bleffed Spi^
fit than either to the Father or the Son^ iince
we were as truly and as folemnly devoted
to him in our Baptifm^ as to either of them.
And Iince Father ^ Son^ and Holy Spirit are One
God^ let us rejoice with a Joy unfpeakable^
if this One God is ours. Let us earneft-
ly defire that He may be /^/? in AIL And
let us take Comfort in this Thought and
HopCj that whatever He is now in this
low degenerate World_, He will be All in
All in the Bleffed World above^ and that
"for ever and ever. Amen.
S E R M.
loi
SERMON IV.
Co LO S. II. 2.
To the acknowledgment of
the myjiery of Go d^ and
of the FATHER; and of
Christ.
N the foregoing^ the firft Verfe of Salrers-
this Chapter^ St. Paul fignifies his hall, T«e/-
,_ great Care and Concern for thefe Co- dny Lec-
lojjians whom he was writing to^ and other ^'^^'^ ' '
Chriftians in their Neighbourhood. And irv ^'^^^*
this fecond Verfe^ he intimates_, That this
Concern of his for them^ was in order to
the fecuring to them Three Things of inefti-
mable Value ; which were_, Cmfolatlon of Hearty
an Union in Love_, and the Riches of the full Af-
furance of XJnderfiandlng^ to the Acknowledgment
of the Myjiery of the Gofpel ; which Three
Things he could not hope would be pre-
ferv'd among them^ if they fell into fuch
miftaken Prmciples and Pradifes as natural-
ly broke in upon each. Tho' all Errors in
religious Matters are as much as may be to be
avoided,- yet it is manifeft there are fome that
peculiarly threaten the Comforts of a Chri-
ftian's Heartj by fhaking the Truth and Cer-
H 2 tainty
v<v^
I02 The Deity
Serm. tainty of that Gofpel Dodrine upon which it
jY^ is bottom'dj- and that are very apt to raife
Difcord amongit Brethren^ who ought to be
knit together In Lo^e ; and that the rather do
fOj becaufe of their Aptnefs to confound and
darken their Underfiandmgs ^With. refped: to the
great Mj fiery cf the Gofpel^ which ought to be
receiv'd and adher'd to^ juft as it came from
thofe that were authoriz'd to report it_, and
no otherwife.
M Y prefent Concern is with the third of
thefe_,which I would willingly do fomewhat to
promote, and that is_, your having the Riches
of a full Jffurance- of Under fiandmg of the My fiery of
the Goffel, Gladly would I contribute to your
being fully certify'd and fatisfy'd of the Truth
of the Golpel Dodrine^ as it is contained in
Scripture _, and to your being rich in the
Knowledge of it ; and fo firmly eltabHfli'd in
it^ as not to be eafily mov'd^ or liable to be
driven to and fro.
This Dodrine which Chriftians fhould
ackncivkdge^ and to which they all ought fled-
faftly to adhere^ is here calFd a Myfiery^ and
it may well be io ilyl'd, becaufe it contains
fuch Jrtiths as were hid in GoDj, and of which
we could have had no Knowledge without
the Help of a fupernatural divine Revelation ^
and which are incapable of being compre-
hended by us^ even after the utmofl: is taken
in_, that God has been pleas'd to difcover
concerning them. And. if you would know
what this Myfiery chiefly lies in^ or runs up-
on^ the Apoftle declares,, It is the Myfiery of
Gody and of the Father ^ and of Ckrlfi : Or^ of
God even the Father ^ and of C h r i s r his Son.
So that G o d's being a Father^ and having
Christ for \\i^ Son ; the mutual Relation
which there is in this refped between the
Two:
vf the So N. 103
Two,' the Foundation of this Relation3 the .Serm-
Purpofes thereby ferv'd^ and the feveral Parts jy
of the Oeconomy of our Redemption which ^,^>yr-^
depends upon it_, have fo much of a Myjhry
in them^ notwithftanding all that is reveal'd
concerning theni^ that we muft not pretend
to be free of Difficulty about thcm_, or able
fully to account for them. And yet this is
no empty_, barren Myfiery^ or fruitlefs Spe-
culation. So far is it from that^ that the Apo-
Itle prefently adds^ that In this Myftery arc
hid all the Treafures of Wifdom and Knowledge :
For fo the Senfe of what immediately foUov/s
will runj if inltead of in ivhom^ as it is in the
Text^ we turn it wherein^ as in the Margin ;
which is beftj and molt proper.
All the Treafures of Wifdom and Knowledge are
herein contain'd , but 'tis in a fort of an hld^
den manner. This My f cry is an Abyfs of Won-
dersj \n which are found all the Kiches of hea-
venly Truths in the knowing of which true
Wifdom confiits. Thefe Treajuresy which real-
ly are invaluable^ notwithftanding all that is
difcover'd about them^ are yet fo far hidden^
that we muft not pretend to fathom or com-
prehend them : But ftill they are fo far laid
open^ as that we may get all the Knov/iedge
of them that is neceffary to our Salvation.
To hear fome Men talk of G o d as a Father^
and Christ as his Son^ and the Way of his
Generation^ and Manner of Subfifting and
Ading before his Incarnation^ would tempt
one to imagine they counted themfelves Adepts^
and thought they fully underftood the whole
Matter^ and had no remaining Difficulty.
But St. Paul found a Myftery in the Go/pel Do-
Brine concerning God the Father^ and Christ
his Son, and their mutual Relation^ Concerns^
Counfelsj and Motions^ together with what
H 4 depended
lo^ The Deity
Serm^ depended thereupon. However^ that I might
jy^* here contribute to your Ellabliftiment^ I have
\y^Y^ confider'd the Deity of the Father and Son^ and
am endeavouring to Ihew that this Son is to
he honour' d^ e'ven as the Father ^ being equal to
him. And to make this the clearer^ I have
confider'd fome of the Arguments urg'd in
Proof of his being properly fohordtnate to his
Father^ in Nature^ Attributes^ and Perfedi-
ons ; And ftiall now go on.
IV. 'T I s pleaded^ That our Lord Jesus dif-
claims thofe infijjite Verfecilons which belong only
to the Supreme G O d. A?id if He wants one^ or any
of thefcy He is not G o d in the chief Senfe "**.
But I cannot fee v^hy He that was tndy God^
as well as tndy Man^ might not as Man dif-
claim fome Perfections which belong to
G o Dj and yet challenge the Deity to himfelf,
becaufe of his pofleiling the fame Perfecti-
ons as God. And as to this^ we Ihall be
able to judge the better^ by taking the par-
ticular Inltances mentioned into Confide-ji
ration.
I. ThbNj, it is faid^ T\\.2it one great and fe-
ciiUar Terfc^tion of the Deity_, is ahfolute^ unde-
ri^'^d Omnipotence ^ which is freely own'd. 'Tis
pleaded_, That he who cannot work all Miracles ^
end do whatfoenjer he lifi of himfelf without Help
from another y can ne^er be God^ becaufe he ap-
pears to be an imperfell^ defecli'ue Being co.mpara-->
tl^'cly t- ^f^'^^ 0^*^ L^^'^ confejjesy of myfelf^ I
John V. can do nothing. His Sufficiency for working Ml-
5°' racks was of God the Father. He owns^ that from
nothing
^ Emlyn\ Trades pfig. \ i
of the Son. 105
mthing that was hlmfclf^ does He draw his Tower SERii,
and Authority ; jvhich is 7J0t the Voice of Gody jy^
hut of a Man, My Father (fays he) in me does ..^/^^^/^
the Works. 6"^ that there was no divine Agent ^q^h xiv;
in and with him hut the Father ^ who only nas lo.
all Power In hlmfelf^ and needs no Ajjlftance,
'Tis reply'd^ Thar it is not at all to be
wonder'd at^ that He who was Gop from
the Beginnings condefcending to be made
Flefhj and to take upon him the Form of a
Servant^ fhould not in that Capacity do what--
ever He lifted of hiwfelf Nor is it at all fur-
prizing^ that his Manhood fhould be an im--
ferfe^y defeBlve Beings if compar'd with the
Deity. Tho' as deputed Mediator ^ 2idi\n^
by Commiffion^ He could not do whatever
he lifted of hlmfelf yet it being by him as
G O D that all Things were created^ that are in /-. j | ^^
Heaven^ and that are In Earthy vlfible a?id Invl^
fihky we may very well conclude,, that He
could not want Sufticlenc^ for working any Mi-
racles that were neceflary to fhew his Glory
forth^ as there was Occafion. Tho' the Sif-
fciency of his humane Nature to work Mira-
cles ^ was of God the Father^ yet was it his own
as well as his Father s Gloryj that was manl- John iL
fefted forth by the Miracles He wrought. Tho' n.
his fayingj Of myfelf I can do nothings really
was the Voice of a Man i yet his faying^ I am Rev. L 8,
the Almighty^ (of which before * ) was molt
certainly r^e Voice of Gob. And tho' it was
the Father that was In him that did the Works ;
yet did not that exclude his own Agency.
For our Lord therefore intimates to Philip^ r^^^ ^•^;
that it was his Father In him that did the Works ^ \q - u, '
on purpofe to convince him^ that He was in
the Father^ and the Father In him. It was this
way
jo6 The Deity
SERM.way made evident_, not only that the Father
jY^ 72^.^s in hlm^ but that He allOj (the Son^ was
^^v^;^ In the Father^ the Father and Son having one
and the fame ElTence. And fo alfo^ when it
is faid_, Jl:>e Son can do nothing of hlmfelf^ hut
•ivhat he feeth the Father do -^ 'tis added_, -whatfo-
ez>er Things He (the Fatker doth , thefe alfo doth
the Son likewlfe : The Father is in the Son^ and
the Son is in the Father^ by an Identity of
Will and Operation j both of them willing
and doing the fame Things : And they are
alfo in one another^ by an Equality ot Ho-
TiouTy and an Infeparablenefs of Worihip.
And whereas it \^ faid^ There was no D/-
njine Agent in and with the Son hut the Father_,
^ that AiTertion is much too pofitive. For the
Sfirlt alfb had a Concern in our Lord's mi-
raculous Works. And yet if the Father and
5o« wrought together^ I don't fee any Rea-
fon for thelealt Sufpicion^ that the latter
had not the very fame Power with the for-
mer. And therefore Faufiinm a noted Writer
of the IVth Century^ in his Difcourfe againlt
the Arians ^^ defies them to mention a7ty
one Thing done hy the Father^ that was not aljb
done hy the Son : And Itrenuoufly argues with
them^ That He mufi be Almighty^ hecaufe He
did ivhatfoever was dene hy his Almighty Far-
ther.
2. Another Perfedion that is reprefent-
ed as neceifary in the Deity^ is Sup-eme and
Ahfolute Goodnejs^ which alfo it is fa id oitr Lord.
Jefus exprefsly dlfclaims f. For we are told^
Matth^ J^f^ f^^^ ^^ hlm^ Why callefi thou me Good i
xix. 17.* T^^^'^^ i^ ^^^^ g^^^ ^^t One^ and that is God.
Where
* Cap. 3. p. 120.
t Emljins Trads, //T^. 13-
of the So N-; 107
where He dlfiingtnjljes himfelf from God^ a^ mt Serm»
the fame 'with bim^ and denies of hlmfdf -what \\l .
He affirms of God : And challenges the Man for
frefuming to fay what feem'd to attribute to him -
the FerfeBion of Supreme infinite Goodnefs^ and
leads him off to ayiotber^ who^ ajjd -who only^ was
more eminently fo. And he that pleads in this
manner for his own belov'd Hypothefts^ de-
clares himfelf afionl^^d to fee ivhat Violence is
off'e/d to the Sacred Text^ by fuch as maintain
the Equality of Jefus Chrifi to God his Father.
But if we on our Side were difpos'd to be
afionlfiidy there is Room and Ground enough
for it_, upon our finding fo great a Strefs
laid upon what fo little deferves or can
bear it. For what could be more ridiculous
than to infmuate as if Christ could not
be G o Dj, or be intitled to an equal Honour
with hi^ Father y becaufe He was not free to
be call'd Good by fuch as thought him no
more than a Man ? Or becaufe he took that
Occalion to inftrud them in the infinite
Diftance there is ^ between the Elfential
Perfedions of the Divine Nature^ and the
Goodnefs of Creatures ? Our Lord would have
this Young Man^ either know him to be
G o Dj or not call him Good, When this Per-
fon made his Application^, he only incend-
ed to own and honour Christ as a Good
Man 3 but He would lead him to own and
honour him as a Good God. And what is there
in this that needs furprize us? For my Part^
I can't fee that when our Lord faid to him^
Why caUefi thou me Good ^ it muft necelfarily
be a Reproof : It might as well to the full
be defign'd for his Convidion^ and to car-
ry him on farther : And a Reach of this
kmd w^as no v/ay unbecoming. But when
Perfons are once fix'd in a Notion^ from
which
The Deity
which they determine not to be mov'd^ they
find it a wonderful eafy Thing to confirni
themfelves from any Thing almoit that comes
in their way.
;. Another neceffary Perfection in the
Dcity^ is ahfolute Omnlfcience ^ or unlimited Know-
ledge of all Things pafiy prefent and to come. And
this infinite Knowledge it is pleaded_, our Lord
^efus Cbrlfi had not ; particularly as to Things
Harkxlii. ftiture ,• fiueh as the Day of Judgment. For^ fays
32. He_, of that Day knows no Man^ no^ not the An-
gels In Hea'ven^ nor the Son_, hut the Father only.
And it is faid_, That here the Son profefjes his
Knowledge to he limited^ and Inferior to the Fa-
ther'j : And intimates^ That He could not he
God Infinite^ and yet have hut a finite Under-
fianding ^ or he equal In KnovAedge to the Fa-
ther^ and yet not know as much as the Father :
And thatj If He was not an Infinite God when
(m Earthy He cannot he fuch afterwards f .
And this being a Plea in which fome
have been much difpos'd to triumph_, I fhall
confider it the more particularly^ and dilate
upon it the more freely \.. This Text muft^
I grants be own d to have its Difficulty. And
Matth. the Parallel Text in St. Matthew agrees in
xxiv. 36. confining the Knowledge of the Day and
Hour of the lait Judgment^ to the Father on-
ly. That Men fhould not know it^ need not
at all feem Itrange. For thofe of them that
know the moft^ know but in Part ; and the
Part they know is not to be compar'd with
that Part of which they are ignorant. Nor
have we any great Occafion to be furpriz'd
that the Angels fhould be faid not to know
before-
* Emlyn\ Trads, pag. 15, i^-
i See on this Argument Mr. Jofeph Bcyfe's Vind. of
our Saviour s Deity. 3d Edit, p, 92, 93, ^c.
of the S o N. 109
vx>r^.
beforehand the pr^cife Time of the Day Serm,
of Judgment : For tho' they are in Hea- jy
ven_, and by being fo have an Opportunity
of knowing many Things that are hidden
and concealed from us^ yet their Know-
ledge as well as ours is limited and
bounded. They can know no more thaa
what God is pieas'd to communicate to
them y and as fagacious as they are^ they
cannot pry into luch Things as He_, upon
whom they intirely depend^ thinks fit to
keep hidden and fecret. But that the Son^
whofe Omnifcience is more than once alTerted
in Scripture^ with great Pofitivenefs^ (and
who if he lays claim to a proper Divinity^
or an equal Honour with the Father ^ mult of
Necellity have that as well as other infinite
Excellencies belonging to him ) that He
fiiould be faid not to know the Day and Hour
of the laft Judgment ^ and that He himfelf
ihould afcribe the Knowledge thereof to his
Father^ to the Exclufion of himfelf, muft be
own'd to have a peculiar Afped^ and we may
well be uneafy^ till we find fome way to
folve the Difficulty.
It has been here faid^ That the Intention
of our Saulour in this FaJJage^ ts to declare that
AS the Father aloj^e Is God unoriginate^ ani
of himfelf ^ and as He is alfo the alone Foun-
tain of all Tower^ fo He is llkewlfe the alone
Fountain of all Knowledge ^ in fo much that no
one knows any Things no not e'ven the Son himfelf^
hut hy Communication from him *. And to thi^
Purpofe Irenaus and Bafil are quoted upoii
us^ with great Pomp tj as the bcft Comments
on
• ComiBent. on Forty feledl Texts, /». 171.
J Scripture Do(^rine^ N©. 773;>.
iio The Deity
Serm. ^^ the Words referr'd to. Irmaus as to this
JY^ Matter exprefles himfelf thus : Our Lord blm-^
\y^'sr^ fi^f ^^^ ^^^ ^f ^^^j acknowledgeth that the Fa-
ther only knew the Day and Hour of Judgment •
declaring exfrefsly that of that Day and Hour
kno-weth no Man^ neither the Son_, hut the Father
only. Now if the Son himfelf jv as not ajham^d to
leanje the Knowledge of that Day to the Father^
Iftit plainly declared the Truth ^ neither ought we
to he a^amd to lea've to God fuch ^ueftlons as
are too high for us. For If any one enquires why
the Father^ who communicates In all Things to the
Son_, is yet hy our Lord declared to know alone
that Day and Hour ; He cannot at prefent find
any fitter^ or more decent ^ or Indeed any other fafe
Anfwer at ally than this ^ that the Father is a-
hove all : For the Father ^ faith He^ ^ greater
than J. The Father therefore is hy our Lord de^
clar'd to he Superior c-ven In Knowledge alfo^ to
this End that we^ while we continue In this World y
may learn to acknowledge God only to ha^ve per^
fe^ Knowledge y and lea've fuch ^efilons to htm •
and put a Stop to our Prefumptlon^ leafi curloufiy
enquiring perhaps farther into the Greatnefs of the
Father^ we run at lafi Into fa great a Danger ^ as
to ask jvhether even above God^ there he not ano^
ther God *. But the Learned Dallle who was a
very good judge_, tells us f^ That thefe Words
of his y look as If they would very hardly he reconciled
to any good Senfe, St. Bafil alfo exprefles him-
felf thus : As to the ^efi^ion put hy many^ con-
cerning thofe Words in the Gofpel^ that our Lord Je-*
fm
* Ireyt. Lib. 2. cap. 48, 49. And the Remarks of
Dr. TVaterlnnd, on this Paflage of that Father, Defence
cf fome Queries, p. 105, deferve penifing. ,
t Treatife of the Right Ufcof thf Fathers, Boo^lll
of the Son. m
fus Chrlfi knew not the Day and Hour of the End —
That ivhlch I ha^je been taught from a Child ^ of
thofe who went before me^ is this ^ "That as we
underfland thofe tVords^ There is none Good but
Oney that is God^ to be fioken by the Son_, not
42S excluding hlmfelf from being Partaker of the.
Nature of Good^ but only fuppofing the Father fa
he the frft Good • and by the Word none^ mean-
ing no other firfi Good ,• but that himfelf is the.
fecond : So m thefe Words ^ No Man knoweth^ ivs
believe our Lord meant to ascribe to the Father
the firfi Knowledge of Things frefent and future^
and to declare to the World that He is In all
Things the firfi Caufie. — Neither the Son but the
Father ,• — That is^ the Caufie of the Son'/ Know-
Udge is from the YdiXh^T \ fior his Knowledge is gi'vat
him from the Father. Thus^ Rev. i. i. The Reve-
lation of Jefus Chrifl: which God gave unto
him. And it is mofi proper and decent to affirm
conceriting the Son^ that from whom He recei'ves his
Dl'vine Efifince^ from him alfio He deri'ves his
Knowledge *.
But as to thefe two Paffages cited^ I can-
not fee why they fliould be look'd upon as
decifive in the Cafe. As for the fir ft of them
from Irenausy Dr. Waterland f^ and Bifhop Bull
before him 1^ in my Apprehenfion_, give good
Reafon to think he has been miftaken^- and
fliew that if he attributed any Ignorance to
C H R I s Tj, 'twas in Refped of his Humane
Nature only. And tho' St. Bafil appears
pofitive, yet 'tis very poffible if his Works
were fearch'd with Stridnefs^ (for which I
cannot
* Ad Amphiloch. Ep. 391.
t Defenfe of fome Qaeiies, f. loi, 103.
i Bulii Def. Fid. Nic. p. 82, Comp. Br^v. Auinudv?
yx G. CL jf>, 1056.
112 The D E I T T
Serm, cannot fay that I have either Time or Incli-
jy^ nation^) fomewhat might be found that
\^r>J^sj might quahfy his Affertion. I am the ra-
ther inclin'd to be of that Mind^ becaufe
St. Gregory Naz^lanTjen "^^ who does not ufe
in thefe Matters to differ from St. Baftly
exprefsly tells us^ That the Son knows the
J)ay and Hour^ as G o d^ hut Is Ignorant of it as
Man. But I think it may well difcourage
us from being led by Names in a Matter of
fuch Importance as this^ to obferve that the
greateft Men had their Blemifhes and Er-
rors : And even Dr. Clarke himfelf declares_,
That he does not cite fuch Palfages as thefe
as Troofsy hut as lllufiratlons only •(* j and yet
I can t fee how they can be regarded as J/-
lufirationsy if they are found to clafti with
Scripture^ as thele Paffages will be found to
do^ if taken as the DoSor declares himfelf
for underltanding them.
Others have reckoned that our BleiTed
Saviour drop'd the PalTage objeded^ in a
way of prudential Oeconomy^ and declar'd him*
lelf ignorant of the Day a?id Hour of the lafi Judg-
ment , on Purpofe that He might divert his
Difciples from enquiring concerning it. But
let our Lord's V>di\^rL in mentioning it be
what it would^ what He declares mull be
in itfelf ftridly true^ or elfe He was guilty
of a downright Falfhood^ than which no Re-
flexion upon him could be more grofs^ or
lefs deferv'd. There muft be a Senfe in
which the Son really was ignorant of the
Day and H^our of the laft Judgment^ or elfe
this Declaration of his falls to the Ground ,•
and
* Orat. 3^.
t Inrrodudiqn to Scripture godrine; fag, xvi^'
of the S ON. 113
^nd we are not a little difcourag'd from de- Serm.
pending on what came from him upon other jy
Occafions. IfiJore of Damietta^ '^ was of O- ^y^\r^
pinion_, That all that was figniffd by cur Lord's
not knowing the Day and Hour of the lafi 'Judg-
ment^ was that He was willing to avoid anfwer-
ing unprofitable ^ejtlons. But whether He waS'
difpos'd to anfwer or no^ when He declard
as to fomething that was particularly men-
tioned^ that He did not know ir^ it mull
be own'd if He fpake truly^ that He was *
in fome Senfe ignorant of it.
The right and indeed the only way of
folving the Matter^ I take to be this : That
tho' our BlefTed Saviour as He was One God
-with the Father^ knew the Day and Hour of
the laft Judgment as well as the Father^ yet
as He was Man^ and the Father's Agent and
Deputy^ and acted under the Influence of
the Sfirit in his difcharging his Office^ He
did not know the particular Day and Hour of the
final Judgment that was to come^ but refer-
red It wholly to the Father. In my Appre-
henfion Dr. Lightfoot f has explain'd this
Matter much better than either of the Fa-
thers mention'd. It is one Things fays he^ to
underfland the Son of God barely and ahfira^ly
for the fecond Terfon In the Holy Trinity ,* and
another to under fiand him for the Mellias^ or
that fecond Terfon Incarnate, To fay the Second
Ferfon in the Trinity knows not fomething^ is blaf-
fhemous ; to fay fo of the Meffias Is vot fo^ who
nenjerthelefs -was the fame with the Second Perfon
In the Trinity, For altho' the Second Terfon ab-
fira^ly confider'd according to h:s mcer Dity^ waf ■
1 Cc-equal
* Ifid. Pelus. Lib. i. Eplftol. Ep. 117-
J See his Works, Vol. 11. p i^i-
The Deity
Co-equal "ivltb the Father^ Co-omnipotent ^ Co-om"
nifcient^ Co-eternal with hhn^ &c. Tet Meflias
who was God-Man^ confiderd as Meffias_, was
a Sewant ajid Meffenger of the Father^ and re-
ceived Commands and Authority from the Father.
And thofe ExpreJJions^ the Son can do nothing of
hrmfelfy Szc, will not in the leaf fer^ve the A-
rians turn^ if you take them i7t this Senfe^
which you mti'fi necejjarlly do j Meffias can do no-
thing of hlmjelfy becah'fe He is a Ser^vant and a
Deputy- But we mttft diflingmjh between the
Excellencies and Verfettions . of thrift which flow-
ed from the Hypoflatical Union of the t7vo Na-
tures ^ and thofi which flow''d from the Donation
and anointing of the Holy Spirit. From the Hy-
fofiatical Union of the Natures flowed the Infinite
Dignity of his Terfon^ lots Im'peccability y his Infi-
nite Self 'Sufficiency to perform the Law^ and to
fatisfy the Di^vine Juftice. From the anointing of
the Spirit flow'^d his Toyver of Miracles ^ his Fore-
knowledge of Things to come^ and all Kind of
Knowledge of E'vangelick Myfteries. Thofe ren-
dred him a fit and perf eel' Redeemer ^ thefe a fit
aitd perfeB AFinifler of the Gofpel. So that thofe
Things which were re^eal'd by Chrifi to his
Churchy He had them from the Reuelatlon of the
Spirit y not from that Union. Nor is it any De-
rogation or DetraBion from the Dignity of his Per^
fony that He faith y He knew not the Day and
Hour^ (j^^ : Tea it excellently agrees with his Office
and Deputation^ who being the Father'^ Ser'vanty
Meffenger and Miniftery followed the Orders of the
Father^ and obeyed him in all Things,
There is yet another Way that has been
taken to folve the Matter^ and that is^ an
holding the Word that alTum'd the humane
Nature in the Perfon of C h r i s t^, to be qui-
ejcenty or at reft^ during hisMiniftry^ and not
so exert his Energy and Power. According
tQ
of the So N. 11^
to which Notion^ 'tis thought^ that the iW^;? Serm.
Cbrlft Jefusy might not know the Day of jy
Judgment^ tho' the IVord himfelf did know
it. And this is the Way of Dr. Eennet^ who
intiiiiates_, That we cant gi've any tolerable Ac-
count of our Saviour'j not knowing the Day of
yudgmenty without fupfofing the Quiefcence of
the Word ; and that all the Dtfficufty that can be
pretended J does Inftantly "vanlJJ) upon the AdmlJJt-
on of that fingle Suppofit'ion *. And therefore
he feems to apprehend himfelf very happy^
in having fallen into this way of Think-
ing. But befides • that the Authority upon
which the Doctor built this his darling No-
tion of the ^uiefcence of the Word (which he
reprefents as almofi as old as Chriftlanity itfelf)
is weak and defedive^ and feems attended
with a Miltake f ; I muft acknowledge I am
at a Lofs to difcover^ how this can give us
any new Lights or any farther Help than we
had before. For either this Notion when it
comes to be fcann'd^ agrees with the com-
mon Sentiment of our Reformed Divines^
That tho' the Son diftmdly knew the Day
and Hour of the laft Judgment as He was
G o Dj, yet He was ignorant of it as he was
Man ,• or it differs from it. If at the bottom
it differs from it^ I doubt it will upon Search
be found to draw ill Confequences after it 4..
And if it agrees with it^ and in Reality at lait
amounts to no more than that carries In
itj then have we a great Noife made about
I 2 this
* See his Difcourfe of the Ever-bleffed Trinity
in Unity, fag. 128.
t See Modeft Plea for the Baptifmal and Scriptural
Notion of the Trinity, Chnf. yi.-p. 89.
+ See Mr. John Hughes's Remarks on Dr. 'Bsnn:t\
Pifcourfi? of the T Ri ^■ I T V, fng. 14^ ^q.
ii6 The Deity
Serm. t:his as a Difcovery^ to but little Purpofe,
jy * and without any difcernable Advantage. I
\^^^^y^l^ cannot therefore fee why we may not ilick
to the old Way of explaining the Matter.
Our Bleffed Lord knew not the Day and
Hour of the future Judgment as He was Man^
tho' as God He was diftin6Hy acquainted
with it^ and foreknew it. This is the Senfe
in which it was underftood by feveral of the
Ancients y with whom a great Number of Mo-
derns^ of as great Worth as could well be men-
tion'dj readily concurr.
Among the Ancients ^ 111 particularly give
you the Words of St. Hilary , who upon pro-
ducing this objeded Text^ returns this for
Anfwer : That as Many our Lord is Jaid to
have wepty and Jlept^ and been fad^ tho^ as God_,
He Tvas not liable to Tears or Sleeps or Fear. And
as it was after the Infirmity of bis Flejhy that He
"was under a Necejfity of enduring Weepings Sleeps
ffanty fVearinefsy and Fear ^ fo alfo was it accord-
ing to his humane Nature ^ that He profefs^d Ignc-
ranee of that Day and Hour '^. And in another
Place He fays^ That He that bore our InfirmitieSy
took alfo to himfelf the Infirmity of humane Igno-
ranee. He knew not the lafi Dayy jufi as He kne^v
not the Sepulchre of Lazarus ^ and knew not the
Woman that touched the Hem of his Garment t»
And he is far from being herein alone -^ for
this alfo is the Senfe of St. Cyrily St. Chryfofiom^
Athanafiusy Theodorety Gregory Naz^ianz^en, and
the great Thotius 4.. And among the Moderns y
tho' it is well known that Fetavim was no
mighty Enemy to the Ariansy he yet ownsj,
that
'^ Hi!.. Lib. IX. de Trinit, ndfinem.
t De Trinit. Lib. X. p. 191.
i See Suiceri Ihefnur. im Voce Ke/Vo, Ket/AH, Ktlftf^
of the S o n] 117
that they could not from this objeded Text Serm.
fetch any folid Arguments for the Inequality of jy
the Son to the Father '^. And here at Home
among ourfelvcs^ Til mention one of no fmall
Note_, and he a Perfon that is often repre-
fented by thofe of the new Scheme^ as not
a little inclin d to favour them , I mean Arch-
bifhop Tillotfon, who in my Opinion has very
well explained this difficulty objeded Text^
when he fays^ It Is certain that Chrift as God^
could not he ignorant of any Thing , but the Di'vlne
Wi.jdom which dwelt In oar Sa'viour^ did commu-
nicate Itfelf to his humane Soul^ according to the
divine Pleafure. So that his humane Nature might
at fome Tiroes not know fome Things. And there-
fore Chrift Is [aid to grow In Wlfdom j which He
could not he faid to doy if the humane Nature of
Chrift did necejjarlly know all Things ^ by Virtue of
its Union with the Divinity.
A N D in Reality^, upon the clofeft Confide-
ration,, I cannot fee why we ihould any
more be furpriz'd^ that Christ ihould be
faid not to know fome Things_, than that He
fhould be faid to groip and improve^ to be
hungry and thirfty^ tO take pains^ and wee^^
and grieve y and he forrowful. Thefe Things
all Itand upon the fame Foot^ and are In-
ftances and Effeds of his Humanity ; but no
juft Arguments againft his Divinity.
'T I s altogether paft my Skill to difcern^
how it can any way become us to endeavour
to break through fuch a Difficulty as this^
by calling in queftion any Thing that is ab-
iolutely certain. Now if we believe the Scri-
ptures^, I don't fee how any thing can be
I 3 more
* Vld. Petnvii Dogm. TheoUg. De Trtnitate, Lib. IL
can. iii. Sed. 11.
'ii8 Th^ DEixr
Serm. niorc certain^ than that our Saviour was Ow-
IV- »{/^^'^'^'*- ^^ ^^"w dvjelt all the Ftdlnefs of the God-
s.^/'^^/^su ^^^^- ^ great and a very necefTary Part of
Col. ii. o. thsitF/dlnefshsid been wanting^had he not been
properly Omnljcient. For any Degree of Igno-
rance IS moll certainly an Imperfedion^ and
argues liich an Emptinefs as cannot confift
with all the Fullnefs of the Godhead. Unlels there-
fore we own his Omnlfclence^ we make him
defective and imperfed. And we have very
good Reafon to own it^ fmce we find it free-
ly afcrib'd to him by one that had all ima-
ginable Advantage to know him_, and whofe
Work and Bufinefs it was to make him known
to the World -^ I mean St. Tetevy who upon
our Lord's feveral times putting the Quelti-
on to him^ Whether or no he lov'd hlm'^
Tohn xxl. ^""^^de this Anfwer^ Lord^ thou knoweft aU Things ^
ij^ Thou knoweft that I love Thee. 'Tis a vain
thing to talk here of a relative OrKnifclence^
for the Apoftle afcribes no lefs to Christ
than an abfolute Ofnnlfcience. He intimates^
that his beloved Malter^ did as much^ and as
truly^ and as certainly know all Things^ a§
the ::cn himfelf To offer to fay^ that Peter
\va,s deceiv'd when he made this Declara-
tion^ is without any Foundation. He could
not be deceiv'd in fuch a Thing as this was^
v/ithout venting a down-right Blafphemy in
his Malter's Favour^ and alcribing to him an
infiiiite Knowledge^ which belonged to God
alone. Nor could it be fuppos'd^ if he had
overltrain'd^ that our Lord would have dif-
cover'd himfelf fo pleas'd^ as He appears to
be^ in prefently adding a Charge to feed his
Sheep^ which is a WorJ^ ajid Office for which
he had been utterly unfit^ had he afcrib'd to
C-R-Ri'ST a Knowledge that was infinite_,
wi.ite in Reality He had none but what was
Itraitly
of the S o N.
Uraitly bounded and limited. And yet the
Text objected fets a plain bound to his
Knowledge^ and tells us of fomething to
which it does not extend^ and that \^ the
precife Time of the Day of Judgment.
There muft therefore be one Senfe in which
He knows all Things^ and another Senfe^
in which there are fome Things of which
He is ignorant. And the Perfon as to whom
thefe different and oppofite Allertions are
advanc'dj (and that in the Sacred Scriptures
themfelves) being both God and Man at once^,
nothing can be more natural than to hold^
that it is as God that all Things were known
to him j whereas ^j Man He might be igno-
rant of fomething capable of being known ^
and particularly of the Day a?td Hour of ths
lafi ^judgmeyit.
Our Lord partaking of a douhU Nature y
had a double JJnderfiaiiding ^ ^- the one Infi-
nitCj the other Finite ,• the one Divine^ and
the other Humane ^ the one Omnifcientj and
t\\^ other capable of Ignorance. In the one
He differs not from the Father^ tho' He
does in the other. When therefore He is
faid to know all Things^ we are to take it
as meant of his Dhume Ujjderfianding ; and
when his km^vlng any Thing is de?jyd^ we arc
to take it asjmeant o{ his Human Under fi and-
Ing. And that this was our Saviour's true
meaning in the Text referred to^ is plain
from Two Things.
I. Because He fpeaks of himfelf as He
differed from the Father^ and had an Under-
I 4 Handing
* Ses Placsel Difput. de Divina Jefu Clirifti EflQti-
tla. Pav. HI. p. 198.
I20 The Deity
Serm. landing that was feparate from his^ which
JY^ was only as He was Man. And^
^^/->^rij 2. Because his denying his knowing
the precife Day and Hour cf the laft Judg-
nient in that Capacity _, was fufficient to
check the Curiofity of the Apoilles^ whom
it little became to defire to know more^
than the Son himfeh" knew as He was Man,
Fcr as to what was proper to his Deity
which was truly adorable^ tho' with refpedt
to that He knew all Things without Excep-
tion^ yet could they not be fuppcs'd in-
fenlible that nothing of that Nature belong-
ed to them^ and that it would be altogether
unwarrantable for them to afpire after it. But
that fubtle Writer CrelU/fs here advances Three
ThiiigSj tho' I cannot perceive they could
help him to reach his End,
I. He faysj That our Saviour in the Tex^
objec^led^ fimply and without any Limitation de-
nies his knowing the Day and Hour of the
lalt Judgment^ and therefore denies it In
all Refpicts ^. But a Thing may be laid dowii
fi^'!^{y3 ^ii^ there may be no Limitation ex-
frcjYd ^ and yet one may neceflarily be
i?npiyd. Thus our Lord Jesus without
Matth. i. any Limitation exprefs'd ^ is Laid to bef
I- the Son of David ,• and of the Seed of David ;
a Tim. 11. p. ^j^ yet fuch a Limitation is to be under-
^- .. ilood ^ as according to the FteJJj ^ and both
Acts II. g^^ j.^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ 1^^^^ cxprefs'd it ac-
^°'^^j^^ cordingly : But at other Times a Thing
^xix'.s*. *-^^y ^^ exprefs'd ih, as that there maybe
jio good Reafon to "be given^ why any Limi-
tation ihould be unaerftood. Now when
Christ denies his knowing the Day of
Crellius de Uno Deo. Lib. I. Sed. 2. cap. 9,
of the S o N.^ 121
Judgment^ tho' no Limitation be exprefs^d^ Serm.
yet there is fair Room for fuppoling one to jy
be underftood : Nay there is a plain Neceflity ;^^yr>^
of it^ to keep that one Text from clafhing
with feveral others. I can't fee why we may
not underftand it according to the FlejJj^ .- as
well as when He is faid to have been the
Son^ or of the Seed of David. In like manner
our Lord^ when the Time of his Crucifixion
drew near^ cries out fimply^ and without any Joh. xvilJ
Limitation^, noiJJ I am no more in the World : And 1 1.
yet that we are to underftand that Saying
of his with a Limitation^ i$ plain from that Matth:
noted Promife ^ Lo^ I am ivith you alivays ^-xxvauxoa
'ven to the End of the World. But the fame Au-
thor farther urges_,
2. T H A T the funple Name of the Son us'd
in the Text objeded in Oppofition to G o d
the Father^ and the Gradation that is obferva-
ble^ when our Lord afcends from Angels to
the Sony and from the Son to the Father ^ makes
it plain that He fpeaks of himfelf in that
Nature^ according to which He is the Son
of God. But this is not Self-evident. We
cannot gather this^ from his mentioning the
Son^ in Oppofition to God the Father. For
the Apoftle plainly intimates to us^ that the
Son may be confider'd Two feveral Ways ; ei-
ther according to the Flejlo^ or according to the Spi-
rit of Holme fs : Either as He was the Son of
David^ or as He was the Son of God, And
therefore fomewhat may be faid of him ac-
cording to the FlejJjy and not as He is the Son of
Gody without any Inconfiftency. And as for
the Gradation^ from Angels to the Son^ and
From the So?i to the Father ^ that i$ from
perfons to Perfons_, and not to Natures.
Now the Perfon of the Son was more excel-
If lie than Jngelsj and with his Humane Un-
" ' derltanding
122 The T>mrY
derftanding he knew fome Things that were
not reveal'd to Angds. And thenj,
3. The fame Author was alfo for laying
a Strefs upon St. Matthew'^ faying that it was
the Father otily that knew the Day and Hour
of the lait Judgment : And He reckons the
Expreffion of St. Mark to be equivalent^
when He fays ^ Neither doth the Son know^
but the Father : The Father being opposed
to the Son himfelf Now ( fays he ) had
Christ known the Day of Judgment ac-
cording to his Divine Nature_, then 7tot the
Father onlj^ but the Son alfo would have
known it ^ ay^ and the Hcly Spirit too. But
it may be reply'd that the Word only added
to the Father J did indeed exclude from the
Knowledge mention'd^ the Son as He was
Man^ but not as He was God; for fo He
was 072C with the Father. And befides, the
excluding the Son as He was God^ would have
carry 'd in it a manifeft Contradidion to
thofe Texts^ in which He is faid to have
known all Things. But then as the Son
was not excluded, fo neither could the Ho-
ly Ghoft be excluded^ of whom we are toldj,
I Cor. ii. That He fearcjjeth all Things^ even the deep
,10, II. xhings of God. For 7i^hat Man knoweth the Things
of a Man^ fave the Spirit of a Man which is iit
him ? E-ven fo the Things of God knoweth no
Man^ hut the Spirit of God. When a Man
knows any Things can the Spirit which is in
him be ignorant of it ? How then fhould
the Spirit of God be ignorant of what is
known to God '^. And if the Spirit could
not be excluded from the Knowledge of the
Time of the Day of Judgment^ when the
Father is faid to knov/ it_, much lefs could
the Son be ignorant of it. And this we may
the rather conclude^ becaufe the knowing^
of the
Son/
of the Day in which He was to a(5t the Part
of Judge of Quick and Dead^ as much be-
long'd to his Office^ as any one Thing that
could be mention'd.
But Mr. Emlyn^ who in. all his Trac5ls_,
generally falls in with Crelllm^ and borrows
not a httle from him, tho'^Ihave not ob-
ferv'd he's fo frank as to own it_, Itiil in-
fifts_, and objeds^
I. That tf Chrifi was the Supreme God m
any Nature of hts owriy He could 7iOt in any Con-'
Jifiency with Truth and Sincerity ^ fay that himfclf
did not know the Things which himfelf did knovf
'very well^ as he fure if He was the Supreme God^
He did ,* for this were to make him fay what
Is mof falfe^ and to equi-vocate in the mofl de-
ceitfull manner. For tho^ we jlmild fuppofe He
cvnfified of Two infinitely difiant Natures ^ and fo
had two Capacities of Knowledge ^ yet fince Hlmfelf
tncludes them both^ it follows that the - denying a
Thing of Himfelf in abfolute Terms ^ without any
Limitation in the Words ^ or other ob^viom Circum-
fiances y does plainly imply a Denial of its belong-
ing to any fart of his Perfon^ or any Nature in
it *. But fuppofmg two Natures in Christ^,
(which is the ground we go upon) it has
been already fhewn^ that with refped: to his
Divine Nature^ his being without the Know-
ledge of the Time of the Day of Judgment,
is by no Means to be allow'd ^ becaule then
He would have wanted an effential Part of
the Fulnefs of the Godhead ^ which it is faid
dwelt in him : Nor could He have been faid
to have all Things that the Father hath ; for
He would not have had that Knowledge
which properly belonged to the Divinity :
Nor
t TrAds, p. 17.
The Deity
Nor would St. Teter have fpoken Truth^ when
He faidj He knew all Thhjgs without Excepti-
on. Our Lord therefore could only fpeak of
himfelf with Rclped to his Humane Nature^
when He declared He knew not the Day of
Judgment. And in fo expreffing himfelf
He "^was fincere _, and not chargeable with
an Equivocation. And a Limitation ( as
has been before obferv'd) was imply'd^ tho'
not exprefs'd. And if He was at once both
Qod and Aian^ He moft certainly might
own his Ignorance as Man ^ and yet as
God^ might in Knowledge as well other Per-
fedions '^be equal to his Father, For no good
Argument can be drawn from ufual Exprel^
fions as to a Perfon that has but one Na-
ture^ tho' feveral Parts^ to what may be faid_,
by^, or of^ one that in one and the fame Per-
fon has two Natures joined. But^
a. Mr: E??2lyn alfb objeds, that in the
Text cited^ our Lord does not put the Dlft'm-
H'lon or Oppojttion betweep the Son of Man^ and
ike Eternal Word^ hut between the Son and h'ls
Father : Sayings not the Son knowsy but only
the Father : By which (he fays) Its plain ^ He
had 710 thought of including any ferfon or Nature
cf his own among the excepted : For whatez/er
7i;as not the Father_, he fays 7ms ignorant of that
Day *. But our Saviour was diilind from
his Fat'her^ both as He was the Eternal Word,
and as He was the Son of Man. And there-
fore when He denies of himfelf in Oppofi-
tion to I;!s Father^ Ibmething that He could
not with Truth deny of himfelf in one Ca-
pacity ^ tho' He could in the other^ it is
but a decent Piece of Refped to him^ zq
fuppofe
* Hrficls] p. 19, 2©.
of the So N. 12$
fuppofe him in fuch aDenialj to be fpeak- g^RMw
ing of himfelf in that Capacity in which jy^
only He could confiftently with Truth , ,^r\j^
give forth fuch a Denial. He urges far- ^
ther^
g. That our Liter pretat ion 'ji>ould make all^
even the mofi pLiin Speec/j mtcertam and Infignl-^
ficant : And that Jefifs Chrlft could In no Words y
in briefs ha-ve denied hhnjelf to he God mofi
H'lgh^ if He had a mind to- do If^ more plain
and full than thefe : For that let him have faid
whatever He would ^ we jJwuld fill I have faidy
It was to be under fiood cf htm as Man only \
It is reply'd that when our BlelTed Lord h
in the Writings of the New Tefiament fo of-
ten declar'd to be God as well as Man^ 'tis
altogether unreafonable^ and tends to de-
llroy the Credit of thofe Writings^ to offer
to fuppofe him capable of profeiling him-
felf not to be Go d. The Apoftle is pofi-
tive^ The Word was God^ as well as that the John L i2
Word was made Flejli. There's not the leaft *4*
Room for that Writer's Suppofition^ That
He could have a mind to deny himfelf to be God.
For what were that but to contradid him-
felf and his Apoitles^ and the whole Cur-
rent of the Writmgs cf the New Ttfiame-nt
at once. But if we muft fuppofe luch a
Things as that our Lord fhouid be difpos'd
to diiclaim his own Deity^ and deny him-
felf to be the molt High G o d^ He needed
but have faid^ that whatever He was be-
fore He appear'd in this lower Worlds and
whatever Glory He fhouid receive in Con-
fequence of his Incarnation and Sufferings,
He ftill was and fhouid be but a Crea-
ture :
* Xr-4^/, p. 20^ 21,
126 The Dei ty
Serm. ^"^^ • ^^^ -^^ ^^^^ ^^y Thing to this Pur-
jy * pofe^ it could not by any one have been
y^m^J.^! pretended ^ that it was to be underftood
^^^^'^^'^ of him as Man only. And therefore I '
think that Author's Aliertion^ that is found-
ed upon our Lord's declaring his not know-
ing the Day and Hour of the laft Judg-
mentj That the BkjJ'ed Jeftis has declared him-
felf not to he the Supreme Gody or equal to the
Father^ as plainly as Words could ffeak^ is fo
far from being fafe^ that it deferves Dete-
fiation. And^
4. He farther objecfts^ That our Way of
Interpretation may he turned againfi ourfelz'es :
And that if it be jufi and true to deny ofChrlfi^
ahfolutelyy what belongs to him in one J^Jature^
hecaufe there Is another Nature in whieh it he^
longs not to him ^ then may we as 7vell fay that
He is not God equal to the Father^ becaufe He
IS not fo as Man^ as that He knew not the Time
of the lafi Judgment y becaufe as Man He did
not know it *. I anfwer with the Apoftle
Rom. ill. Tauly Let God he true^ but e^very Man a Liar,
4. Men often run into Inconfiftencies : But
fo did not the BlelTed J e s u s , nor did He
in any Cafe encourage them^ or lay a Foun-
dation for them. Our Lord in Fffed de-
clares himfelf not equal to his Father ^ when
He reprefents his Father as greater than He
was : And yet when He has all the Perfe-
d:ions of his Father afcrib'd to him^ (and
that of Omnlfcience among the relt^ notwith-
Handing this particular Confeflion of Igno-
rance) and when He elfewhere declares that
He hath all Things that his Father hath^ He
muft be inconfiftent with himfelf, and lead
us
EmlynVT/4^;^ p. ii? i2r.
of the So isr 127
us into Inconfiftencics and Abfurdities too^ Serm.
if it be not as He was Man only that He yy
difdaims the Knowledge of the Day of ^^.^^^
Judgment. And if a Man be gone that
length, as not to Itick at charging our
Bleued Lord Jesus with being inconiiftent,
and leading us into Inconfiftence and Ab-
furdity, it matters I think but very little what
he thinks or fays of Him afterwards. He
farther objeds,,
f. T H A T our Way of Interpretation cannot be
right y hecaufe there is no Caution frhjoynd^ or Hint
added^ that it Tvas with rejpcdi to his humane Na-
ture only^ that our L O R D hte-w not the Hour^ &c.
Whereas Caution vjos often gi^en about lefs Mat"
ters *. To which it is a fufficient Reply^
That the Evangelilts did not think a Caution
needful3 or elle they would have added it.
And they might well reckon a Caution in this
Cafe the lefs needful^ becaufe having dropped
fo many Hints of a Diuine as well as an Hu-
mane Nature^ in. the Perfon of our Sa^uiom-^
they might conclude^ that no one that had
a due Dread upon his Spirit of making their
Writings inconfiftent, could upon the men-
tioning his Ignorance of the Day and Hour
of the lafi Judgment y at all queftion its being
meant of his humane Nature only. But as for
a Man that thinks he fufficiently explains
thofe Texts that exprefsly affert Christ's
knowing all Things, by reprefenting it as
hyperbolical ,• like the Prophets being common-
ly faid to know all Things : And that rec-
kons that Knowledge of the Hearty that is often
fo fully afcrib'd to C h r i s t^ was but like
that Knowledge of the Thoughts and Hearts of Men^
that
Trajiji^ p. 13.
128 The Dei T r
SeRM. ^^^^ ^^ ^pon occajion been communicated to Trophetf
lY^ and Jpafiles * ; He difcovers fo little Venera-
tion for the facred Scriptures^ and fo little
Regard to the Honour of the Bleffed J esus^
that it may well be queftion'd^ whether any
Caution added^ would have been a fufficient
Reftraint to him ; or kept him when he met
with what he found difficult to reconcile
with his Hypothefis^ from crying out with M-
codemm^ Hovj can thefe Things be i
Reserving the other Pleas to the next
Difcourfe^ I fliall now fubjoin a few plain
Hints by way of Application. And^
I. I muft freely own it^ I cannot fee that
we have any Occafion to Wonder to find the
DoBrine of God the Father and of Chriil^ to
have a great deal of Difficulty in it^ notwith-
itanding all that is reveal'd concerning \u
It need not furprize us to perceive that it
has a remaining Abftrufenefs^ after our ut-
moft Searches^ and our moll lerious Medita-
tions. The Apoftle^ in this Text^ tells us
plainly it is a Mjfiery ; and that is in this
Cafe_, and as thus apply'd^ to be look'd
upon as an infpir'd Word^ what Liberty
foever fome may take in refleding upon
it. We have not the leaft Occafion ( as
I know of) to be either afraid or alham-
ed to acknoivledge a Myftery^ where God
himfelf has declared there is one_, how much
foever fome that can't bear to be confined
even by the Moft High Himfelf, ridicule that
as a poor and forry Refuge. When Men have
faid all they can^ Chriftianiry is and will be
re-«
* Emlyns TraSis jpag, 2$, a6.
of the S o i<l 129
a Myjterj^ tho' a Myflery of Godlinefs^ : And Serm.
Faith is a Myftery^ tho' to be held in a pure jy,
Confcience. That Gofpel which St. Fnul a ad ,^y-v^/-sj,
the reft of the Apoftles preafch'd^ and for i Tim.
Preaching which they* were exposed to fuch iii. 16.
Hardfhips and Sufferings/ is the Myfiery ofl^- ii^. 9-
Chrift. 'Tis mfdom In a Mjjiery : Such Wifdom Ep^- ^'^i-
as Eye hath not fee??,, nor Ear heard ^ 77or hath en- i' , •
tred into the Heart of Man to concc:^e. My ^ q^^, -^
Text v^ry plainly declares the Do6Wne of^^ j^,
Gody and of the. Father^ and of Chrifi^ a My-
fiery ^ and to be acknowledged fuch by thofe
that profefs tbemlelves Chriftians. They then
that pretend_, That vjhm -we have run ourfelues
a-grotind J we fiy to Myfiery to help r^s out *;, do in
Reality refled on the facred Scriptures. 'Tis
not indeed fuch a Myfiery^ as that nothing con-
cerning it may be knov/n by us : But fuch a
Myfiery it \z^ that We fhould never have enter-
tain'd any Thoughts of fuch a lather^ and fuch
a Son^ as our Religion prefents us with^ had
we not met with an Account of them in the
Writings of the ISlevj T^fiammt^ the Divinity
whereof is well attefted : And notwithftand-
ing what we there meet withal^ there is much
that ftill lies hid ,• and fo it in great meafure
remains a Myfiery. But then^ 'ft is not an
empty Myfiery^ but full of rich Senfe. 'Tis not
a defiling Myftery^ but a Myfiery of Godl'ncfs,
Inftead of debafuig us^ its Aim is to make us
Holy : And it contains and carries in it very
powerful and effedual Motives to ixi^^g't us
to an holy Life ; a Life according to the Will
of God. And to call this Doctrine into
q'ueltion^ becaufe of the Difficulty there is
K remaining
Ckndons Treatlfe of the V/ord Pcrforiy p. ii<
i^o The Deity
Serm. remaining after our clofelt Enquiries^ would
jY^ be altogether unreafonable.
2. If we rightly acknowledge this Myfiery
of Go Dy and of the Father^ and of Chrift^ it
will but become us to pity thofe who make
a fuhordlnatey dependent ^ deficient God^ and Sa-
'vlour^ the Objed of their Hope and Truft,
in thofe miferable Circumftance^ into which
Sin has brought them. But fucJo a God as this^
is not to be found in all the Scriptures^ and
therefore we have no reafon to own him.
We may fafely leave it to thofe who can be
content with y//c/j> a God^ and reckon it worth
their while to contend for^ trull in^ ferve and
vvorfhip^ fo ignorant^ defecflive^ and imper-
fecSi a Godj as a created God muft be^ even tho'
he had all the Glory conferred upon him that
he poffibly could bear^ or be capable of. Such
a God as this^ could at beft have none h\it fub-
ordinate Excellencies and Perfedions (tho' me-
thinks a fubordinate Omnifcience_, and a fub-
ordinate Omnipotence found a little odly.}
He could be but a fubordinate Sa'vlour ^ ana
help us to but a fubordinate Salz^ation. And
therefore I don't fee what Room there could
be for an intire Trull and Dependence. Let
us pity thofe who impofe upon themfelve$_,
by confiding mfuch a God as this^ who in Rea-
ality is no God ; and could not fupply the'
Wants^ or redify the DiforderSj or anfwer
the Expedations^ of fiich needy^ unworthy^
cravingj miferable Creatures as we are.
3. Taking notice of thofe who are not
to be brought to an hearty Acknowledgment
of the Myfiery of Goviy and of the Father_, and
of Chrirfj Let us obferve how naturally one
Error about that important Dodriije draws
others
of the Son.
others after it. Let any here run into Mi-
ftakes,, and the whole Scheme of our Religion
is prefently afFeded. Let Father and Son be
equaij and there's Room for a Compadt. The
affuming human Flefh^ will then be an Ad
of the moft furprizing Condefcenfion ,• andRe-
deeming Love, will be found to have a great
Aptnels to excite a fuitablc Love in Return.
There will be One capable of giving, and
another of receiving Satisfr.Bicn ; I mean
fuch a Satisfaction as is as Eftimable in
the Nature of Obedience, as the injury
which the Great Ruler of the World re-
ceiv'd was, in the nature of Contempt.
Eut if Men once call Chrlfi's Deity into que-
Ition, and over and above a Verfond Sub-
ordination^ will have the Son a Subordinate
Gody they prefently run into miilaken No-
tions about his Incarnation^ and about the
whole Work of Redemption ^^ and quite over-
turn the Dodrine of SafufaBlon^ together
with what depends upon it. And it they
have low thoughts of the Terfon of Chrljt^
'tis not to be wonder'd if they make light
of his Grace. It is not at all to be exped-
ed, that Men fhould have better thoughts
of the Spirit^ than of the Son of God : And
therefore we need not wonder, that they
that {tumble at the Sons Deity ^ are againlt
the Terfonality and Deity of the Holy Ghofi
too, and quite to feek about his Opcrathnsy
and particularly that Sanctifying JVork of his,
that is in the Sacred Scriptures reprefented
as fo abfolutely necefTary to Salvation. If
we give up one, I don't lee but we muft
in Confequence give up all. And if we
would not have the whole Houfe tumble,
we had need take care to fecure the Foun-
dation. The denying Christ's proper
132 The De^i T Y
Serm. ^^^ty^ is juft like opening a Sluice to let m
jy Floods ot Errors^ to the indangering a com-
\^r\^^ ^^^ Deluge. If Christ once paffes with
us for a Subordinate and MetapSorical God^ we
fliall foon count him a Metaphorical Priefi^ and
his Death a Metaphorical Sacrifice. It therefore
deferves our noting^ That as much as Mr.
Whifton has fince wander'd from the Truth_,
he at firft fetting out declar'd^ That he had
not the leap Dejtgn to detraB from the great Dig-
nity of^ or from the Di'vine Wor^np due. to the
Son of GoDj, and the BleJ/ed Spirit ^ on jvhofe
■ Redemption and SanBif cation^ he fgnlfy'd all
his own hopes of Salvation were Intirdy Groun^
*ded. t Biit being officioufly intent upon
building the Neiv Jerufakm^ he has rear'd
up a Babely that has not the leaft like-
Jiefs to the City of God.
4. And Lailly-j If we would fliew that we
are not Strangers to xhdLt Acknowledgement of the
My fiery of God^ and of the Father ^ and of Chrifiy-
that my Text fpeaks of, let us endeavour to
make a right Improvement of it. This will be
the belt Way to a firm EfiahUjloment. We may
therefore obferve^ That the Apoftle in this
very Context admonifhes Chriftians^ as they
Col. 11. 6. had recelvd Clrrifi ^eftis the Lord^ fo to 7valk tn
him. And he feems to mtimate to theni_, that
this would contribute to the Stedfaflnefs of their
Ver. 5. Faith in Chrift^ and to their reaching the
full Affurance of Under fiandljtg in the Knovj ledge
of the Myftery of God the Father^ and of Chriltj,
which was the great Matter of his Con-
cern about them. Let us alfo live in a con-
ftant humble Subjedion to the Lord Jesus
C H R I s T>
* Hiftorical Preface; ^ag, 17,
of the So NT.
133
Serm^
IV.
C H R I s Tj and we iliall find that it will not
a little contribute to our Stedfaftnefs. We
may contend warmly for Notions^ and be ^yy^^>^
never the better ,• no^ not tho' we have the
Truth on our Side. But if initead oi holding
the Truth in Unrighteoufnefs , we purfue it in its
pradical Tendency^ and lead Chriffcian Lives^
we may hope to be preferv'd from deftru-
cSlive Errors : For we have a folemn Pro-
mile or Declaration^ that came from the
Mouth of our Lord himfelf^ upon which
we may fafely depend j That // any Man "will 'John vii;
do his IVilly he fiail know of the DoUrlne^ whe- }1*
ther it he of Go v-
K 3
Se
R M.
195
SERMON V,
John V. 23.
That all menjhould honour the
Son, even as they honour
the Father.
A V I N G given Proof of the Deltj of Salters:
the Son^ as well as of the Father^ I am hall,T«^/.
confidering the Pleas of thofe_, who ^^y Lee-
are for a proper Subordination^ or an Inferlo-^^^^*^^'^'
Yity of xh^Son to xkit Father^ in Nature^ At- ^5-*7i9»
tributes or Perfedions. Having fhewn the
Infufficiency of feveral of thera^ I go on to
thofe that are yet behind^ which we ftiall up-
on Confideration find to be as weak as thofe
that have been touch'd upon already.
5". It is pleaded_, That the Son many times
frayd to his Father^ and that in his own Be-
half, as well as for others 5- which is repre-
fented as a plain Evidence ot his being In-
ferior to him. Often do we read in the Qo{-
pel Hiftory of his praying to his Father. We ^^^k u
are told^ That He departed into afolitarjPlace'^^' .
andpra/d^ that He contlnud all Night In Prajer ^^ '^'
to God ^ and th^t He fell on his Face and prafd ; Match.'
K 4 which xxvi. 39.
36
The Deity
Serm. which intimates the Proftration of his Soul :
y^ And 'tis declar'd^ That He offered up Prayers
s^,/'->^j^^^^ and Suppl-catkns^ with flrong Crying and "TearSy
Heb. V. 7 urAo him that was able to Ja've him from Deaths
and was heard in that He feared^ or for his
Bety. Nay we have a large and particular
John xvii. Account of aP?v?;cr v/iiich he ciFer d up to
his Heavenly Father'^ with great Submiilionj
\ little before his entring on his bitterelt Suf-
ferings. And it is pleaded^ That there can
be no Trayer^ in the Scripture Senfe of that
Wordj but from an Inferior to a Superior^
In anfwer to this^ I won't fay as St.j^o^^
of Damafcmy That Chr if only prafd in Appear-
ance ^ and not really and in Truth. I own
He prafd x^aily^ and fervently too ^ ISlor
ihall I offer to deny^ but , that as pur Lord
was a proper Petitioner^ He was Inferior to
his Father : And yet I muit own^ I cannot
fee^ how we can from thence warrantabiy
conclude that In his St^per lor Nature VIq was
not equal to him.
That our Lord Jesus^ who offered r/p
Trayers to his Father ^ had an hf eri or Nature ^
is plain from the PalTage cited out of the
Epiftie to the Hebrew's^ where when Notice
is taken of thQ.Pri7yers and Supplications which
He offered with firong Crying and Tears ^ there
IS an exprefs Confinement added^ to the Days
of Us Flejh. And it is alio a^s plain^ that He had
a Superior Nature^ from feveral Paffages that
are dropp'd^ in that remarkable Prayer of
Tohnxvil. ^'^ that St. John has recorded. Father ^ {ays
i He there^ Z^^'^'^fy T^^^^^ ^^^ with thine oivnfelf '^ with
the Glory which J had with Thee ^ before the World
was'. And it He really ha'd a Glory with the Fa-
ther ^ before the WoHd was^ the Nature in which
He had it muit necellarily be Superior to
that Animal and Rational Nature ia which
He
of the Son. i 37
He appeared here below. Tho' therefore his Serm.
Trayers were in fome Refpeds like ours^ yet y^
in other Refpeds they were very different. .^^^^L^
I T has been a great Qiiellion with fomej
how Christ could pray at all ? And whe-
ther He did it as Man^ or as God ? It was
a common Saying of the Ancients^ that He
pray'd as Mait^ and not as God : That as
God He was worihipp'd with the Fat/jer ;
but that as Man he prayd to the father. For
my Partj I fhould rather choofe to fay^ He
prayd either as Man^ or as Mediator ,• and in
both Reipechs is ov/n'd hferlor : And yet I
can t fee that we from thence have any Reafon
to inferr^ that as God^ He was at all hferi-
or to the Fat/jer whom He pray'd to. 'Twas
as Man that He put up that remarkable Pe- , .
tition^ O my Father^ // it he pjjihle^ let this ^f^^'
Cup pafs from me. For his innocent Human
Nature had no fmall Dread of the bitter
Sufferings that were before him. But it was
as our Mediator and High-Prieft that He of-
fer'd up feveral Petitions in that Frayer which
St. John has recorded^ at his Entrance on
his laft Sufferings. Such Requefts indeed
in that excellent Frayer of our Bleifed Lord^
as are Icrw^ and carry in them Subjeclion
to the Father^ came from his Humane Nature
only: But the reconciling^ mediatory^ im-
petrating Force ^nd Efhcacy of that Prayer ^
came from the Dl'vhie Nature that was perfo-
nally united to the Humane. As to fuffer
and die is proper to xh^ Human Nature ; but
to fuffer and die for the Sins of the World^
and the Redemption of Mankmd^ belongs
to our Lord's Pneftly Office^ and has both
his Natures concurring in it : So humbly
to fray and lupplicate belonged to his Hu-
mane Nature, which only was Indigent ; but
to
1 38
The D E I T r
Serm. to pray^ with fuch Efficacy as to obtain for
y^ all Believers^ Grace at prefent^ and Glory
\yry^sj hereafter^ belonged to his Prieftly Office^ in
which both Natures concurr'd. And yet it
no more from hence follows^ that confider-
ed as Gody He was unequal or inferior to
his Father y than from the appearing Mean-
nefs of the Flefh He affum'd^ it follows that
He had no Glory with the Father before the
World was^ or had quite loft it. In this
Refped^, He was as much^ as truly^ and as
;uftly the Obje<a of Prayer^ even as the Fa-
ther himfeif. But^
6. I T is alfo pleaded^ That our Lord J e-
s u s received from the Father thofe Things
for which He is reprefented as moll emi-
nent^ and therefore could not but be Infe-
rior to him : Nor could He have any other
than a St^bord'wate Deity : For as St. Faul
argues in the Cafe of Abraham and Melchiz^C"
decky who were two remarkable Perfons^
Heb. vii. without all ContradltTion^ the lefs is blejjkd of the
7. greater.
I reply : The Redemption of Mankind is
in Scripture reprefented as founded on a
Compact between Father and Son^ according
to which the Son was to be the Mediator^
and the Father to furniiti him with all Things
jieceflary to the acceptable and fUccefsfuI
Difcharge of that Office^ j.n the Nature af-
fum'd. And tho' this may in a Senfe be
faid to be the Father's Bkjfing the Souy and
an Argument of the Son's Inferiority in thq
Capacity of a Mediator ^ (which is not deny-
cd or contefted) yet can it not be juftly
from thence inferr'd^ that there was any
Thing of an Inferiority in the Son^ with rer
fped to his Dl'vme Nature^ antecedently to
-his becoming the Mediator between God and
Men^
of the S o N. 1 39
Men. Jn that refpecftj his Excellencies and Sbrm.
Perfedions were the fame as the Father's. y^
7. I T is farther pleaded. That running y,y^>^^
over the Writings of the New Tefiamenty we
often find Notice taken of the Authority of the
Father in command ing, and SubmiJJion of the
Son in obeying j which i^ faid to be an Ar-
gument of the Superiority of the one_, and
the Inferiority of the Other. Thus our Lord
himfelf fpeaking of his laying down his Life,
and taki'fTg it again, fays^ This Commandment John xl
ha^e I recei^'d of my Father. And again, I ^^'
have not fiokQn of myfelf, but the Father which ]^^^ *^
fent me. He gave me a Commandment, what 1'^^'
jhould fay, and what I jJwuld fpeak. And as John xiv.
the Father gave me Commandment, even fo J ^i,
do. Thefe and other fuch like Paifages arc
reckon'd to give Additional Proof that the
Father was fuperier, and the Son but inferior
and fubordinate. But this may be eafily an-
fwer'd, from what has before been oifer'd.
For I don't fee any Occafion we have to
be furpriz'd that our Blelfed Lord fliould as
Mediator be reprefented as being in a State
of Subjedion^ and bound to Obedience, Be- p^jj^ ^^ g^
ing found in Fajlnon as a Man, He was it ill
farther to humble himfelf, and become obedient
to Death, even the Death of the Crofs. When He
that was before in the Form of God, took the
fir ft Step, and by alfuming the Humane Na*
ture, took the Form of a Servant, we have no
Reafon to wonder at any Thing that fol-
low'd after, which was only in Order to
the more eifedual aniWering the End de-
fign'd. But tho' our Lord Jesus did receivs
Commandments from his Father, and kept them,
and tho' He was obedient to him, and his Ser-
vant, yet was this as to his Humane Natitre
only. It ftill remains true^ that He was m
Heaven
The D E I T r
Heaven before He receiv'd thefe Command-
ments^ and fet himfelf to comply with them
out of Compaffion to us. He ftill had a
Divine Nature y and was God over all biejjed for'
ever ; and accordingly is in all Ages to be
ador'd.
8. It is alfo pleaded^ That the Son is ra-
ther reprefented as the Mediate than the C7/-
timate Object of Divine Worfljip m our Sa-
cred Writings : And from thence it is ar--
guedj that the So?i cannot be eqiial to the-
Father y but his Inferior, And this Argument-
is at large purfu'd hy Is/iiL . Emljn ^ who feems
to Triumph in it as unanfwerabie. -
I before argu'd ^^ That our Lord Jesus
Christ mult be true and proper^ that is
the Supreme God^ becaufe He not only has
the Name^ and Titles^ and Works^ and At-
tributesj but alfo the Worihip of God a-
fcrib'd to him. But now we are told^ That
tho' oi'bcn from the Worjlnp due to our Lord Je~
fuSy we inferr his Supreme Deity ^ the Argument
may feem popular ^ yet it is plain that no truly Di-
vine Worfljip or Supreme Adoration is upon Chrifli"
an Frinciples gl''je7t to the Elejfed Jefus i*. This
I confeis is plain dealing. And would but all
whofe Principles lead to the very fame Con-
clufion^ give us their Senfe with like Free-
dom^ we (hould better know what we have
to depend on^ than while they ufe fubtle
Covers and EvafionSj for fear we fhould
diftincftly difccver what it is they are aiming
at. I ihall now diftindiy confider the Wor-
ihip that is due to the Son of God.
* See Pag. 40, Sc
t EmlynV TMSf pag. 51.
t)f the Son. 14.1
I muit freely own, I can much better al- S£rm,
low of Subordinate IVorjJiipy than Subordinate y^
Titles^ Works^ and Attributes , and the one i^,,^^^
does not appear to me to found fo oddly
as the other. Our Divines have generally
Gwn'd^ that Christ was to be adord as
Mediator : And if we are to put our Prayers
to G o D into the Mediator's Hand^ I fee
nx) Reafon why we may nor diredtly apply
to him to ule his Intereit with his >Wjer iii
our Favour. And if this be caiPd Subordijiate
IForJhi^y I flian t cppofe it. But then I ut-
terly deny^ that this Sort of Worfhip is all,
that is due to the Blelfed Jesus. I take
the higheft Worihip that God ever claim'd^
to be our Redeemer's due^ as He is his Eter-
nal Son ^ : And if fo, then there muft of
Neceffity be an Equality betv/een Father and
So7t, But rU take thefe Things - in. their Or-
der.
I. TheN:, let it be yielded^ that fuch a
SuhorJinate Uorjl)'-p as that which I have. now
mention'd_, is due to the So7i as Mediator be-
tween G o D and Men. The Scripture is ve-
ry plain thatj No Man cometh unto the Fa- John xiv,
ther^ .hitt, by hrrri. 'Tis by or through him we ^.
helk've in God ; And through htm that vje have ^ Per. L
an yiccefs by one Sprit unto the Father. 'Tis -^•
by him that, vj^ come unto God. And it can- ^ ^^'
not be deny"d^ that the common Way cf^pu
our addreflmg ourfelves toGoo, that the^^^
Writings of the New Ttfiamc??t ki before us, "
is for us to pray to God thro' Jefi^s Chri/y
or in his Name, as our Advocate or Inter-
ceiTor.
VII.
* See on this Argumeat olM^orJhap Mr.Jcfc^h Boyfs$
Vindication of the True Deity of our Blelfed iiAviora.
3d Edit, p. 108, 8cc.
iz|.2 The Deity
Serm. ceffor. This is the Way to which we ard
Y pointed by thofe Words of our Savioiir ^
\y\Jm^ fVhatfoe'uer ye Jhall ask the Father in my Name,
John xvii ^^ ^^'^^ g*^'^^ ^^ y^^^' Nor can it be deny'd
33. but that the moft Primitive Writers^ Clement
of Rome^ and Polycarp of Smyrna^ and they
that came after them^ run in the fame Strain.
They offer'd their Prayers to Jefets Chrlfi as
their High Prieft^ to prefent them to God.
And this is common with us to this Day,
and very Scrip tural^ and liable to no jult
Exception. And if fo_, I cannot fee why
our praying to him to intercede for us_, may
not be as unexceptionable. But then_,
2. I think there is much more than any
fuch fubordlnate Worfilip due to our Lord Je^
fus dhrifi. He being before his appear mg
here below in our Nature^ poflefs'd of the
fame Divine Perfedions as are afcrib'd to
his Father y mult have a Right to the fame
Worfljtf. But Mr. Emljn in fo many Words
declares. That no Injury is done to our BleJJed
Saviour y by not giving him the fame Supreme
Worjhipy -which ive give to the Father *. I on
the contrary muu own I think it a great
Injury and Affront to him ; and that for this
Reafon, becaufe He has the fame Divine
Perfections with his Father ^ as has before been
prov'd. I defire therefore that Two Things
may be here obferv'd.
1. That there is no one Ad of JVorjhlp
afcrib'd to the Father in the Sacred Scrip-^
' ture^ that is not afcrib'd to the Son alfo.
And
2. That tho' it cannot be pretended that
the fame Ac^s of IVorJhip are any Thing
near
t Tr/i^;, pag. 53,
of the So N. i/^o
near Co frequently afcrib'd to the iS'^« as to Serj^,
the Fat/jer in Scripture^ yet may we without y
any great Difficulty be able to account for ^.^/-^^rC^
that DiiFerence.
i'.-I affirm^ There is no one Ad of Worjhlp^
that is in the Holy Scriptures afcrib'd to tlie
Father^ that is not alfb afcrib'd to the Son, Is
the Father to be caWd upon^ and religioufly In-
vocated^ for all needful Supplies of Grace ?
fo alfo is the Son : And therefore it is given
as one diftinguifliing Charader cf Chrifti-
ans^ That they call on his Name ; and inti- Adb Ix,
mated J that the Saints in every Place ^ are fuch 14.
as call upon the Nawc of Jefus Chrift our Lord, ^ q^ ^
Mult the Father have inward JVorjlnp and 2.
Veneration r fo alfo fhould the Son. Is the Fa-
ther to be belie'v'd :n^ or trufted ? fo alfo is the
Son. And therefore when it is declar'd^ That
Tvhofoe'ver jliall call upon the Name of the Lardy Rom. jc.
(that is the Lord Jesus) J7?/2ii^/'ey^'vV^ it is ^3-
at the fame time intimated^ that this is not
to be expedted without believing in him. For^ i^;
fays the Apoftle^ how pall they call en hlm^ in
worn they ha'vc not bellenj^d ? And a Paifage is
cited out of the Old Tefiament^ and apply'd to
our Saviour y figniiying^ that whofoever heliev \u
eth on hlm^ pall not be apamed. And our Lord
himfelf plainly told his Difciples^ that as they
believed in G o Dj fo they fhould alfo believe ^ohn jXx,
in him. Is the Father to be lov'd fupremely^ i.
and fuperlatively ? fo alfo is the Son. We are
to love him more than any thing in the
World that is nioft dear to us j yea_, more
than Life itfelf. Is an entire SubjtHion, and Matth. r,
full Refignation of our Wills to the Will of 37.
the Father^ a. Duty ? The like is alfo requir'd as LukexU%'
to the Son. We are therefore calfd theSer-l^^- .
vants of Christ ; and invited and urg'd to ^ ' ^
take his Toke upon us^ and to do his Will^ like
thofe
The Deity
thofe the Bufinefs of whofe Lives it is to fev'be
and pleafe him. We are to live unto him : and
his dy'mg for m Was defign'd to oblige us to
Matth.xl. this^ and we are to bind ourfelves to this^ by
19. folemn Covenant ^ in the Cafe of the Son^ as well
Col. ilL as the Father^ as plainly appears from the
2'4- Great Gofpel Charter. And as the Father is to
2 Cor. V. h^ye outward Worfhip^ fo alfo is the Son. Is
^M h ^^^^ Father to have Fraife and Thankfgi^jing re-
xxviU 1*9. ^'^rn'd him ^ 'Tis the fame with the Son^ who
.is to have Glory ^ both now and for e"jer : And
a Per. ill. Glory and Dommlon for ever and e^ver. Hence it
iS. is that we in the New Te (lament have fuch a
1 Pec. V. Variety of Doxologies^ to the Son as well as the
^^* Father y which are a Part of the V/orflnp here
on Earth : And vv^e have Intimations given
us of a like IForjJj/p in Heaven above^ where
Rev. V. BleJ/ing and Honour ^ and Glory a?jd Fewer ^ are
*3» jointly alcrib'dj unto him that fitteth on the
Throne^ and unto the Lamb ^ and that for ever
and e'ver.
Is the Father to be pray'd to ^ So alfo is the Son.
Stephen^ the fir ft Martyr^ when he was juft
expiring^ pray'd to him in as Solemn a man-
ner as well could be ; crying out^ Lord Jefus
Ads vii. ^€^^1'^^ ^y Spirit "*'. To him alfo St. Paul pray'd^
59, 60. when he was under a very preffing Tempta-
tion^ begging with the ut-
Rom. i. 7. I Cor. I 3. z "^^^ Earneftnefs^ That the
Cor. 1. 2. Gal. 1. 3. Eph. i. 2. Thorn in the Flcjh might de-
Phil. 1. 2. Col. i. 2. I Thelf. i. part from him. And to him
1. 2Theflr. i. 2. iTim.i. 2. alfo did he plainly pray,
2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. 1. 4. Phil. 3. when in the Beginning of
feveral of his Epiftles^ he
begg'd for thofe to whom he was v/riting,
aCor. xll. Grace y Mercy and Veace from God the Father^
7, 8, 9. and
* ^*^^ Wl^khy ^§ Vi\^^l^ P^ift^; JP- ^95
of the So N. 145
and from Jefus Chriit our Lord jointly_, in Serm,
fuch Places as thofe cited in the Margin. y
Nay^ even the whole Canon of Scripture Ky^\j
is clcs'd with a dired Addrefs to Ch r i s t in
thefe VVordSj E^cn fo^ come Lord Jefus. And
it is hard to fay how an higher Homage can
be paid to any one as the Supreme God^ than
has been done to our Lord Jesus by the
whole Church from Age to Age^ and that by
Divine Appointment^ in the Two Sacraments
of the New Tcfiament. And J. can't fee any
great Profpect cf Succefs^ in arguing with
one that can make light of all this^ and re-
prefent it as carrying in it nothing of an
Evidence. But then^ I add^
2. That tho' it cannot be pretended^ that
the fame A6ls of J^forjlnp are any thing near fo
frequently afcrib'd to the Son as to the Father in
Scripture^ yet may we without any great Difh-
culty^ be able to account for that Difference.
Under the OUTejlamcnt ^ tho' the Unity of the
Godhead was the main Principle Vv^hich diftin-
guifh'd thofe who were favoured with a fuper-
naturalj divine Revelation^ from the reft cf the
World^ there yet were fome Difcoveries of a
Tlwallty in the Deity : Notvv^ithftanding which
it mult be own'd^ that the Deity of the 6'^;^ was
far from being then fo diftinctly reveal'd as
now. And yet if it really v/as the Son^ who in
thofe divine Appearances that we read of in
an humane Fornij gave the Faithful that liv'd
in thofe Days agreeable Anticipations of his
intended Incarnation (which has been the
general Opinion both of Ancients and Mo-
derns ^ ) we have Hints given of fuch an J-
L d oration^
* See of this, BuIIi Dcf Fid. Nlc. p. 8, 6c. And
Dr. IVatcr land's Defence of fome (Queries, ^. 8, C'c.
and/. 38, O'c. Qcn, xvii. 3.
The Deity
doratioHy as is far from being attended witli
any Tokens of a Stibordlnatlon, Thus when
the Lord appear 'd to Abraham^ we are told^
that he fell on h^s face : And others ah"o did
the like. Often do we read of an extraordinary
Angtl^ that appear 'd and ipake to the Jewijh
Patriarchs^ who is fometimes caii'd Jehovaf^
and at otner times the Angel of Jehovah.
This Angel not only aflum^d the Nai'ne and
Attributes of God^ but admitted and re-
quired divine Honour to be render d to him^.
and fuch as wa^ due to the Supreme God alone.
Gen. 18. He allow d Jacob to offer Sacr fice^ and make a
16, ^c. reltgicus Vow to him_, wherein he devoted
himlelf to him as his G o n : Nay^ he re-
Ih, XXXV. quii-(j hijiji to make and dedicate an Ahar to
*• him at BiJod. He aifo fufter d Jcflmay when
he was Commander in chief of the Holt oilf-
Jofh. V. raely to full on his Face to the Earthy and 7i^orjhJp
'4> '5' hiwy and call hhnklf his Ser^-aju ; and not on-
ly iby but he ordered him to loofe his Sbooe from
of[ his Footy telling him^ that the Flace jvhtreon
he food was holy ; being confecrated by his
Divine Prefence. And He did the fame be-
Exod. ill. fore by A4ofes He alfo recci^Sd a Burnt-offer-
5' tng^ and a Meat-offering from Manoah and his
Wife. I don't know what Inftances offrpreme
Adoration^ we can be able to faiten on under
the Old Tcfiamenty if fuch as thefe may not
be allcw'd to pafs for fuch. I take fuch Hints
as thefe to afford fufficient Proof that the Son
then^ as far as He was known^ had the very
fame Flonour and IVorjhip with tlie Father.
But under the FJtw Ttfiaynent^ when the
Deltj of the Son came to be reveaPd more
difl'inctiy^ it dees not feem to have been ne-
ceiiary that diltind Worship as due to the Son^
ihould be particularly iniiiied on-,both becauie
it is as He aded in the Capacity of a Mediator
between
of the So N.
between God and Sinners^ that He is rhere
fet before us , and alfo becauie his acceptable
and fuccefsful Difcharge of the Mediatorial
Office^ fuppos'd his antecedent Pcireffing; all
Divine Excellencies^ and his inherent Plight
to all proper Inftances of Dl^j'ine l^Vorfivp.
If our Bieffed Saviour had not a kight^
as He was the IBternal Son of G o d^ to the
fame IVbrjljip with the Father ^ I cannot fee
how He as Mediator could be incitled to tlie
Divine IVorfiip which is lo frequently afcr'ib'd
to him in the N-^^w Tefiament : And the fre-
quent Notice that is there taken of the TVoi---
Jhip that is due to him as M'^dlator^ makes the
particular mentioning of the PFbrJh/p that was
originally due to him asGoD the iefs need-
ful^ and the Omillion of it the lefs furprizing.
For It is taken for granted^ that if our Savwar
was /IS Mediator to have '^2; Name aboue e^very
JSlamey and e'verj Knee bowing to him^ and di'vine
TVbrjJj'p readily paid him^ it would ealily be dif-
cern'd to follow by Confequence^ that as He
was Eternal Gjd J the higheit i/<9;;(?^r and Wor-
[hip was due to him as well as th(t Father.
Should it be iaid^ That tho' the higheft
dl'v'me Honour and M^ojlj'p was not originally due
' to h'm 5 yet a fuhordinate divine Honour and
Worjhip became his due as Mi^dlator^ as foon as
God thought fit to require it^ and give
forth his Precept concerning it : I anfwer j
The Blelfed God all along in Scripture
difcovers fuch a Jealoufy of his own peculiar
■ Honour^ due to him the One G )Dj that I can-
not fee hoWj without being inconriftenr with
himfelfj He could be fuppcs'd to give forth
a Command to his Servants, to 7vorfh:p the
Mediator with fiich a Sort of fubordlnate V/ot-
Pnpy as that before fpoken of, if He had not
an antecedent Right to all poffible Worjlnp as
L 2, He
The Deity
He was God. I don't fee how this could
be excus'd from Idolatry, For even a Divine
Precept in the Cafe could net alter the Na-
ture cf the Thiiig_, or (upon that Suppofi-
tion) hinder the Humanliy from a Share in
what was proper to the Dl'vinlty. If indeed
Chrjst as God^ had a Right to all poflible
Ac^s (jilVorjh'f^ before h's aifaming the human
Natare^then might a pofitive Precept^uponhis
having merited in that Nature^ very allowa-
bly make it the Duty of fuch as received the
Beneiitj to pay an that Refped to G o d
through this Mediator ^ (confider'd in both his
Natures) that was neceifary to their intirely
reapixig the Fruits of h:s Mediatorial Office.
But if there had been no fuch antecedent
Right^ the allowing the humane Nature of
C H K I s 1 any Partnerfhip in IVorJloIpy would
have been a dired transferring the Glory of
. the Creator to the Creature ; which is the
very Thing cf which God has often de-
clared his Abhorrence.
Ho.vF vbK^ 1 think what I aim at mayeafily
betaken in ; zj/z,. that lince the Knowledge of
a proper Mediator between God and Men^
was under tiie Old Ttfiament fo indiftind j
(tho' as far as it went^ we have fiifficient
Hints^ that He that was defign'd for Mtdiator^
had a right to tne fame Honour and fVo?Jlnp
with him whom he was to mediate with : )
And fince it was the great Deiign of the NeTij
Ttfiament to recommend him to our Efteem
and Hmonry IVorjI^p and Regard_, as Mediator^
in Older to our being by him reltor'd to
the Happinefs which we by bin were fallen
frcm^ we have fo much the lefs Reafon to
wonder that neither the Old Ttfiamtnt ,nor
the iV^5//-3 ihould fo much infift on the Ho-
nour and Ifbrjh'ip that wais due to him asGoo^
before
of the So N. 149
before He was diftindly manifefted as Af<?- Se^m.
J' tor^ as we otherwife might have exped- y^
ed. And yet wnen the Hjnour and t^Vo jh'p ^y^^^-^sj
we are requir'd to give him in the Capacty
of Mediator^ wouid liave been unaccountable
and inconliltentj if H." had nut as God^ an
inherent OrTginal Ri^^nt to the higheft Jji-
\hiQ Hmour and fVo fi'p , we ad unreafona-
biy and unjuitiaably^ if by any Thing that
is faid about that Ho?mir taat is due to him
as M dlator^ we are tempted or indac'd^ to
forget the Hmour and IVorjhp that is due to
him as Eternal Gody jointly with the Father.
These are Grounds_, upon Vvhich (as far
as I can judge) we may ftaiid firm and fafe :
And upon thefe Grounds_, we have as much
Reafon to pay the ^on as G o 1;^, the very
fame Honour and IVorjlrp with the Fa, her ^ as
we have to pay him any fubordinate Ho-
nour and Worlhip_, as He is confider'd in
the Capacity of Mcd^aror.
I ihail now come to Mr. Emljn's Cavils up-
on the Head_, in which he is fo free and
bold : Tho' I fliould have thought he might
eafily have difcern'd their Weaknefs and In-
lufficiency, had he confulted Dr. fVhal^y * up-
on this Argument^ unto whom he fo often
xeferrs upon other Occafions.
H E declares he can't ohfcrve one Inftance
of Trajer to Jefus Chrilt n^hen abfent^ either ?t-
qulr'd in the Precept y or reported In the Exawple^
thro the whole New Teftament f- Others in
the mean Time have obferv'd leveral^ much
to their Satisfaction. Methinks he might
have remember'd that there was a Fraja- in
L J the
* Trad, de vera Chrlfti Deitate, /. 2. 6c.
t EmlynV TmSj, p. 55.
1 50 The D E I T Y"
Serm the lallVerfe but one in all the Bible^ ad-
Y^ drefs'd to Cpirtst diredly^ and that -whrn
\j^^^^^»^ cihjcvt too^ in thefc Words^ t^^m fi come Lord
Rev.xxii. J^'^^- Nor do I fee why St. Er/z/'s Prayer in
^o. ^ his own Cafe^, when he had a Mtfjenger of
^-Cor. xli. 5^r^;? to bifjfa him^ iliculd be forgotten. Wc
^* 9- are then told that he hefought tbc Lord thrice.
And 'tis well kncwn^ that in his Epiftles^^
the Lord is commonly iisd for the Lord Je-
sus Christ: And that the Prayer which
he then put up was addrefs'd to C h r i s Tj,
appears from hence ; became when he had
that anfwer return'd him^ My Grace is fuffi-
cient for thee^ he prelentiy fpeaks of the Potv-
er of Chrif rafting upon him. His Prayer alfo
for Or.efiphcriis appears to be remarkable. It
2, Tim. 1. runs thus : The Lcrd gi-ve Mercy unto the Uoitfe
16,18. ^/ Onefiphorus ; Kna the Lord grant mto him ^
that ^ he may fijid Mercy cf the Lord at that Da/,
WhlchlPrayer aifo Is addrefs'd to'Jefus Qhrifl when
ahfmt. The fame Apoftle alfo eifewhere prays
to Cy^n/ jointly with the Father ; and when tie
Was writing to the Vocfjhlonhns^ puts up this
2 Then. Requeft^ God hmifelf our Father^ and our Lord
m. 11. Jeflis Chrilt direB our Way unto ycu. And it
were no difficult Matter to add other In-
ftances of the like Nature.
H o w E V E R3 rU fuppofe for once^ That
we had no fuch frayer upon Record as Mr.
'Emlyn intimates he had not cbferv'd j I can-
not fee that it would from thence follow that
fuch a l^.-aycr would be unwarrantable r^ nor
can I yield that the Warrantablenefs of Pr^j-
er depends upon the Trefence or Vifibility of
the Objed: to which it is addrefs'd. What ^*
would not St. Stephais remarkable expiring
Prayer_, Lord Jtfus receii;e my Spirit y have beeQ
juftiftable^ if he had not at that Time when
kt offer 'd it^ k^n Christ vilibly i 'Tis an
Imagi-
of the Son.
Imagination that is altogether groundlefs.
For his fi^^^g Cbr';fi "vifl^ly^ did not make the
Lord Jesus a Jot the more capable of re-
ceiving his departing Spirit^ or more ht to
have a Trait ot that Nature committed to
him^ or more proper to be addrefs d to up-
on fiich an Occafun^ than if he had at that
Time been iiivifible to Hihi^ as He is to us
now.
Hk goe« on^ and fays^That t/jat P/jrafe^Calmg^
upon n'S Name_, can amount to no more wider the
Gofpel ConfliiHtlony than calling on hhn as Mediator ^
to come In to our help as an InterceJJor *. And that
it does take that in^ is readily granted : But
that it can amount to no more^ is looner afferted
than proved. If He really is t\\Q Eternal Son
of G o Pj I cannot fee why it may not
take in a Regard to him in that refped
alfo 5 and that the rather^ becaufe it is his
being fuch^ that qualifies him to be a fuccefs-
ful Alediator. In this I am intirely of the
Mind of Bifliop Bull^ f who afferrSj That
Chr'ifi Is hi the Scrlp:iire proposed to be Ji^orJIjipp'dj
not only as God^s Servant and Envoy y ivho was
afterwards made the Lord^ but as his Infinite Love
to Mankind y did as it were fhcrlt for him felf from
Men a Divine HcnoHr^ upon a New Title^ or bind
thtm to wotjjjip and obey hlm^ by a new and
wonderful Bencpj. I alfo readily concurr with
him in his Notion of Invocation^ his 2ivgmn^
upon which I take to be very clear and
Itrong 4-.
He adds^ That St. Stephen fought to Chrifi
as Mediator y when he fa^v him jlandlng at God^s
L 4 Right-
* ]^"^/-p^Z' 5 5, 5 6.
t Def. Fid. Nicen. Sed. i. p, 5^.
4-^ Vid. Bulli Primit. 8c Apoftoi. Trad, de Je. Ch.
Divin. contra Zuickemm, p. 34. &c.
1^2 The Deity
SeRM. R'ght'Hand ; that is^ in a m'mi firing Tofiure of an
Y^ Advocate. And yet it: may very well be
y,^.'^s^^-sU queftion'dj whether or no he could with Sa-
tisfadion and Safety^ have committed his de-
parting Spirit unto him as Mediator^ if he had
not known him to be Eternal God^ jointly with
his Father^ and fo fitted to be a compleat
Mediator y and qualify 'd to have fuch a Trult
committed to him.
But Chr'ifi he fays^ (and he repeats it
over and over) is nether the Ultimate Objeci of
Siifreme JVorfilp^ ^. But let him affert it ever
fo often^ it is not therefore true. For my
own Part^ I mult confefs^ I take him to have
been the Ultimate Objed of the higheit in-
ward Veneration in the Cafe of St. Thomas^
when upon feeing him after his Refurredi-
John XX. on^ he cry'd out to him^ My Lord and my
28. God. And 1 have the fame Apprehenfion of St.
Vatd's adding his folemn /imen to that Decla-
Rom. ix. ration concerning C h r i s r^, that He is cruer
5- all^ God blejjed for e^er : Which if it came
to be fairly argu'd^ would not be fo eafily
evaded^ as might at a Diftance be imagin'd.
Nor can I f^e^ wh^ St. Peter clofes his Se-
cond Epiftle with this Doxology^ to him (that
is_, to C H R I s T J who is lalt mentioned) be
Glory both now and for e^er^ Amen^ why VilsEffin^
tlal Glory 3$ GoD^ may not as well be fup-
pos'd to be referr'd to^ and as juitly taken
in^ as his Mediatorial Glory ^ accruing ircm his
Office. And fo far am I from being in this
Matter of the Mind cf Mr. Emlyn^ that
Christ is never the Ullmate Objctl cf Di-
vine Wcrjl)lpy that I am fully perfuaded he ne-
ver would have been the proper Objed
of
* EmlynV T/vr^j, p. 56.
of the So N. 153
of any tv\xt Divine IVorjlilp at allj if He had Serm,
not had a Right as God^ to be the Ulilmr.te Ob- y
jeti of the higheft l^Vorjlup that Creatures could .^^y^^^Js^
give unto their God.
But he goes on^ and fays^ That our Lord
forbids fuch frayer to hlmfelf^ as belongs to God
his Father. And if that can be well made
out_, I readily grant it is high Time we
Ihould give over any fuch Practice^ as praying
directly to him^ how long foever it may have
been us'd in the Church : And if there be
nothing that looks like Proof of it^ what-
ever it may feem to him that ftarts it^
with others it may well pafs for a wild Af-
fertion. All his Proof is a Paffage of our
Bleffed Saviour's^ in which he fays^ In that John xvL
Day ye Jhall ask me nothings but JJliU ask the Fa- 23 •
ther in my Name. And he obferves,, That
Orlgen on thofe J>Pords^ condemns d^reci Frayer to
Jej'us Chrljtj i. e. other than fraying to God by
him. And he himfelf gives this Glofs upon
that Text^ that the Apoitles jl^ould indeed ask
the Father^ but not him '^ fa^ve as Mediator^ to
offer up their Trayers to the Father_, not as the
Vltimate ObjeB f- Which I muft own to be
as wretched perverting of a Te.xt as any
Man could well be guilty of. When he
mentions Orlgen s Conceit apon it (as citecj
by Dr. Whitby^) that Christ here excludes
himfelf from being the Objed of dired: Pray-
er_, requiring his Followers to pray only to
God the Father ^ he would have done well
to have added alfo the Doctor's Cenfure
which he adds in his Notes^ which is this ;
that this Conceit of Origen // contrary to the
TratJice of St, Paul_, and the whole Chrlftlat^
Church :
1 P^Z^ 57'
The Deity
Church: But this he has prudently pad byj
net reckoning it to his Purpcfe.
The true meaning of the Text is plainly
this^ that when the Holy Spirit was come down
upon the Apoflles according to prom'lej they
ihculd not learn or receive Inftrudions by
asking Chr 1ST QueltionSj as they did be-
fore^ but iliould petition the Father in his
Name^ for what they needed^ both for their
own Inilrudion^ and fcr the advantageous
Dn'^charge of their Mi.iiftry. But tnis is
oppos'd 3 and w^ are told^ ^tis e'vident by the
Comextj that He (our Saviour) fpcaks of asking
m Prayer^ rather than of asking ^afiions^ htcauje
he oppojes to it their asking ihe Father /?/ his
Nar/ie. While in the mean Time the very
Doctor whom he before cited upon this
Textj tells us^ tis evident by the Context^
that he fpeaks of asking what was requi-
fite fur the Difcharge of tiieir Clfice^ rather
than cf aski..tg m .r^ycr. And he gives this
good Realcn f^r it ,• becauie a httie before
Ver. 19. the Text_, I's deciard that i/t knew they -were
difivoHs to ask him the meaning of what He
had laid to them : And a Tittle after the
Texr^ the Apolties being iatisfy'd as to the
true meaning cf what He had been difcour-
Yer. 30. ^^^'g aboutj cried out, Non- are we Jure that
I'LoH knowtfl ail TrjlngSy and ?teedeft not that
any Mrnjhoidda.k Thee. So that tho' in both
the Claules of the Text^ we in our Tranflati-
hcP^^v & on have the Word ask^ yet in the Original
&i^^v. there are two Words^ wiiich in their Signi-
fication differ as much as interrogating and
begging. He fays^ Tho' the PForddo ften fig-
nlty ^0 ask by Efiojuli-yy yet does It dfo fignify to
ask by Inirecyy cr Fraytr. But he knows very
well the ctner is its moft natural and ufual
Signification^ in Scripture^ as well as in Hu-
mane
of the Son. 155
mane Authors : And as to the Context, the Serm.
Cririck of his own citing giv^es it againft y
him. N^V^-^
All that I can perceive our Lord here
intimates is^ that when the Sprit whom He
promis'd to his Dilciples was come down^
they fhould have fo clear an Underftanding
of Things Divine^ as that they ihould have
no Occalion for Itarting fuch Qiieftions to
him as were ufual with them betore. And
this is a Thing as diftant from not making
him the Objed: of their Invocation_, as EaJ^
is from Weft.
As to other Ads of Worfliip alfo befides
prajmgy the fame Writer appears widely mi-
ftaken. He is fo, as to Ri/t/j. For not on-
ly are we ^y C/jrift to helleije In God^ but when i Pet. i,
our Lord fays to his Difciples, Te believe in'^^-
God^ believe alfo in me^ He in Eifed bids them J°^^" ^*^^-
believe in hnn in the fame manner ^ and with ^'
the very fame Firmnefs, Steadinefs, and De-
pendence, as they did believe in the Father
himfelf. He does indeed profound two Ob j eels
of Faith *j but gives not the leait Hint of
any Difference between the Ads upon thofe
Objeds.
H E obferves alfo as to Lo^e^ that where-
as we are requir'd to lo^e God with all our Matth;
Heart and Soul ^ we are only bid to /oT^e C/^r//?^ xxli. ^7.
above Father and Mother ^ and all thps lower World : ^^^^h- '^'
And thereupon he challenges any Man to pro-^'^'
duce a Text for the Supreme Ultimate Love of Je-
fus Chrift * But fmce Christ is as truly
G o D as the Father ^ methinks it is evident^
He is to be lovd with all our Heart and
Soul
* Pag. 5S.
t Emlj^n, p. 5S, 59.
The Deity
Soul as well as the Father. Nay the very
Precept that makes it our Duty to lo've the
Lord cur G o d with all our Hearty makes it
our Duty fb to love Jesus Christ^ as
fpon as He is manifeited to be the Lord
our G:>D. So that I fee no need we have
to f^ek for a diilind: Text^ for the Supreme
UlxuTiate Love of Jefus Chr'ifi : We have what
is futiicient_, and equivalent^ in the very
Text that requires we ftiouid give fuch a
Love to G .:> the Father, Nay tne other
Text mention d, in which we ai-e charg'd
to lo'vc Cri.-it :.iPoue F^ahi,r and Mother and
Life itfeifj is .^qu'Vaient to our being orde-
red to 1^2 H'.a v;l:h all cur Heart and Souly
and wiil app ar fo^ if it is weigh'd fairiy
in the Badance. We are fo to love the Lord
Jefus Ch.-lfi^ that Life itfeif and ail the £n-
deannents '.f it^ our Relattons^ Eitates^ and
moit valued Comfurts and EnjoymentSj are
to be cveriock'd and made nghc cf_, when
compai' d wich hiin_, and cpp.sd to him.
And this as far as I can perceive^ intimates
we are to love him i i the higheft Degree of
which we are capable. And what more
than th s^ our lov.ng him vnth all our Htart
and Soul could carry in it_, would be hard to
fay.
H E alfertSj We are not ultimately to dedicate
cur ft Ives to Chrsfi ^ hut to God through hhn ^ :
Whereas I thmk 'tis evident we are to do
both. Saftljm joins the Son and Spirit with
the Fathrr^ and reprefents them as ftanding
upon a Level. And to compare our joint
D -d^cation to Futh^r and on t, to the firlt
Clviftians dedicating themfelves to Chrifi and
his
? Hw/y;?, p. 59, \ Page 60,
of the S o N.
his bifciples^ locks like one that rather aims
at contounding Things^ than ietti ag them
in the dcareft Light they wiii bear. He
calls it * unwarrantable PrCjU>?j>tlon^ to p.y that
the Three Into whofe Names we are baptl2Sd are
One God ^ but we have not the lealt Reafon
to be mov'd at it^ till he proves it fuch.
One Thing that, feems ntrQ to have led nim
afide was^ his fappoling we were baptized in
the Name ot the Son of ALm: Whereas Baptifm
is ordered to be adminiltred in the Name
of the Son of God. And when he asks whe-
ther we dare exclude the Son of Man ? I an-
fwer_, that tho' he that was the Son of Gody
in order to his being our Saviour became
the Son of Man^ yet may he in that Foederal
Solemnity be regarded as the Son of God^ with-
out any nl Coniequence thence arifing. And
to fay we are jomtly baptized into the Name of
God and a Creature^ 1% to confound the Crea^
ture and the Creator.
And as to the Lord's-Supper^ tho' it be a,
Celebration of the Memory of ChrijFs Death f_,
yet may it be faid to be an Injhnce of Di-
'vine PVo/jh'p pa/d to our Lord J ejus Chrifi^ in as
much as we cannot rightly celebrate the
Memory of that Death by which we were
redeem d J without thanktuliy remembring
that we were redeem'd with toe Blood of God^ ^^^ ^^^^
and devoting to him our Bodies and Souls 28.
in return^ as his own Purchaie. Our keep-
ing up this Solemnity is indeed an Aci of O-
beditncey as it is a Cumpliance with a pofi-
tive Precept : And yet we cannot herein dif-
charge our Duty, without dc.ing that that is
only due to a Being ot SupremeExceiiency and
Au-^
* fm/yw's Trads, />. 61. t f^^- ^3-
The Deity
Authority ; ana t!ierefore there is Worfhip.
Nay^ as making a Covenant with God by Sacrifice ^
was one of the highelt A6ls of Worfhip un-
der the Law^ fo covenanting with our Blef-
fed Saviour over the Memorials of his Sa-
crifice^ is not only real TVorjlihy but one of
the higheft Ads of WorjJiip under the Gof^
pel.
But after all^ 'tis pleaded^ That this very
Textj that fpeaks of honouring the Son^ e%!en as
7VC honour the Father_, reprefents the Honour due
to Chrift^, as grounded upon a delegated Authority
^hich He is hivcfied with from the Father. And
it is faidj Is not a Commlfjion d Authority given
him^ on purpofe to he the Warrant and Rcafon for
our doing him Honour ? and added_, That this in all
fair Reafonlng will imply ^ that without this Com-
miffion there would not be fo fujficlent Warrant and
Ground for it^ Szc. '^.
I aniwer^ That fuppoilng the Father and
Son equal m Nature, Attributes and Perfedi-
ons_, upon which Foundation it is that we
Itand^ I don't fee how a more efFedual Me-
thod could be pitch'd upon^ to fecure to each
of them his due Honour from us^ than for each
to be manifefted to us^ under fome peculiar
Title and Charader^ and inforce his Claim
of Homage by fome Difpenfation that might
be fo remarkable^ as to be apt to raife in us
a religious Awe and Veneration. Now this
is what we Trinitarians apprehend to be the
Cafe in Fad : And it appears to be chiefly
upon this account^ that it is here dcclar a^
Ver. l%* The Father judgeth no Man^ but hath committed
all Judgment unto the Son : that fo all Mm fmdd
honour the Son^ euen as they honour the Father.
'Tis
* Eml)n^ p, 78.
of the Son
'Tis this Writer's Miftake^ to intimate^ that
the Hcrtcur due to C h r i s t^, is here reprefent-
ed as barely grounded upon a delegated Autho-
rity j nor is a comiiiiffion'd Authority given
him^ the foU Warrant and Reafon oi our do-
ing him Honour : For even without this War-
rant and Commiilion there would have been
fufiicient Warrant and Ground for it_, upon
the Alanifeitation of his Eternal Deity, altiio'
we (houid not have been fo effectually ex-
cited to give him t\\^ Honoitr that was due to
him^ as we are by the prefent Settlement^ if
we do but carefully obferve it. It is not pre-
tendedj that the given Authoricy could have
been a Reafon for giving the Sen Divine l4/or-
jhip, had it not been originally due to him,
upoii account of his Eternal Deity : And yet
th'e Father s, Gifc contributed to the kcann^
to his Son this Honour as IvLdiator. And a
Claim founded on Eternal Divinity , and on a
Grant or Commiilion, are very confiftent.
For a Gift of Power might be made to him
as Man, when yet He its G o p had all Power :
And He might be the Fcuntain of the Gift as
Godj and yet the Receiver of it as He. was
Man. Tho' I won't venture to lay as Mr.
Emlyn* Pih^it there cun he no Truth more flaln than
this, nor any Reafonlng more natural a7id unflrain d ',
yet I take this Rcprefentation to be very
bcriptural, and Suthcient to free this Matter
of that Difficulty, in wnich he hath taken
more than a littie Pains to involve it.
And thus having, as was prop^s d, given
Scriptural Proof ci the Son^ Deity, made
fome Remarks upon it, and returnd an An-
fwer to the Pleas of thoie who are for mak-ng
Hun
* Kmlyn, pag. 79.
1 60 The Deity
Sekm/ ^'^^ but a ft/hordinate Deity ^ I fliall clofc this
Y Headj with adding^
w/-v-v-^
IV. A few Dodrinal Inferences^ and Pra-
dieal Initrudions. And^
I. I think it evidently follows from the
PremileSj That our honotirwg the Son_, e^en as
ove do the Father^, is not a mere Matter of
Speculation. Nothing more concerns our
daily Pradife^ in our Addreffes to Heaven.
A Supreme and a Subordinate God would con-
found us in our Trayers. The Fagans indeed
diftinguifli'd between the Sufreme God and
inferior Divinities : And they were in many
Cafes not a little at a Lcfs to which to apply.
And had we under Chriltianity^One God that
was Sufremey and another that was Subordinate^
we fhould often be in like Perplexity how to
manage. But Thanks be to God^, 'its other-
wife with us. We may either apply to the
Father through the Son as Mediator ^ or to the
Father and ^on jointly^ or to either Father or
Son feparately, without any Danger : And
provided we do but honour the Son as -we do
the Father^ Vv^e may hope to have that mer-
ciful Audience of our Frayers from the God
of all Grace^ that is reprefented as one of the
molt confiderable Benefits and Bleffings of
the Gofpel Difpenfation.
I han't argu'd upon this Matter for Argu-
ing fake : My Aim has been to promote your
Eftabliftimenc in the Truth^ in order to your
managing your Prayers with the more comfort-
able Satistadion. And what can be of com-
mon Concernment to us^ if this is not fo ?
If Christ is not to be jvorjlvfd by us as
G o Dj He was not G o d ^7 Nature ^ whatever
He might be by Office. And if He really was
by
of the S o N. i6i
sXV^
hy Nature Go Y)^ He mull have all the U^orJJiip SeRM,
given him that is due to God: And v/e mult y
take Care in all our Trayersy and Applications
to Heaven^ to believe accordingly , and be
cautious of fo advancing him as Mediator ^ as
to detract from his Eternal Deity.
2. I can't help expreffing my Fear ^ left
this Controverfy about the p-o^er Deity cf
our Sa-viour and his Subordlnatlcjt ^ on the
Foot on which it ftands^ and in the Way in
which it \s manag'd^ fliould much lelTen Mens
Veneration for the Holy Scriptures. Should thofe
Sacred Writings once come to lofe their Cre-
dit among us^ Religion would foon become
one of the molt wild^ and freakiih^ and uncer-
tain Things in the World. Now to fee Men
that profels to make the Bible their Rule and
Standard^ offering fuch open Violence to the
plain Declarations which often there occurr^
concerning the Sons Delty^ as is done by
many from Day to Day^ has in my Appre-
henfion done as much as any one Thing
that could be mention'd^ to bring the Scrip-
tures fwhich in thofe Ages wherein Reli-
gion has been in the molt thriving State ^
have been treated with fo much Refped)
under a general Contempt. What mult the
common People think^ when they obferve
Men of Parts and Learning, and that ap-
pear to have fome Concern for Religion
too, queltioning at every Turn the Autbe?i-
ticknefs of fuch a Text, doubting that fuch a
Paffage is corrupted, and expreffing their
Fears, that in this, and that, and a third
Place there is either a Mutilation or an
Addition ! Flow Itrangely muft it amufe
them, to find almolt all the Texts that have
been reckoned to give good Proof ofaTRi-
WITY^ or of the proper Deity of the Son of
M Qox>3
1 62 The Deity
Serm. God^ either cavilFd^ or trifled^ or crir?-
Y ' ciz'd^ or complemented away , and that^ it
^^.^,1, may be^ by Perfons that fhall declare they
^^^^ would not give up nor betray the Truth nei-
ther I Nay^ how can it do any other than
lelTen the Opinion of Men as to the Di'vlm
hiffiratlon of thofe Writings^ in which after
Search it is declar'd^ there are found a great
variety of pompous Expreffions that amount
to little or nothing ,• and a great many Paf-
fages that feem to be of no fmaii Weight and
Confequence^ which upon being learcird in-
tOj fhall be found to mean the direct con-
trary to what they feem to intimate ; and a
number of Citations from the Old Tejtamcnt in
the Niw^ that lliall be declar d to be only
ufed by way of Accommodation^ tho' they
appear to be produc'd by the Apoilles in
dire(ft Proof of what they advance I Thefe
are Things that are plainly very apt to un-
fettle Men^ and leffen their Veneration for
thofe Writings which alone can be expeded
to fix them. I am not for fhutti ng out Lights
or againlt any real Improvement ^ but think
it "would be a great Shame to us to be led
by an Ignh Vatum^ till we are left in a Maze
and bewilder'd^, without knowing where we
are_, or which Way to move. 1 cannot but
enter my Caveat againft that unfettling Spi-
ritj that whilft the Scriptures are flighted^
leads to Darknefs and Sceptklfmy and all
manner of Confufion. I am very fenfible
the Great G o d can over-rule all for Good^
and after a confiderable Shake and Trial^
bring about an happy Settlement : But of this
I am very fure, if He has any Mercy for us^
He will keep up among us the Credit of
the Holy Scriptures : And this is what I think
it highly concern* u$ all in our feveral Sta-
tions
of the Son. 163
tions to. endeavour to our utmofl: to fur- Sfrh*
ther and promote. y
5. I T ought CO be carefully obfcTv'd by uSj y^y->^^
That if we do not hcvour tijc bon^ ci^cn as we do
the Father_, which is the Thing this Text I
have been upon requires^ we^ as much as in
us lies^ contradid and crofs his End^ in
committing all yudgjncnt to him as Mediator. Let
US remember that the Execution of the Powers
ot giving Life at Piealure^, and of va'ifmg the
Deady and jifdglng the P^orldy are by the Father
therefore lodged in the So^is Hands as Me- *
dlaioYy left the World fiiould net be fufiucir
ently apprehenfive of his original Eniinence
and Dignity. Let us (as we have good Rea-
iovC) dread the Thoughts of fetting ourfelves
herein to §ght agalnji Go d^ which would be
fruitle(s in itfelt^ bccaufe He will take Care
of his Son\ Honour^ but ruinous to us_, be-
caufe we could exped; no other than to fall
under his moft heavy Wrath3 for net com-
plying with his Noble and Glorious Deiign
in this Refped. Let us remember and con-
fider that remarkable Saying of the beloved
Difciple_, PVJjofoever denkth the Son^ the fa?7ie i]ohr\\u
hath not the Father. Which plainly intimates ^3-
that it is a vam Attempt^ to think to add
to the Father y by withdrawing from the So7j. ;
and that to deny the Son anyPart of his Rights
out of a Pretence of Concern for his Faibers
Honour y is in Effect a difowning and defying
him whom we feek to plcafe^ and an expofmg
ourfelves to his juft Refentment.
When then we are told by one th:it has
fhev/'d abundance of Zeal to make our Bleffed
Redeemer a mere ftilpordi^atCy infericr_, and
dependent Delijy that he is jealous for the
peerlefs Majefiy of r/jt? L o R D of Hofis ^ the
M z God
164.
The Deity
cnrsj
Sekm. ^o^ ^/ ^^ ^^^^ *3 ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ Reafon
y * to cfteem it a godly Jealoufj^ or that it will
be Matter of comfortable Reflection in the
o;reat Day of Account. He tells us indeed^
That the pcerlefsy unequard Majefiy of the One
God, ^^nd Father of all^ appears to him to be
the ^jery Bafis of Chriftlantty f. But if he fhould
therein prove miftaken^ and the equal Glory
of the Triune G o^d^ who is manifefted to be
Father^ Son^ and Spirit (and is reprefented as
fuch in that Form of Baptif?7iy which I fhould
think as likely a Thing as any^ to point us
to what our Holy Religion is chiefly bot-
tomed upon) fliould at laft prove the true
Bafsy I fee not but he mult fl:ill be anfwe-
rable for eroding the great Deflgn of Chri-
Ifianity^ unlefs his doing it in Ignorance will
excufe him 4.. And how that can excufe
one that is fo extremely pofitive as he is_,
may defer ve his clofe Confl deration. While
therefore he has been labouring with all his
might to retrlcnje^ as he exprelTes it^ the ir.jur^d
Honour of the peer lefs Majefiy of the OneGoD^
a7id Father of our Lord Jesus -j-f ^ he^ as far as
* Emlyn p. 139.
I True Narrative of the Proceedings, ^c. p. iii.
\ I know no Call we have upon the account of
fuch erroneous Notions, to pafs a pofitive Sentence
*of Condemnation upon Men, as to their eternal State.
Snhlnn was plainly of that Mind. For writing about
the Arir,7is, he expreffes himfelf thus : De Gubern.
Dei. Lib. V. Kos eos injur iam Divime Generaticni fa-
cere certi funius, quod minorem Pane Tiliiim dicant :
IB 71CS injuriojos Pntri cxiftimtinty quia aqualcs ejfe
credimus. Errnnt igitur^ Jed hc72o anirvo erraJity non
cdio, fed ajfcElu Dei, honorarc fe Dorfiinu/n atque nmare
crede/ites. Qualiter fro hoc ipfo falf^ opi7iicnis er-
^rore in die judicii puniendi fint^ nulius potefi fcire, nijl
■". judex.
t-jr True NaiTiVtive; ^c. p. xl.
of the Son. 165
I can judge^ has been undermining our Com- Skrm
men Chriftianity. May.GoD give him Re- y
pentance^ before it be too late. And^ v/V^
4. Let us adore the Son as G o d over
JIl^ BleJ]ed for ever^ and heartily^ with the
Apoftle^ fay Jmen to it. Let us do thisj
if we either value his Favour^ or dread his
.Difpleafure. Let us give him not only For-
mal but Cordial Worlhip. The Angels of
Heaven worfhip him ; and much more fliould
we do it. According to the Advice given
us. Let us kifs the Son, lefi He he angry, and p^^j^ -^
Tve perijl) from the Way, 71; hen his Wrath Is km- ,2.
died: remembring what is added^ That hlef
fed are all they that put their Trufi in him.
M 3
S E R M.
i6f
* * * * .* * * *• * * «. * * ■* * ■*■„*.,&, *. *. *,
SERMON VI.
Matth. XXVIII. 19.
— Bapizing them in the
Name of the Father,
and of the S o n, and of
the Holy Ghost.
E have dillin(5lly confider'd the Deity Salrers*
of the Father and of the Son ; But fays h^W.Tuef-
3 St. Jerome y without the Holy Gholt the day Lec-
My fiery of the Trinity ts imperfect * ; And ture; Dec,
theretore 'tis but fit that we endeavour toi9-"7>9-
confirm ourfelves in the Belief of \\\% Deity
alfo. This was generally believed at firft,
by all that own'd the Deity of the Son : But
the Debate with the Brians (who appear'd
in a great many feveral Forms and Shapes)
was not over, before the Macedonians rofe
up_, in Oppofition to the Deity and Dignity
M4 of
* Hieron. Tom. 3. ad Hedih. Epift. 150. Qu. 9,
p. 420.
i68 The Deity
Serm. of the Holy Spirit. And in our Times^ tho'
YI^ hardly any that are well fettled in the Be-
\y^y->j lief of the Son's Deity queftion the Divinity
of the Bleiled Sftrit^ without whom even the
Agency of the Son himfelf in order to the
Salvation of fallen Man would have proved
inefFedual j yet there are few if any that
oppofe the iDe/Vj . of the one^ but what op-
pbfe alfo the De/(/ of the other ,• and many
by hsefi rating as to the one^ have come at
length to call the other alfo in Queition.
1 N Proof of the Holy Spirit's Deity ^ I Ihall
take my Rife from the Ordinance of Chri-
llian Baptlfm^ which was defign'd by our Sa-
viour to be a lafting Token of his great
Love to a loll World. In this Ordinance
of Initiation^ Water is required to be made
\JiQ of,, as a vifible Pledge of the Divine
Favour ; and ^tis order'd to be apply'd to
all devoted Ones^ in the Name of th^ Father y
the So7i^ ' and the Holy Ghofi^ that we may be
the more fully alTur'd of the Readineis of
each of them^ to do any Thing that is be-
comings in order to the fecuring our Sal-
vation. And fmce we are in the fam.e Way
and Manner ^ as well as at the fame Time
to be ' ccnfe crated to each^ I think we may
conclude that one of them is Gcd^ as well as
another.
-... W E are to be baptized in the Naine or in-
to the Name^ of Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft :
-For it maybe taken either Way. Now to
be baptized in or i^tto the Name of any one^
moit properly is to be- devoted to him, to
be called after him^ to. be bound to adhere
to and follow him, and to live according
to his Will. St. Faul fpeaking of the Ifraelltes
% Cor. >:. in the Wildernefs^ fays that they were all hap-
^' ti^'^d un:oMoks^ or ini-o him. But he does
ngt
of the Holy Ghost, i 69
net fay they were baftlz.'d In the Name of Serm.
Mofes. They were bnptizSd unto Moles^ that yj
isj into his Dodirine. They were not con- ^..^.^.^
fecrated to hini^ but only obh'g'd by that ^"^^^"^"^
Wajh'mg which they receiv'd with and from
him^ to profefs his Dodrine^ and to follow
him as their Guide ; and faithfully to obferve
whatever he commanded them from God.
And this we find was the Matter of their
Boafting ,• for they prided themfelves in be-
ing Mojes's D/fc/ples. Whereas when we are
baptized in the Name of the Father^ the Son,
and the Holy Ghoft^ we are conlecrated to
thenij and bound to glorify and worfhip
thenij and ferye them religioufly. We are
told of the Ancient JfraeUtes in the Old 7e-
famcnty that they belic^'d the Lord cmd his Ser- -r -i
i;^;;f Mofes : But no Vv^here either in Old ^^^,
Tefiament or Ntw^ is it intimated to us^ that
they oblig'd themfelves to pay Mofes Religi-
ous Worlliip. That is too much for any
Man to arrogate to himfelf from any of his
Fellow-Creatures. St. Faul openly difclaims
it in his own Cafe ; and flatly denies any p
Mans being baptlz^'d In his Name. He reckon-
ed it monftroufly abfurd that any one ftiould
come under an Obhgation to pay him that
Adoration^ Worfliip and Obedience^ which
was in the Chriftian Way ingag'd and pro-
mis'dj to one in whofe Name Perfons were
haptiz^'d. All that he thereby intended^ was
to bind them to be the Faithful Servants of
that GoD^ who had manifefted himfelf to
be and requir'd to be wcrfliipp'd as being.
Father^ Son^ and Holj Ghofi.
This appointed Form of Baptlzwg may,
if it is well confider'd^ help \is to under-
fland our whole Religion the better. For
it begins with the gratuitous Mercy of the
Enhc)'
13, 15'
ijo , The Deity
Father^ who reconciles us to himfelf by his
only begotten Son ; and fo palTes on to the
Blelfed Jesus^ with the Sacrifice of his
Death ,• and from him it proceeds to the
Bolj' Spirit y by whom we are wafh'd and re-
generated^ and made Partakers of purchas'd^
promis'dj faying Bleffings. An4 it referrs^
either to the Authority of Father ^ Son^ and
Spirit 3 which gave Rife to this Inftitution ,;
or to the Scheme of Chriilian Dodrine which
centers in the Difcoveries that are made us
t:oncerning the Sacred Three ^ or to the di-
ftind: Dedication to each of them^ requi-
red as to ail that are baptiz,\l ; which the
Ancients reckoned to be fignify'd by the Trine
Immerfion,
I. The Form of baptizing in the Name
of the Father^ the Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ may
referr to their Authority as givmg Rife to
this Jnititution. AmbalTadors adl in the
Nam'j of their Princes^ and what they do
in that Capacity as their Reprefentatives^ is
by Authority deriv'd from them. So when
we Miniiters are order'd to haptiz^e and con-
fecrate Perfons^ in the Name of the Sacred
Three^ we are in Effed author iz'd to Ad
as their Reprefentatives in this great Aifair ;
And by applying Water in the Name of each
€)f theiiij to Perfons rightly pr efen ted to
Holy Baptifmy we m their btead feal the
New Covenant with the B^ptifmal Sign ; ma-
king over to the Parties baptiz'd^ the ieve-
ral Bleffings promis'd^ provided they are
faithful in the Duties requir'd^to which there
is on their Part a fblemn Ingagement and
Reitipulation. For in B^ptij-m a Bond is
fign'd on G o d's Part^ as well as onrs. For
as we from thenceforward are firmly bound
%o Jr-end our Lives in his Scrvice_, fo does Fie
ftancj
of the Holy Ghost. 17 r
ftand bound to be atr God, He ftands in- Serm.
gag'dj that he that helle'vcs and is hapr;z,\Iy jjjall yj
be fa-vcd. To this He in BaptiJ?n fets his Seal ^ v..^.->^/0
and all the Sacred Three are concern'd. The MarkxvL
Father ingages that He will be reconciPd and i6.
gracious ^ The Son that He will fully ad the
Part of a kind and faithful Mediator ; And
the Holy Ghofi^ that He will be a San^iifier^
Guide^ and Comforter. All this is as certain_,
in the Cafe of Perfons truly devoted^ and that
are afterwards faithful^ as it is that JV^ter
which we fee with our bodily Eycs^ is ap-
ply'd in their Name. And we Minifters by
applying this Water in their Name_, do in their
ftead give AlTurance of all this. And it be-
ing but agreeable to our Commiflion fo to do^
it may as much be depended on by Perfons
truly lerious^ that thefe Ingagements will be
anfwer'dj as if eacli of the Sacred Three af-
fum'd a bodily Shape_, and gave verbal Affii-
rance of it.
2. This Form of Baptiz^wg in the Name
of Father y Son^ and Holy Ghojt refer rs to the
whole Scheme of Chrinian Dodrine^ which
centers in the Difcoveries that are made us
concerning the Sacred Three. The Sum of
Chriitian Knowledge may be reduc'd to the
Dodrine of Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ which
therefore^ as far as it is reveal'd in Scripture^
is fuppos'd to be confented and fubmitted
tOj by fuch as yield to this Inltitution. We
are baptiz,'d in the Name of each^ i. e. into
the Belief of the Dodrine of each^ as it is
delivered in the Sacred Scriptures. And this
i^ a Dodrine by which the Chrifiian Religion is
remarkably difiinguijlid from all other Religi-
ons^ either of Jews or Heathens ^ and which
fummarily comprehends all that is neceffary
X,Q be behev'd by us, in order to Salvation.
This,
172 The Deity
$£RM. T H I S3 I fayj IS 2L Dodrine by which the
Y j^ . Chrlfiia7i Religion is remarkably dlfiinguljlid from
^^/->^l.s^ all other Religions^ either of Jews or Heaihens.
Tho' the Religion of A4o[es taught the true
G0D3 and the true Way of Worfliip which
He appointed for a Seafon^ jet did it not
reveal the 'Father^ and the Son like the Gofpel.
It could not difcover God as the Father of
C H R I s T3 rifen from the Dead^ and thereby
declar'd to be the Son of God in Power^
and an All-fufHcient Redeerner. Neither
could it reveal the Holy Sprit as proceeding
from Father and Son^ after the Afcenfion of
the latter to Heaven_, to the Fathers Right-
Hand. Neither was the Miniftry of Mofes
as fuchj fb apt to produce the BlelTed Fruits
of Regeneration^ Adoption^ and San6i:ifica-
tion^ as the Gofpel^ which is properly the
Aliniftry of the Doctrine of the Father and
1 John V. the Son. For we are told^ That whofoe^uer
1. helleTjeth that Jejus is the Qhrifiy is born of God,
Joh. i. ii, And that to them that recelued hlm^ he ga'ue
>3' Tower to become the Sons of God : Who are born^
not of Blcodj nor of the TVill of the Flejh^ nor of
theWiUof Man^ but of God. This alfo diftin-
guifhes the Religion of Chri flans from all the
Religions of the Heathens^ who had many Gods^
and many Lords ^ and Mediators^ but no re-
generating or comforting Sfirlt : Whereas
Chriftianity teaches one Father of all^ one
Mediator between God and Men^ and one
Sfirit of Grace^ to renew and fandifyj and
affilt in all Acts of Obedience. And in this
Dodrine the peculiar Glory of the Chrifiian
Religion lies. And the impreffing of it the
more fl:rongly_, and the propagating and per-
petuating of it the more effectually ^ was the
great Defign of ufing the Nam-^^s of all the
Three^ at the Time of the firit Initiation.
This
of the Holy Ghost.
This Way is the Senfe of this glorious Dc-
d:rine to be revived and fpread, one Gene-
ration after another ; and of this rather than
any other^ becaufe this was the Doctrine by
which it was defign'd that Chrifiians as fuch
fhould be diftinguifli'd. It has been there-
fore upon the profeding to believe this Do-
drine^ that Perfoiis have all along been re-
ceiv'd as Members of the Chriltian Church ;
and that by the Order of him by whom this
Church was founded. And it was his plain
Intention^ that his Followers by being ba^^
tlz^'d in the Name of the Father^ and the Ho-
ly Ghoft^ fhould be diilinguifli'd from Pagans
and Infidelsj as well as by being baptl'zJd m
the Name of the Son^ be diftinguirfi'd from
the Jews^ who difown'd the Mejjiah upon his
Appearance^ notwithftanding they had been
looking for Him for many Ages.
W I T H A L J, this Doctrine alfo fummarily
comprehends all that \?> neceflary to be bi-
lked by us in order to Salvation. And
therefore we may obferve that the Ancient
Creeds^ which were fhort Summaries of the
Chriftian Faith^ owe their Original to this
appointed Form of Chriftian Baftlfm^ and
were bottom'd upon it. And I cannot fee
why it fhould be queftion'd^ but that he
that rightly underftands and believes the
Love of the Father ^ the Grace of our Lord
Jefm Chrlfiy and the Communion of the Holy
Ghofiy knows all that is necefTary to his par-
taking of that Love_, Grace and Communi-
on; and in fliortj every Thing that is requi-
fite to his Happinefs. And in Reality what
Knowledge is there that can be faid to be ne-
celTaryj that may not be reduced to this Dc-
d:rine_, of the One moft glorious God^ fhe Yi-
ther^ thi Sop^ and tk Holy Ghoft ?
This
174 -^^^ Deity
Serm. This diredly takes in the Three great
TTT Works of Creatlony Redemption^ and Sanclijicati^
^y-^^J!^^ on. It takes in Creation^ by which all Things
were at firft produced , Redemption^ by which
Man is recovered out of his fallen miferable
State^ upon the Interpofition of the TVord
made Flefh^ and fo dying and rifing again ;
and Santilfi cation alfo^ by which Man being
redeem'd^ is rais'd to a truly Divine Life^ in
order to Life Eternal. And it alfo plairl/
points us to the Concern of eagh of the Sa-
cred Three in the Salvation of fallen Man :
And from thence the diftind Duties that are
owing to each^ are eafily to be inferr'd. In
Ihort^ it takes in the whole Oeconomy of Sal-
vation^ from its firft Foundation^ to its full
Perfection.
T H £ Form of Baptifi^ referrs to this Do-
(5lrine_, as v/hat is neceffary to be perfo-
nally believ'd by all fuch as are baptiz/d at
Adls vUl ^^^' ^^^ therefore^ If thou belie-veft ivlth all
37 qS. * ^'^^^^ Hearty thou mayfi he baptiz^'d^ was the
Language of St, Fhflip to the Eunuch : JnJ
he readily anfu^^erd and fa'id^ I belie-ve that ^e-
fus Chrift is the Son of God. Which Confeflion
of his^ as fnort as it is^ includes Father y
Sony and Spirit. For there's the Father to
whom Christ is 2i Son ; and there's the
Son of that Father diredly believ'd in j and
there's alfo imply'd an Undion of the Holy
Spirit y that made our Jesus to be the Chrffi
or true Mejfiah. And in Reality^ no Time
can be more fit_, to make llich a Profeflion
in J than when Perfons that are grown up to
Years^ folemnly devote themfelves to God
through Christ. This is wltnejfmg a good
Confejpon ^ and it is much for the Glory of
God. Such as are Adult, cannot worthily
j^eceive Baptifm, In the Name of the Father^
th&
of the Holy Ghost.
the Son^ and the Hcly Ghofl:^ unlefs they are
iirft inflrucled In. tiieDodrine cf the Father,
the Son^ ^.nd Holy Ghcft^ and brought to ac-
knowledge it. And therefore St. 'Paul^ find-
ing lome Dilciples who were not well in-
ltriid;ed about the Article of the Holy Ghofi-y
t%V% thenij unto ivhat or '\i\ what Name then ^cfts xl:!c,
they "were bapi!Z,\l ? 3.
Nor is it to be overlook'd^ when C/j/'/V-
ren are Baptlz^^d. .The Parents or Propa rents
that oifer them in this Way to G o d^ by fo
doing profefs their own Adherence to the
Gofpel Dodrine of God the Father ^ the Sen,
and the Holy Ghofi^ and their fincere defire
that they and theirs may continue in ii: to
Perpetuicy. They alfo bind theirs to a Prc-
feflion of the fame Holy Faith and Dod:rine3
and ingage to train them up in the Know-
ledge of it; and the Force of the Obli-
gation afterwards remains. For Perfcns lb
deyotedj and fo educated, ought never to
forget the Sacred Three, whofe Names .
were rtam'd upon them ; And it feems as
much as the Love of the Father , the
Grace of the Son^ and the Communion of
the Holy Ghofi is worth to them, for them *
ever to defer t this Dodrine, or pour Con-
tempt oil the Name of any of the Sacred
Three, to whom they were jointly devoted.
And then,
3. The fame Baptifinal Form does alfo
referr to the Diilind Dedication to Father,
Snf7y and Holy Gho/^y that is required as to
all that are baptiz'd, which the Ancients
reckon'd to be fignify'd by the Trine Imma-
fion, that was commonly us'd amongft them.
Some reprefent this as the Senfe of CknjFs
Words in the Charge in the Text ,• Baptize
tbcm Into th^ frofejjion of that Gofpel Faith ^ ivhkh
The Deity
•was reueard and fent by the Father_, brought
and piblljlid by the Son^ and confirnid by the
Holy Spirit '^. But this Account is defe-
d:ive. A bare embracing the Chriftian Do-
<5lrine will not do. There mult befides that_,
be a yet more folemn Tranfaclion between
the baptized Parties and the Sacred Three ,•
there mult be a Fxderal Dedication of all fuch
to each of them. A folemn Promife muft
"be made of renouncing the Devil and ail
other Lords^ and a Subjedion x.o this God^
the Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft^. By fubmit-
ting to the Rite of Baptifm in this Form^
we folemnly Itrike Covenant with God the
Father who hath made us^ God the Son who
hath redeem'd us^ and God the Holy Ghofi
who is ready to landify us. We bind our-
felves by Tsjame^ to give to each of them
the deepeit P^everence^ the intenfelt Love
and AlFedion^ and the molt dutiful Obfer-
vance and Obedience. To the Father^ Son,
and Spirit are we dedicated^ in Expectation
of the rich and ineftimable Bleflings which
flow from the Love of the Father^ the Me-
rit of the Son^ and the Power of the Holy
Spirit ^.
All Three plainly Itand upon a Level :
And they app^^ar to be Three diltind: Hy-
fofiafesy or eife they would not have been
nam'd Teparately^ with Articles added. For
any Thing alfo that here appears^ they are all
Three et^ual in Power and Authority. If
the Son^ as fonie would have him^ was a made
God_, and the Holy Ghofi a created Subltance^
they would each of them have been infi-
nitely
* Em'yn, p. 60.
* S^Q Dr. }Vat{rUn/^ Eight Sermons, />. i86, 291, (3g,
of the Holy Ghost.
Bttcly inferior to the Father ^ and not join'd
with him upon fuch an Occafion. The Ma-
jefty of the Father would not have fuffer'd-
any one to be in this Cafe join'd with him j
had He not been God emal with him^
God in the very fame Senie as He. And
it is farther to be obferv'd^ That the Sa-
cred Three are not only diftindly nam'd^
but inuolUdy and calfd upon for needful Help
to keep the Bond which the Parties bap-
tized are brought under. And therefore
Or'igen reprefents Ba^tifm as an In'vocathn of
the adorable Trinity f . And AthanaJiMs fpeaking
of the Form of Baptifm^ fays^ IVlmt Society and
Communion can a Creature haue ivith the Creator ^
Why IS that which was made^ recHond up with
the Aiaker ? ^ And Gregory Naz^ianzen fays_,
T/Je Trinity is not an 'Enumeration of unequal
Things y but a Complexion or Comprehenjion of thofe
that are equal and alike in Honour *, And the
Trine-lmmerfion that was fo much us'd in the
Primitive Churchy plainly look'd this Way f-
Our being thus baptized in the Name of
Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft^ is a plain and un-
anfwerable Argument that each of them
mull be God. |-j- Were not the Son as truly^
and as much by Nature God as the Fa-
ther ^ and the Holy Ghofi as truly and proper-
N ly
t T>if Tfiio-avvyfini Te<aV(^ WikKmi^. Comment, in
Joan. Vol. II. Tom. 8. p. 124.
4- At ban. Or at. 3. contr. Arrianos.
* Greg. Nn:(, Ornt. 13.
t See to this Purpofe, Gcr. Jo. Voffil Thcf. TheoL (3
Hljior. p. 361, 363, C^c. And Teytuliian leems plain-
ly of that Mind, when he fays, Nr.m nee feniely fed
tcr, ^J finguU nomina, in perfcnns finguUs tinguimur.
Adv. Piax. c. 26.
It Vld. Petav. Theol.Dogm.de Trin. Lib. 11. Cap.
xli. f 8, & Cap. xiv. 5. 3,
lyS
The Deity
v^-v>^
Serm. ly God as either Father or Son^ our being
Yj * baptiz,'d in their Name could not be ac-
counted for. We are hereby in an afFed-
ing Way reminded of the diftind Divine
Benefits they conferr. The Father adopts us
as his Sons^ and the Heirs of Eternal Life ;
the Son waflies us from our Sins in his own
Blood ; and the Holy Ghoft regenerates us_,
and furnifhes us with all needful Grace.
And fmce we are dedicated to each^ each
mult be God : And the Benefits which they
conferr being fo diftind^ they mult be di-
Itind in the Godhead. This is an Argument
which we Ihould have always at Hand,
wherewith to repel the AlTaults of thofe
who deny the Deity either of Son or Sfirit.
We lliould look as far back as our Bapifm^
and remember that by that Rite which is
order'd to be adminiltred in the Name of
the Son and Sfirlt as well as of the Father^
our Saviour has reprefented them all Three
as joint Oh']Q<^sOi Faith ^ Worjlnp^ and Obedience y
and that we by being bapiz/d in their Names
are oblig'd to own them as fuch.
Consider then^Chriltians^ and that feriouf-
ly_, That Three Great Names were named up-
on you in your Baptlfm^ without any fign of
an Inequality y and that you have in this Way
httn affur'dj the Father ^ Son^ and Sfirlt agreed
in being favourable and propitious to you,
receiv'd you into their Difciphne^ Grace and
Patronage^ and mgag'd to bellow the bell
and richell Bleffings upon you^ upon your
performing the Conditions of the Cove-
nant. And forget not on the other hand^
that you are bound with a firm Faith^ equal-
ly to acknowledge and confels the Sacred
Three^ and to repofe an equal Hope and
Confidence m Them ; giving to each of
them
()[ the Holy Ghost. i 70
them the higheft Adoration_, and a perpc-g^^^^
taal Obedience. And fince this is plain Du- yV *
ty, 'tis evident the Son ^nd Holy Ghoft muft
be God as well as the Father. And this is
an Argument that may^,! think^ convince and
confirm^ fuch as are Strangers to the Force
of abftraded Proofs^ and that have no Re-
lifh for the Niceties of Crlttclfm. The very
Form of thy Baptifm^ Friend^ may fatisly
thee as to the Deity of thy Saviour. For had
not the Son been G o d as well as the Fa-
ther^ He never would have been joynM with
him upon that folemn Occafion^ and repre-
fented as the joint Objed of thy Faith^ Hope-,
Love^ Truftj Worfhip^ and Obedience. The
Holy Ghoft alfo muft be G o d^ or his Name
would not have been brought in upon the
fame Occafion j nor Vv/ould He have been
rank'd with the other Two^ or reprefented
as a joint Object with them of divine Truft,
Worfhip^ and Obedience.
T o lay^ That nothing is deflgn'd by the
Holy Ghoft y but the Divine Power and Ejftca-
cjy as is the way of fome^ is perfedly ri-
diculous. "What^ are we ^or;V^in theName
of the Divine Efficacy ? or confecrated to the
Tower of God? What Stuff is this I When
we are baptiz'd in the Father's Name^ do we
not acknowledge his Vower and Efficacy an-
fwerably to his Nature ^ and when we wor-
ihip tht Father any Way^ do we not adore his
Toiver ? And when we devote ourfelves to
the Obedience of the Father ^ do not we
fubjed ourfelves to his Tower ^ as well as to
hfs other Excellencies and Perfedions ?
And is there not as good Reafon for
our being confecrated in the Name of
the Divine JVifdom ^ or Goodnefs^ or Jnftlce^
or any other effential Attribute^ as in or \n-
N 2 to
1 80 The Deity
Sfrm. to the Name of the Divine Tower ^ This is ti
Yj^ Thing that won't bear an Argument.
^^/^y-i^ 1 N this Matter J I muft contefs^ I agree
intirely with Bifhop Burnet^ who in his Expo-
fition of the XXXIX Articles "^^ exprelTes
himfelf thus : Since ivlthout any DlftinBion^ or
vote of hieqrdnlity all Three ^ the Father^ SOn_, and
Holy Gholtj are In this Charge fet together^ ai
Terfons m ivhofe Name this Tranfa^lon Is to be ma-
nag^dj they mufi be all Three the True G O D I
Otheru'Ife it looks like a jufi Prejudice agalnjl our
Saviour and his whole Gofpel^ that by his ex-
prefs DircBio7jj the firfl Entrance to It^ which gives
the 'vifible and federal JR.ight to the great BleJJlngs
that are offer d by tt^ or their Initiation into ity
jlwuld be in the Name of two created Beings (if
the one can be calFd fo much as a Beings accord-
ing to their Hypothcfis) and that e^ven in an Equa^
llty with the Supreme aiid uncreated Being. The
Tlalnnefs of this Charge ^ and the great Occafion up-
on which it was gi'ven^ makes this an Argument of
fuch Force and E^vidtnce^ that It may juftly de-
termine the whole Matter. And of all Men_, I
verily think this fhould never be calFd in
queftion^ by any of thofe who^ as they are di-
redted in their Litany ^ are often crying out^
O God the Father of Hea-ven^ O God the Son^ O
God the HolyGhoft, O Holy, BleJJed, and Glori-
ous Trinity^ Three Terfons, and One God, have
Afercy iipon us mlferable Sinners,
N o R is this any new or upftart Notion m
the Churchy but of ancient Date. Dldymus t_,
who flourifh'd about the Year oi Chrlft 360^ in
his Difcourfe of the Holy Spirit, when he was
fpeaking of joyning the Holy Ghofi with the
Father
* Tng. 38, t De Sp. S. Lib. II. inter Op.
nieron, Tom. VL p^g* 224.
of the Holy Ghost.* i8i
Father and the Son^ has thefe Word: Wloo (fays Serm.
he) will not from hence ccmclude^ theEfjualityofthe VJ,
Sacred Trinity^ feeing there h but one Faith in the ^/-^yx^
Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft^ and Baptlfm is
gi'ven in the Name of all Three <* I do not think that
(iny 0726 will be fo fcolijij or mad^ as to imagine
that Baptlfm to be perfect ^ which is gi'ven In the
Name of the Father y afidofthe Son^ ivlthout the
addition of the Holy Ghoft. And in this we
niay be abundantly confirm'd by confulting
other ancient Writer^;^ as may appear by the
Citations in the Margin *.
^N ? I
* St. Cyprimi ad 'Jul. Ep. 73- Tays that the Form of
Bnptifm is prefcribed by Christ, that it might be
m plena ^ ndimr.ta Trinitnte : i. e. in the full ConfelTi-
on of the Holy Trinity. And St. Jerome, Epifi. 61. fays
it was the Cuftom of the Church to inftruCl thofe who
were to be Baptized, for Forty Days, in the Docftrine
of the Holy Trinity. And Bafd cojit. Eunom. •— fays.
That Bt^.pti:{ing in the Name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghoji, is a moft folemn Profejfwn of the Trinity in
Vnity ; becaufe they are all joined together in this piiblick^
AH of Devotion. x-Ynd he proves an e^juality of Honour
to hejiie to Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, from this Form
of Bnptifm, wherein the Son and Holy Ghoft are joind
with the Father, without any Note of Diftinclion. And
what more proper Token of a Coyijunclion in the fame Dig-
nity, than being put together in fuch a manner ? Nothing
(fays he) ftoall make me forfnkg the DoEirine J reccivd
in my Baptlfm, when I was firft entered into the Chri-
ftinn Church : And I advife all others to keep firm to
that Profeffion of the Holy Trinity, which they made in
their Baptlfm : that is, of the indivifihle Vnion of Fa-
ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft. And Epift, 188. He
proves that the Holy Spirit is God, from the Form of
adminiftring Bnptifm, He being join'd to the Father
and Sen, when Baptlfm is conferred in the Name of
Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. For (fays he) ^Vhat is of
another and different Nature, Qould not partake of the
W^s^
182^ The Deit^
Serm. I ^^^^ft own therefore^ I don't much wonder
yj^ to find Mr. Ewlyuy who fo little relifhes that
Dod:rine which the Ordinance of Baptifm fo
fully confirms^ Ihould fo eaflly be himfelf
perluadedj (in Compliance with Sccinus f) ?^nd
fo willing to perfuade others^ of the needlefs-
nefs of Eapijm^ as to the Defcendants of
fuch as have been themfelves baptiz'd^ and
the Fitnefs of confining it to fuch only^ as
become Trofelytes to Chriftianity from an Infidel
State,
fame Honour and TVorfmp. And AthnnnfiuSy Eplft.
ad Serapion. j>ag. 14. Tom. x. ad Scrap. Tom. 1. p.
179, 186. fays, That Chrift founded his Church on the
DoBrine of the Trinity contaiyid in thefe iVords ; nyid
if the Holy Ghoft be of a different Nature from the Father
^nd SoUj he would never have been joind with theyn in
the Form ofBapifm, no more than an Angel, or any other
Creature. And Gregory Na:(ian:(en in his Oration con-
cerning Baptifm, explaining the Creed and Faith into
which Perfons were Baptized, infifts particularly on
the Belief of the Holy Trinity, and declares he would
baptize none that would not own this Faith. If
(fays he) you do Jlill halt, and do not own the Divinity
full and perfcHy Jeek^for fome body elfe to bapti:{eyoUy or
rather dcjlroy you : For I have 7io mind to divide the
Deity, and at the time of your New Birth to brijig Death
pn you ; fo that you will have yieither Baptifm, nor the
hope of Grace, your Salvation being quickly /hipwreckt.
For if you deny Divinity to any cf thefe three, you over-
throw the whole [Trinity] ayid make your Baptifm of no
Iporce to you. And Fai'.ftinus de Trlnirare, has this Ex-
jprefTion .- Cum praxcpit Dominus, lit gentes in nomine
Patris (3 Filii (3 Spiritus Sancii bapti:(cntur, aPertiffi-
mum eft Spiritum Snncium non effe Crenturam, vel ex
ipsa Societate, tju.c illi una cum Patrc ^ Filio efi, vet
qucd nunquam prtuciperct Dominus, ut in Creaturce no-
mine aliquis bapti:(ett;r : Multum cnim divinjo potenti.c
derogaretur, fi cum ConfcjfiGuc divini nominis par ^uoi^uG
vreatinx confeffio pcneretur.' '• •■■ ■ ' : ■
"*• t ^^^ his Difpuc, de Baprlfmo Aqua?.
of the Holy Ghost* 183
State f. By means of this he anlwers one Serm^
End at lealtj wliich may be to his Purpofe : yr
For he takes a very proper Method to keep ,^/-*y^-Cj
People from being fo afFedingly remind-
ed of the Doctrine of Father^ Son^ and Spl-
rity as they mufl: be^ if all in each Genera-
tion that are allow'd the Benefits of Chri-
itianity^ are obliged (if there be room for
it) to be baptiz a in the Name of the Sa-
cred Three^ and folemnly devoted to the
Service of each of them. But the beft of it
isj the Chrillian Church has been all along
of another Mind^ and has generally thought:
it their Duty to baftlz-e not only the nrft
Trofelytes to their Holy Religion^ but alfb
their Defcendants from Age to Age. And
not without Reafbn^ as far as I can judge ;
fince 'tis only continuing the Pradife of
confecrating the Difciples of C h r i s t to Fa-
tbe-fy Son^ and Holy Goofi^ by Baptifw^ that
the Promife of having his Prelence with
thenij always^ even to the End of the
World^ could be expeded to be made good.
And as long as this Pradife remains in the
Churchy tho' one Generation goes^ and an-
other comes^ yet we fhall have a Handing,
convincing Evidence in every Age^ That the
Holy Ghofty to whom all profelfing Chriiti-
ans are devoted^ jointly with the Father and
the Son^ is as truly G g d as either of them^
God eijual with them_, becaufe of his being
join'd with them in that iacred^ initiating
Solemnity. We are therefore often to be re-
minded of this Argument^ that we may never
forget itj but that it may have an abiding In-
N 4 fluence
t See his Previous Q^iefllons reUting to Baptlfm, at;
the latter end of his XrMs.
1 84
The Deity
SfiRM. fiucnce upon our Pradiife. And our Care
VI. about thisj is the ready and only Way to
y^r^^/-'^ fecure to ourfelvcs thofe Bleffings which true
Chriftianity has intail'd upon it. This is
what all are to be taught in all Nations^ and
in all Ages j- inilead of being hidden^ it's
to be preach'd to all People without Ex-
ception.
And now I fhall goon to other Argu-
ments and Evidences of the D^/// of the i/o/;
Ghoft^ in order to our full Satisfaction f-
Consulting the Holy Scriptures (which
moft certainly are here to be our Standard)
we find the Names and Titles of God ar^
given to the Holy Sprit ; and the Perfe^iom of
GoD are reprelented as belonging to him;
the Works of God are afcrib'd to him ; and
we are informed alfo that Divine fVbrJhlp is
due to him : And therefore either the Scri-
ptures moll fadly impofe upon us^ or the
Holy Spirit muft be God.
I. The Names and Titles of God are in the
Scriptures freely given to the Bleffid Sprite
and therefore mult He be God- Th^ Spirit \s
Ifa. VI. 9. c^ip^ Jehovah. For Jehovah is by a Prophet
Ads brought in as fpeaking^ what St. Paul declares
xxviil. '^^ fo many \Vords was fpoken by the Holy
45, 26. Ghofi, And we are told in the OldJefiament^
Exod. that the Jfraelites tempted Jehovah at Maffah
xvii. 7.^^^ and Meribah in the Wildernefs ; which in the
Hebr, ill. jy^^^ Tefiamcnt is diredly explain'd of the Ho-
^'9* ly Ghofi. And whereas we are told^ That Me^
■■ • /«
t Sec upon this Subjed, Eftveick^s Anfwer to Bidh ;
Pool's Blatphemer Slain : and J. Goodmn of being fil.'.d
with the Spirit, Chap. vii. vlii. H^ittichil Caufa Sp. S.
Vidrix. Mnthers' Diic. concerning the Deity of the
Holy Ghoft, e^c. . .••.■■, ^V.:
of tie Holy Ghost.
fas went in before the Lord (Jehovah) and (pake
ivith him^ St. ?W fignifies to iis^ thstt the Lord
if that Spirit y that has fuch a Concern in the
Miniftration of the Gofpel^ as he was fpeak- Exod.
ing of, and freely magnifying. He is alfo xxxiv.34:
plainly call'd God. For (fays the Apoftle) i Cor.iii.
jknow je not that je are the Temple of God^ and i7-
that the Spirit of (Sod dwelleth in you ? if any Man ^ ^^'^' ^'^^*
defle the 7 em fie of God ^ him jhall God deftroy : *^> *7'
For the Temple of God ts holy^ which Temple ye are.
Plainly intimating to thcm^ that they were
the Temple of God^ becaufe that Spirit that
was truly God dwelt in them. Nor can I fee
how they could be faid to be the Temple of
Gody becaufe of the JHoly Spirit d^uelling in them^
if that Spirit that did dwell in them was not
truly God.
• \.x\^Qtothe Holy Ghofi ^ is alfo faid to be . (>
z Lying to God ^ which is in EfFed: a calling ^ ^*^*
him God. Tho' Men were unable to difco-
ver the Sin of Ananias and his Wife^ yet the
Holy Ghofi diftindly knew it. And it was a
great Aggravation of their Faulty that they
would venture to bid him Defiance by Lying
to him 3 as if they could conceal their Bafe-
nefs from him as well as their Fellow-Crea*
cures. They this Way did not lye unto Men ,
but unto God ^, Which would not hold^ if the
Holy Ghofi unto whom they ly'd^ were not
truly God. And in like manner alfo^ refifiing ^^^ ^^'
the Holy Ghofi ^ is reprefented as the fame thing ^^*
with refilling God.
~ AgaiNj the Apoftle faysj Know you not that ^^^^'^'^'
your Bodyts the Temple of the Holy Ghofi? Therefore *9> 2.0.
* See a Sermon on this Texr, Preach'd before the
Un'lverfity of Oxford, Feb. 24; lyi^; by miliflyn Ste^
fhens.M, A. Fellow of Exeter College,
1 86 The Deity
glorify God ht your Body y 8zc. Which would car-
ry nothing of an Argument in it^ if the Holy
Ghofi were not truly God. Who but God can
have a Temple belonging to him ! Being Tem-
ples of the Holy Ghofi J we are Temples of
2 Cor. vi. God: And therefore God mull hQ glorify" d m us
i6- and by us. And again^ we being his Tern-
Levir. ples^ are faid to be the Temple of the Living God,
xxvi. 12. So that He is the Lining God, And we fhall be
the more induc'd to believe him fuch^ upon
2 Sam. confulting and comparing the Paffage in the
^'^^'^''^:^' Old Tefiament^y that is there referr'd to^ and
14^^' ^^' ci^^^- K^ ^s ^^^^ ^^^^ God of Ifrael^ and their
Matt. xli. ^^^^ 3 ^^^ caird the Spirit of Glory.
31, 31. WiTHALj, the Holy Spirit is one that may
' be finn'd againil:_, and blafphem'd : And the
hlafpheming him is reprefented as a. Sin too
great to be forgiven^ either In this Life^ or in
that to come. And this is a thing that is not
to be conceiv'dj if he was not G^^. For cer-
tainly none but God can. properly be finn'd
againil 1 And He muft be the Mofi High God
too^ againfl: whom any Sin fliould prove of
io aggravated a Nature^ as to be incapable
of being pardon'd. Every Sin againfl: God
is far from being unpardonable ; And for a
Sin againlt the Holy Spirit to be fo^ is a. thing
inconceivable^ nay^ impofllble^ if the Spirit
was not God.
"Rom. XV. The Spirit is alfo call'd the God of Hope :, the
,3. " ' Sfirlt of Truth:, ths Spirit of Life ; or the quick-
John, xlv. ning Spirit , the Spirit ofHolineJs. He is that one
17- Spirit^ from whom all Hope^ Truths Life^ and
Rom.viii. Holinefs proceeds. And how could that be^ if
^: . He were not properly God ? Let us be ever fo
U. 1. 4. i\j^i^ jn enquiring what Sort of Spirit this isj,
we cannot find^ or give a better Arifwer than
2- Cor. iii. ^^ ^^^- Words of St. /W^ The Lord Is that Spi-
17. ' ' rlt : It is the Lord of whom thefe Things ar^
Ipoken
of ^/j^ Holy Ghost. 187
fpoken. Tho' I muft own^ I don't knowwhy Sfrm.
we might not render this PalTage thus ^ Tuat yj
Spirit IS the Lord. And then we fhall fr(^m ,.,,^-y-sv
Yi^nzt have an additional Proof of the Deity
of the Spirit^ who changes us into the Image
of the Bleffed and Glorious God. Vjat Spirit
is the Lord Moft High. For He is not a bare
miniftrhig Sfirlt ^ Hke thofe fent forth to mimficr^^^-'^-i^"'
for them who fl^all be Heirs of Sal'vatio7i '^ He is no
ferving Spirit^ as the Angels^ who tho' very-
excellent Beings^ yet are no more than Crea-
tures : But He is the Lord. The Apoftles have
ftyl'd the Gofpel^ The Minift-ratlon of the Sprite a Cor. iiu
(becaufe the Power and Grace of the Holy 8.
Spirit is peculiarly therein manifefted) and in-
tmiatedj that as Mofes when he turn'd to the
Pcople_, put a Vail over hps Face y io the Jews Ver. 13,
reading of the Old Tefiament had a Vail Itill 14-
over their Mmds : And as Mofes ^ when he "^^^^ ^5>
tur7idto the Lord ^ the Great Jehovah^ put oiF^'^'
his Vail^ fo when the Heart of this People
fhould turn to the Lord^ the Vail jhould be taken
away. He then adds^ The Spirit u the Lord. In ver. 17,
the Original "tis^ 0 HUdi©- 7^ nrviviU k/, which
Claufe may as well to the full be render'd^
The Spirit is the Lord^ as elfewhere Tnvy.ci 0 SiU ]<^^^'^ iv".'
iSj God is a Spirit. That S fir it then is tJoe Lord. ^4«
He is the Lord Moft' High ^ he is t\\t Supreme God.
And from this laft Piace^ we may draw yet
a farther Argument. For if God being a Spi-
rit is to be worjhipped in Spirit and in Truth ^ as
our Lord there afferts^ then the Spirit of
God and of C h K i s t^ who was promis'd
by our Sainour to fupply his place^ and ad
as his Deputy^ mult alio be lb worfhipp'd, •
and therefore' is God. But of this more
prefently.
X' The VerfeBlons of God are in Scripture
pfcen ■ afcrib a to the Spirit^ and therefore
alfo
i88 r/j^ Deity
Sbrm. a^fo He mult be God, To him are eyen
VI, thofe Divine Perfed:ions afcrib'd^ that are
v,^,.>^^,^_y properly incommunicable. He is not only
1 John il* [he Holy Gne^ by Way of Eniinencej, but He
20. ^^ IS Omnifci€?it. Vov the '^ip'int fear cheth all Things y
1 Cor. ii. even the deep Things of God. He knoweth the
^°* Things^ even all the Things of God^, moil
intimately and exadly^ jult as the Spirit of
a Man knows the Things that moft proper-
Ver. II. ly belong to him. For^ fays the Apollle^
Ti^hat Man knoiveth the Things of a Man^ fa've
the Spirit of a Man which is in him ? E'ven fo
the Things of God knoweth 7J0 Man hut the Spi^
rit of God. And befides^ unlefs He was Om-
nlfcienty He could not^ as it is declar'd He
Rom.viil. would^ make Jntercejfion for the Saints ^ according
27. to the f^Vill of God : Nor could He guide the
. Apoftles into all the Truth^ as 'tis promis'd
John XVI. -^^ flT^ould. He is alfo Omniprefent, fo that
Pf cxxxlx <^here is no goings no fleeing from him. And
-7, He dwells in the Teople of God^ wherefoever
they are difpers'd. The Spirit of God does not
only work tranliently and occaiionally in
and on the People of G o d^ but we are told
I Cor. ill. exprefsly He dwelleth in them ; He refides in
1^- them as in his Temples : In fo much thar
Eph. 11. thro^ C H R 1 S Tj hoth they that are afar offy and
*7? iS- they that are near^ haz^e accefs by one Spirit tmto
the Father. He works Grace in the Hearts
of all the Saints^ and He does it in fuch a
Epn.MT, Way^ as to fhew the exceeding Greatnefs of his
i8, 19. fo-wer. And therefore He is Omnipotent. He
works all good Things in us. Let the Di-
verfity of Gifts in the Church be ever fo
great^ or remarkable^ v/e may fay as the A-
i Cor.xli. poftle^ ^// thefe worketh that cne and the felf"
II. fame Spirit_, di%.nding to every Man fe^uerally as
i/e jvill. And this is what we may fafely
affirm He could not do^ if He was not Jl-
mighty.
of the Holy Ghost. 189
mighty. He is the Tower cf the Highcft : Arid Serm.*
the Eternal Spirit. And there is not a Per- yi,
fedion that is elTential to the Divinity^ in i^^^-yAj
which He can be charg'd with being any Luke i.
way deficient. -^5.
g. The Works of God are in Scripture of-
ten afcrib'd to the Spirit ^ and therefore alfo
He muft be God. The Work of Creation is
his j and therefore we read that the Spirit of Gen. i. 2.
God at the firft moved on the Face of the Wa-
ters. He brooded upon the mifhapen Mafs of
Matter^ and fo turn'd a confus'd Chaos into
a beautiful Order of Creatures^ which was
molt certainly a Divine A61. And Job in
his ovvn Cafe cries out^ T^e Spirit of GoDjobxxxiii
wade me^ and the Breath of the Almighty hath gi- a,
^jen me Life *. It was the Sprit of God Luke i.
that in a peculiar manner formed the Body 35.
of C H R I s T 5 which IS an Argument of his
Divinity. And we are told^ That He that
fiake by the Mouth of David^ was the God Ads \\\
'which made Heauen and Earthy and the Sea^ and 24, 25.
all that in them is : And at another Time 'tis
exprefsly declared^ That it was the Holy Ghofi ^(Sts\.i6,
that fpake by the Mouth of David.
Working Miracles alfo is often afcrib'd
to the Holy Ghofi. The mighty Signs and Wo?:-
dcrs by which the Divinity of our Holy Re-
ligion was fo fully attefted^ were wrought by
the Po7Per of the Spirit of God. And He is de- Rom. xvl
clar'dtobe the Worker of all Miracles. Some 19.
have reckoned that nothing elfe was meant
by the Holy Spirit ^ but thoIe miraculous Gifts iCor. xll.
and^O;"-
* See Dr. Kjiights Sermons, ;>. 269, ^c. where
that and other Texts, that are commonly alledg'd ia
Proof of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, are feverallv,
and particularly confider'd.
The Deity
and Graces that were communicated to the
firlt Spreaders and Publiflters of ChrHtianity
in the World. But St. Faid very plainly di-
Itinguiflies between the Gifts then diltribu-
tedj and him that was the Diftributer of them
iCor. xll. ^t his own Pleafure^ faying^ There are Dlverji-
4. ties of Gifts ^ bin the fame spirit : And after-
.r wards addins; that He di-vides to e^very Man
Je'verallj as he iviU.
Go^erjtmg the Church author itatively^ is
A6ls xUl. ^^^^ another Work of the SfArlt. lie call'd
2. Barnabas and Saul out to work. He mad^e
Ads XX. Perfons 0-ijerfeers of the Flock of God. He
28. made and gave forth Laws to promote Or-
der and Harmony in the Church when it
was firlt fixed and fettled. And therefore
they that met at Jertfalem for Confultation_,
could write to their Brethrej/in other Parts^
I^.xv.28. ^^^^^ needed their Advice^ and fay^ it feemed
' Good to the Holy Gholl a7td to ns : And we
may allow others that are forward enough
to ingrofs the Name of the Church to them-
felves^ to do fo too_, when they can give
good Evidence they have a like Warrant,*
but not before.
Another Divine Acl that is afcrib'd to
the Holy Sprit is the infpiring the Scriptures.
1 Pet. i. We are therefore told_, Thsii Trophecy ^ame not
21. i?i old Time by the I fill of Man ^ but holy Men
of God fpake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghoft.
There are alfo a grea,t Variety of other
Ads that are properly Divine_, that are in
Scripture afcrib'd to the Holy Spirit. 'Tis He
that is faid to blefs Gofpel Mlniftrations with
Succefs, which is altogether Divine. . If you
ask how ^t. Paul came to convert fo many
to the Chriftian Faith^ fo itrangely to ran-
fack Mens Confcienccs^ and make fo won-
derful
of the Holy Ghost.
derful a Change and Alteration in and on
them 5 He freely tells you^ it was becaufe
his Preaching was In the Demonfiratlon of the _
Spirit_, and of Tower. He refolvcs it wholly j Cor. il,
into the Agency of the Spirit who wrought 4^
with him^ and by hini^ in fuch a manner
as to make Means that were in Appearance
very unlikely ^ wonderfully efficacious to
convert and lave Mens Souls. 'Tis this Holy
Spirit that enlightens us. For He is the Spi- c t, • ^
rit of Wfdom and Re^uelatlcn^ -who enlightens the jg '/*'
Eyes of our Underfianding^ that we ' may know
what is the Hope of ChrijFs Callings and what the
Riches of the Glory of his Inheritance in the Saints j
and what the excecd'.jtg Greatnefs of h^s Tower to
trs ward who helieue^ according to the working of
his Mighty Tower. It is alio the very fame
'Sprit that inlivcneth us. For fays our Lord
Jesus, fr is the Spirit that quickneth. He alfo rf- John vi,
news us : And tli^refore we read of the re- 6^.
ncwing of the Holy Ghoit. 'Tis He that fan- Tlr.lii. 5.
cilfies us : And therefore Men are faid to be
fanBfyU by r/^e Holy Ghoft: And fanmffd ^/ Rom. xv;
the Spirit of our God. 'Tis He alfo 'that/r^»^- 16.
thens and fiahlijlies us : And therefore the A- i Cor. vi,
poftle prays for his Epheflans^ ihsitthtTather^^*
of our Lord Je^us Christ would grant them gpj^^ '-j^
according to the Riches of his Glory ^ to be ftrength- 16. *
ned with might by his Spirit in \he inner Man.
In t\\\% one Spirit have we by Chnft accefs to the ^^\\. IL
Father : He having an equal Share with 18.
God our Saviour^ in the Gofpel Difpenfa-
tion of Grace and Salvation. And it is al-
fo by the fame Sprit that we are fealed unto g |^ -^^^
the Day of Redempion. Thefe are plain Divine ^o, '
Characters: And being taken together^ we
may be well aiTur'd they can agree to wow^
but GQd, And then^
A. We
The Deity
4. W E learn alfo from the Scriptures^ that
Divine Worfiip is due to the Holj Spirit. He
^^ _^ was worlhip'd by the Seraphlms. He was
ira:vL 3. worfhip'd by St. Taul^ who [wears hy theSyi-
rit : And what higher hh. of Wcrfhip can
there be than Swearing ? Now He declares
Rom. Ix. thdit his Confcie?2ce bore him witnefs in the Holy
J. Ghoft^ who he did not doubt would be rea-
dy to atteft the Truth of what he declared.
Often alfo did he pray to the Holy Ghoil^
and beg Grace from Him as well as from
the Father and the Son. He begg'd that the
Commimion of the Holy Ghoft might be with
aCor.xili. tho[e to whom he wrote^ as well as either the
14. Lo've of God, or the Grace of the Lord J e s u S
Christ. He pray'd to the Spirit that He
would communicate himlelf to Believers^
and fufter himfelf to be enjoy'd in his
Gifts and Graces which were various. St.
Rev. 1. 4. j^/j^ ^\fy fupplicates for Grace and Peace from
the feven Spirits which are before the Throne^
1. e. from the Divine Spirit^ from whom all
that Variety of Gifts^ Adminiftrations^ and
Operations that were at that Time in the
Churchy proceeded. And I think we have
alfo an Initance of the worfliipping of the
Holy Spirit in the Church of Jemfakm^ in her
very Infancy and firft Rife. For we are
Ac^s iv. told^ That they lift up their Voice to God with
24, 15. one accord y a?2d faid ; Lord Tloou art God which
hafi made Heauen and Earthy and the Sca^ and all
that in them is : Who by the Mouth of thy Servant
David haf [aid, why do the Heathen rage, and
the People imagine "vain Things ? This being
fpoken by the Holy Ghcft^ we may I think
warrantably enough ^ not only reckon
they here calPd him God^ (as has been ob-
ferv'd before) but worflnp'd him jointly as
fuch. At lealt He could not be excluded
from
of the lAoi^Y GuosT. ipo
from being the Objed of the Worjljlp that was Serm.
offer 'dj jointly with the Father and the Son. y/
And as great a Man as Cajfander was^ ac-
knowledges that It was by the Encourage-
ment of *^this and other fuch like Examples^
that the Ancient Church very frequently
call'd upon the Holy Spirit in an Hynin that
was composed in Honour to him. And there-
fore when Mr. JVhlfion f feems to be afraid
it will at lafi appear that the hi'vocation of the
Holy Ghoil is 7Wt only not fufported by Scrips
turCy but a direB Breach of the firfi Commandment ^
&:c. He is in Fear^ where no Fear is. And
tho' Dr. Clarke does not quite run his Lengthy
yet he goes much too far^ when he tells us^
riiat for pitting up Prayers and Supplications di-
reSlly and exprcfsly th the Ferfon of the HoIy Spi-
rit^ it mtifi be acknowledgd there is no clear
Precept or Exa?nple in Scripture, This I for my
Part cannot acknowledge^ becaufe 'tis my
real Judgment that what I have now offered,
fufficiently proves the contrary. And when
he adds^ That the fame muft he confefed con-
cerning the PraHife of the Primiti've Church in the
Three firff Centuries^ fo far as appears from the
Writings of thofe Ages ^ j I can't concurr with
him there neither. For I think St. Bafd wha
liv'd in the very next Century^ is more to be
regarded in this Cafe than the Doctor : And
he fets himfeif induftriuufly to prove the
Holy Gbofi to be a proper Objed of Adoration^
as well as the Father and Son • and argues
that there was no Reafon to ^wd Fault Vv^ith
the Doxolcgy us'd in the Church ^; And fays,
Tiiat Firmillan^ Meletlm^ and the Eaftcrn
O Chri-
t Prim. Chriftlanity Reviv 'd, Vcl. V. App, 2. p. z6*
* i)criprure Dodiiae. Pan II. §. liv.
194 "^^^^ Deity
unr-^
Serm. Chriftians agreed in the Ufe of it; and fo
Yj^ did all the Wcfiem Churches from lUjrkum to
the End of the World. And this he faich
was by an immemorial Cullom^ of all
Churches^ and of the greateft Men in them.
Nay^ he fays it had been continued in the
Churches trcm x.\\^ Time the Gofpel had
been receiv'd among them '*'. And feme Au-
thorities in Confirmation of this may be i^^n
in the Citations in the Margin t-
I N fhort then^ the Holy and BlelTed Sftr'it
having in Scripture the 'Name and Charatter3
of God given him^ and the D'rume Ttrftcli-
071S alcrib'd to him ; and He being there
reprefented as the Author of all Sorts of Dl-
'Vine Operations^ that require Immenfity^ Om-
nipotence^ Omnifcience^* and other Divine
Excellencies j He being one to whom we
are defeated ^ and in whom we are to helu^ue^
as well as againft whom we .may peculiarly
Sin ; the Author of all Grace in Belie vers_, a
fpecial Helper to them in their Prayers^ and
the peculiar Spring and Fountain of Order in
the Church ; if He is not truly God^ I think
we
* Bnfil. contr. Eimom. cap. 29.
t Juftin Martyr in his Second Apology, exprefTes
hlmfelt rhus. I4^e confcfs indeed that voc are Atheifts
tii to fuch as have the Reputation of Gods amovg yon,
hut not in I{efpeci of the mofi true God, the Father of
l{ightecufnefs and Sobriety and- all other Vcrtues, and
tpho hath not the leaft Mixture cf J4^ickednefs in hlyn. For
him^ and the Son \vho came from him, and taught us
thefe Things, and the Prophetick^ Spirit (or the Spirit
who fpake by the Prophets) voe voorjlotp and adore.
And St. Bafil de Spiritu Sancto, mentions feveral Pray-
ers and Doxologies, us'd by the Ancient Fathers, in
which the Holy Spirit was exprefsly worfhipp'd, as well
as, either the Father or the Son:
See Biiighnmh Origines Ecclefiajlic, a. Vol, V. p. 6z^ ^c
of the Holy Ghost.
we miift be forc'd to own^ that when wc
have gone as tar in commending the Scrip-
tures as we can_, we muft yet at laft be forc'd
to own^ they are lb drawn iip^ as that in-
Itead of guarding duly again it Aliftakes _,
they lay a Foundation for molt unhappy
Milapprehen(ions_, in Things of the laft Mo-
ment^ in which our Spiritual and Eternal
Welfare is nearly concern 'd^ and therefore
are but little to be regarded by us.
Reserving the Objedlions againft the
Truth I have been upon to the next Dif-
courfe^ I fliall only add thefe two Reile-
dions.
I. We may by what has been already of-
fer'd^ be a little help'd to pafs a Judgment
upon the AlTertions of a late Writer^ who
feems to have thought himielf qualify 'd to
give new Light to the World ; who declares
that the Holy Ghoft is inferior as ivell as fnhor-
(I'lnate^ to both the Father a77d the Son^ and that
he was ne^ver exprefsly called God or Lord^ by
the firfi Chrifiiansy nor ever was muocated by
them : And that He Is to be 7i^orjh:j}fd in Bap^
tifrj^ Doxologjy and Bhjjing^ but not t>y Invocati-
on. Thefe are the very Words of Mr. Whl-
jion ^. But if you will be at the Pains to
confalt the feveral Texts that have been
produced with Relation to the Ho/y Spirit ^ I
am in no fear of your finding him reprefcnt-
ed as inferior to Father or r07i, Tii'..y give
him the fame Name ^ Titles ^ Attributes y
Works^ and Worfliip^ without any Notice
ot an Inferiority, The Baptifm?d Form or
Charge from whence I took my Rife^ fets
the Holy Ghofi upon a Level witli the Father
O 2 and
Primitive Faith, Art. XIX, XX, XXL
The Deity
and Son ; and I can't perceive that the 0-
ther Texts cited bring him at all lower.
But when a Man has found out a Way to
bring in new Scriptures^ and make a large
and confiderable Addition to our very Bi-
bleSj of Writings drawn up by a very diffe-
rent Spirit from that which infpir'd our Sa-
cred Penmen^ I think we have the lefs
Reafon to wonder^ if he iliould be for de-
grading that Hclj Spirit y from whofe kifpir'd
Writings we have all our Light. How it
may fare with the Holj Gbofi m thofe Apo-
cryphal Spurious Writings^ of which that
Gentleman is fb vaftly tond^ concerns us
little : But in our truly Sacred Writings^ we
find his Deity plainly enough declar'd^ by
our being reprefented as the Temple ef God^
upon the Account of cur having him dwcl-
mg in us. We there alfo find him exprefs-
ly calFd Lord : For the Lord is that Spirit j
or that Spirit is the Lord. 'Tis by this Spirit of
the Lord J that we are changd into the glori-
ous Image of the Bleffed G o d^ which is a
change of that vaft Confequence^ that the
producing ir^ is the main avow'd Defign of
the Gofpel Dilpenfation : And the Spirit that
does produce this Change_, and inlighten and
transform us^ mult needs be the Lord. And
He will continue Lord over the Spirits of
Men under the Difpenfation of his Gofpel^
in Spite of any Thing that can be produced
out of the Mongrel Confiitutions ^ or any other
luch patch'd Pieces of fpurious Antiquity^ to
deprive him of that Dominion. And He was
In'vocated too by St. Vaid and St. John^ who
are much better Patterns for us to follow^
than they that had an Hand in forging fuch
Writings^ as thcfe mention'd^ Vv/hofe Names
we know not, tho' we can eafily guefs at
their
of the Holy Ghost.
their Principles. And if tWiS Spirit really has
Grace and P<^ace to beltcw^ (and how fhculd
He not_, when all true Grace and Fence is a
Fruit of his producing) why fhould He not
be in-jocatedy and Ibught to on this Behalf ?
'Tis well this Gentleman will own He is to
be jvGrjlupp'd In Bafufm. That's more than
fome that have given into his Principles can
find in their Hearts to allow : For they can't
fee that Bapilfi/^ has any Thing of Ifhfijip
in ir. ' I leave it to them to agree that Mat-
ter at their Leifure ^s they are able. But
if the Spirit may be jvorjljipp'd In Baptifwy Doxo-
logjy and BleJ]i?/gy I cannot fee why not by
Invocation, Another Learned Writer tells us^
That for puttl7ig up Vraycrs direcily and exprefsly
to the Holy Spirit_, it mufi he acknoivledgd there
u 710 clear Frcccpt or Example in Scripture *. But
I muft here alio beg leave to differ. I take
the Scripture Command to worjlilp the Lord our
Godj to be a clear Precept enough as to the
Holj Spirit^ fuppofmg it evident that He is
the Lord our God^ as He ought to be cwn'd
to be^ if we were devoted to him as fuch_,
when we v/ere haptlz^'d hi his Name. I alfo
take that of St. Taut to be an Example In Scrip-
ture^ fdfncient to encourage us. I fhouid
have thought it reafonable to hold^ That as
there are In Scripture clear Examples of ojf'eri?Jg
up Prayers to the Son for fuch Blejfngs as it ps
the proper Office of the Son to hefiovj ^ fo by Ana-
hgjy the^oly Spirit may in like 7nar.ner be defi-
red to convey fuch Gifts as we are fttre it Is his
peculiar Office to dlftrlbute in the Church, And
this feems to have been Dr. Clarke s Senfe
allb^ when he publifli'd the firft Edition of his
O } laboured
5 Scripture Dodrine, Pert II. §. 5 4,
The Deity
labour'd Work *. I'm forry to find him
fo alter'd in his Second Edition^ where we
meet not with a Word of that Nature. But the*
he or others may alter^ without thinking it
neceffary to give the World a Reafon of it^
yet I believe upon Trial it would be found
no eafy Thing to give a tolerable Account^
why the Sfrnt may not be In^uocated for what
He has to give^ as well as BkJJcd for what
He has given ^ or why the Holy Spirit may
not as well be hupbly and earnellly defir'd to
convey fuch Gifcs as He has to diitribute^
as the Son pray'd to^ for fuch Bleflings as it
is his Office to beftcw. But^
2. 1 conclude with this Motion^ That Vv'e
take Care to carry it to the Blelfed Sfirl^,
as it becomes thcfe that were devoted to
him when we were Baptiz^'d in his Name.
Let us readily receive Light from him^ and_
beg of him to lead us in the Way both of
Truth and Hol'mefs. Let us keep ourfelves o-
pen to his Influences^ without grieving or
refilling^ or at all running the Hazard of
qiiench'wg him. Let us endeavour that both
our Bodies and Spirits may be his Temples^
from whence all Impurity may be banifli'd
with the utmoft Care. Let us endeavour to
abound in iiich Fruits of the Spirit as Love^
Joy^ Peace ^ Long-fulfering^ Gentlenefs ^
Goodnefsj Faith^ Aieeknefs^ and Tempe-
rance : And fo fiiall we the better be able
to repel theAlTaults of the Evil Spirit^ and
abound in all Good Works^ and Holy Obe-
dience.
Let us particularly cherifh the Spirit as
n Spirit of Brayer ajid 'Supplication ^ aS ever we
defire
; See Firft Edidon, p. 376.
of the Holy Ghost. i ^^
defire to thrive in Religion^ or to know by Serm.
Experience what it means to have the Spir;t yj^
7vitncj]ing with our Spirits that ii^e are Children of ^,„^^,^^.^^
God. Let US be the more cautious about our Rom.viii.
Carriage to the J31eired Sph-it^ becaule oui^ 16.
Peace^ Safety and Fruitfulnefe^ and even our
Steadinefs in the Truth depends upon his In-
fluences. Let us grle-L'e the Holy One by
our Pride and Paliion^ our Petulance and
SelfiflmerSj by giving way to any Impurity^ or
leaning to our own Underitandmgs^ or being
fway'd by our own corrupt AfFedtions^ in-
ftead of being under his Condud^ and He
may refent it to that Degree as to leave us
to ourfelves^ and then where are we ? We
fliall take Error for Tru-th^ and wander in
the Dark in the midft of the clearelt Light ,•
let ourielves to build up what we ought to
deftroy^ and to pull down^ what we ought
to our utmoft to build up. We may with
others be tempted to queilion the Holy Spi-
ritV Di^inity^ or whether we may lawfully
addrefs ourielves by> Prayer to him_, as little
Danger as we may think we are in^ of any
Thing -of that Nature. Let us then often
remember our having been conlecrated to
t\\Q Holy Ghofi in Conjundion with \ht Father ^
and the So7i^ and make it a Part of our daily
Prayers^ that how ibrely foever we may be
affaulted in one Refpcd or another^ we
may not be confiderably fhaken^ and nmch
lels overfet.
'T I s this Good Spirit muft fanBify . -^ if
ever we are fancliffd : And that's too big
and too great a Work for any one but God.
'Tis He muft keep us from falling, if we
are fteady. 'Tis He mult lead us into all
Truths help us to know it when we fee it^
keep us from any falfe Byafs^ and in a
O 4 right
200
The Deity
right Temper in our Enquiries after it ; and
preferve us from being bewildred. Let us
then take Heed of provoking him. Let us
carry it with an humble Modelty^ and live in
a conltant Dependence upon him m the Way
of plain Duty^ and then may we hope that
the Sfirit of Truth will not torfake us^ nor
the Sfirit of Hollnefs and Love and Peace aban-
don us ; but guide_, affift and manage us_, as
a Part of his fpecial configned Charge^ till
He has brought us to thole blifsful Manfions
above, in which tbe Grace of the Lord Jefus
Chriit, and tbe Love of God, and tbe CommU'
nlon of the Holy Ghoft will be for ever with
us^ in the higheft Degree, to our full Con-
tentment and Satisfaction.
S £ R
M«
of the Holy Ghost. 201
SERMON VII.
2 Co R. II. II.
For what Man knoweth the
things of a Man, fave the
Spirit of a Man which is
in him? Even Jo the things
of God knoweth no Man^ hut
the Spirit of God.
j^^O what has been already ofFer'd as to Sakers-
l^gi the Deity of the Holy Sfirlt, it may be \-\^\\yTuef
^^^ added^ That we net only meet with ^^y ^J^'
pofitive AlTertions in Scriptare relating to it^ ^^^lt_i^'
but Comparifons alfo made ufe of^ from ' ^^'^"
whence it may very juftly be inferr'd. Thus
the Sprit of God is compared to a Man's pfalm
Breath; and it is intimated^ That as the xxxili. 6.'
Breath out of a Man's Mouth comes from S< i ThtL
within him^ fo alfo dues the Holj Spirit come i'^- 3.
from the Breait of GjD^and accompany his
Word : Which is an Argument of his D/V/w///,
But the Comparifbn thai: is moil ufed inScrip-
ture^ is of the Holj Spirit to an Humane SouK
And thi3 is ufed both with Reference to
. > the
202 - The Deity
Serm, t^^ Church m general'^ and alfo with Reference
VII. ^^ particular Believers. When the Conxparifon
i^.,^.,^^.^^; between the Soul of Man and the Holy Spirit
1 Cor.x'iL- with Reference to the Church m general is di-
lated on, we are told. That the Church con-
iider'd in a Body, has all its Members united,
lettled, gcvern'd, quicken d, endow'd, and
wrought on by t\\<^ Spirit : Which v/ould be a
thing Marly impollible if He were not God,
And therefore thofe very Bodies of Believers^
which as they are related to Christ are
fiyl'd Aie?r.bersy as they are related to the
Holy Spirit are calPd Temples^ wherein He dwels.
And then as to the Comparifon between a
Man's Soul and the Holy Spirit , as it Refpeds
particidar Belic'vcrs^ the Text I have now read
is very clear as to that. For it plainly inti-
•mat^es to us thus much. That what the Spirit
of AIa?z is to Man whofe Spirit he is, that
the Holy Spirit ]s to the BlelTed God. As the
Spirit of a Man is confcious to his moft lecret
Actings and Thoughts, which no Man elfe
can know ,• fo does the Spirit of God know the
molt fecret Things of 'Qod^ and help us alio
in a Meafure to the Knowledge of them ,•
which could act be without a real Divinity.
As the Sf^rit of a Aian knows the Tilings of a
Man^ fo does the Sprit of God hiciv the things
tf Gody both Father and Son, The Spirit of a
Man does not know the Things of a Moin^ becaufe
they are difcover'd to him by one different
from himleh, but becaufe he is confcious to
his own inward Workings of Thought : So
alfo does the Spirit of God know the Tbmgs of
God^ both Father and Son^ not becaufe either
the one or the other voluntarily reveals them
to him, but becaufe He is naturally and ne-
ceffarily confcious to all even the greatell
■Secrets af Both, whofe 5p/Vif He is. So that
the
of the Holy Ghost.
the Holy Spirit cannot but be God^ becaufc He
is as well acquainted wi':h the Mind ot GW^
as a Man is with his own Heart and Miad.
He fearches the moft myfterious Counfels of
God. The Spirit fearches all Tinngs ^ jea^ the deeD
Thhgs of God : And they are fometimes alfo
re-verded u?no m by the Spirit. And therefore He
muft be truly God. Nor would it be more ab-
furd to fuppofe the Spirit of ^ Maji \N\t\\o\\t
Humanit)''^ than it would be to fuppofe the
Spirit of God without a proper Divinity. They
theretore that have deny'd or contefted it^
have err'd^ not hiowlng the Scriptures, or not
underilanding them *. And yet they have
various Pleas which they make in their own
"Vindication^ to which 1 fliall now fet myfelf
to make a Return^ not waving even tliofe
which they recommend as having thegreateft
Strength. And^
I. 'Tis faid^ That more Notice would cer-
tainly have been taken of the Holy Spirit in the
Jpofiies Creed ^ if our Belief of his Divinity had
really been necefiary. Now we there only
fay 3 I helie've in the Holy Ghofi^ without any
Notice who or what He is^ or the leait Signi-
fication of his Di'vinlty ; which if it is not
a convincing Argument that He is not God^
mult at lealt be ailovv'^d (its faid) a good
Proofj that the Compilers of this Creed did
not look upon it as neceliary for all Chrifli-
ans to believe him to be God.
In Return to this^ I fhall not (with fome)
offer to pour Contempt on this Greedy which
I take to be Venerable for its Simplicity and
/\ntiquity_, and by no Means to be flighted.
To
'^ That this Text was urg'd to this Purpole by the
Fathers, See' in Petnvii Theol. Dorrm. de Triji. Lib. IL
Cap. XiV. §. 10. ' ■
204 The Deity
Serm. To me 'tis plain that CW^'/» hiinfclf thought
yjT that the Sumni of divine Knowledge might be
t^^-^, advantageoufly reduc'd to this Crud^ becaufe
he made it the Model of his Injiltutiom. For my
Part. I am far from believing it to have been
^rawn up by the Apoflles^ or fit to be e?-
qualPd with the Sacred Scriptures in Point
of Authority : And yet I think it fo agree-
able to the mcft Angient Creeds we have
ftill remaining^ that it deferves Refped. And
as to this Article^ I believe In the Holy Ghofl^
as it Ifands in that Creed ^ I have tw^o Thing?
to oiFer^ and they are thefe : That the he-
lleuing In the Holy Ghoft^ is in itfelf ail one
with believing in his Divinity j and that it
has been fo explained by thofe that have
written Comments upon it from one Age to
another.
I. I fay the hellevhtg In the Holy Gholl^
which IS the Exprellion in our Common
Creed^ IS in itfelf ail one with believnig hi?
Divinity. The Creed is evidently bottom'd
on that Form^ in which our Lord order'd
JBaptlfm to be adminiftred^ which has before
been under our Confideration. When there-
fore the Creed has firft given us fome Ac-
count of the Father^ and cf the Son^ which
are the two firlt Names in which we are
haptlzJ'dy it proceeds to the Holy Ghofi^ whofe
>Jame is mentioned in the Baptifmal Solemni-
ty^ jointly with the other two. And by
Conlequence_, our declaring that we hellet'e
in him^ is an Intimation that we beheve his
Equahty with the other Two^ in all Divine
Perfedions. Nor can I perceive we have
any Occafion to wonder that this Article
ihould be exprefs'd in this Creed with lefs
Particularity^ than the Articles relating to
%h<: Father and the S077., if we do but confider
that
of the Holy Ghost.
that tho' there were in the Primitive Church
great Contefts concerning the Father and the
Son^ yet was there no great Controverfy
concerning the Di^m'ity of the Holy Ghojiy
till Miuedonhis made Oppofition. Withal^
2. This Article of the Creed has been thus
explained by thcfe that have written Com-
ments upon it from one Age to another.
And therefore when Mr. Emlyn puts thi^
Qucry^ Pi^ill any reafonable Man fay that thU
[1 believe in the Holy Ghojf\ u a clear Deda-
ration cf hh being a diftinH Perfon^ and yet e-
cjual to the One G o D the Father ? * He in
Effed declares the Commentators on the
Creed from the earlieft Ages^ to have been
all of them deftitute of Reafon. Bldymus
writing of the Holy Spirit^ concludes the £-
quality of the Sacred Trmity^ from the one
Faith in Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit. And Epl-
phanitis againft the Vueumatomachifis ^ f who
boafted of their adhering to the Mc^;?^ Creed ^
(which with Refped to the Holy Ghofi fays
the very fame with that calPd the Apofiles
Creed ) affirming that it did not alTert hiaf
Divinity^ makes this Reply to them : That
altho'' there was no great mention made of the
Holy Ghofl:_, becaufe there was no Controverfy
then about him y yet there was fuff dent fald of him
to declare him to be God^ In that as we are dire6ied
by the Creed^ not only fimply to believe the Fa-
ther and the Son^ but in the Father_, and in
the Son^ terminating our Faith upon them j fo al-
fo we are obliged in like manner to believe In the
Holy Ghoft. He that needs more than this
amounts to^ to give him Satisfadion about
this
* Narrative^ pai^. 4.9.
1 ^^- EpT^an in H«r. 74. §. 14, p. 904:
20(5 The Deity
this Matter^ may coniult Biiliop Tearfons Ex-
pofition oi the O-ccd. The greateil Objedion
I have met with in Antiquity^ againft the
Divinity of the Holy Ghofi^ is St. Jeromes Ob-
fervation vvith Reipcd: to Latlanthis his de-*
nying that the Holy Gbofi is a diftind Perfon
in the Godhead^ fubriiting together with the
Father and the Son. But then to prevent our
being fhock'd by it^ we may do well to re-
member^ that the fame St. Jerome gives us
to underilandj That this Author was more to
be commendecl for the Fmenefs of his Language .f
than his accurate Knowledge of the Chrlftlan Do-
Hrlne, But then^
2. It is farther pleaded^ That it feems evi-
dent from what is ailerted by 5t. Luke^ that
we by the Holy Ghofi are properly to under-
Luke i. Itand the To7ver of God. For the Angel told
35. the Virgin Mary the Mother of our Bleffed
Lordj ThrZt the Holy Ghoit fl^oifld come upon
her^ and then by way of Explication adds^
That the Poiver cf the Highefi jhoidd overjliadow
her. But I think we may eaiiiy enough get over
this Dirficuky^ if it really deferves to be
caird one. Eor I cannot fee why it fhould
feem at all It range to us^ for the Angel up-
on this Occafion to make ufe of two Expref-
fions to fignify the Holy Spirit ^ and that the i'Z-
Gond fliouid make fome Addition to the firit.
The Holy Ghofi (fays hit.)JJja!l come upon thee. That
intimates his Concern in our Sa'vioir/s Con-
ception in the general. And then 'tis added,
and the Fower of the Highfijlhdl overjhadow thee :
Which fignilies fomewhat as to the Way and
Manner in which the Holy Ghofi fhouid be
concerned. 'Tis ^. d. the Power of that Spi-
rit who is the Mofi Hlgh^ or the Power of
the Higheft^ who is the Holy Ghofi ^ ihail over-
fliadow thee. And either Way^ what is faid,
inftcad
of the Holy Ghost. 207
initead of militating againft the Divinity oFSfrm.
the Holy Ghofi^ makes tor it. And we may be yjj^
confirmed in this Apprehenfion^ by obierv- v-/->^rN-^
ing^ that when our Sa-vlour tells his Apoftles^
that tarrying in the City of Jeru^ahm , they Luke
fliculd he endud -ivith Tower from oithigh^ the xxiv. 49*^
Thing that was referred to^ was the coming
down of the Holy Ghcfi upon them.. And
accordingly^ when the Promife ad:aaily was
tulhird y and He did defcend from Hea-
ven ^ we are told^ That the Power of the Holy
Ghofh did come pfpon them. So that the Holy
Ghoft is in Reality^ fo far from being the
mere Tower of God^ that the Power which He
difjplay'd, and exercis'd in the Cafes and up-
on the Occafions that are particularly refer-
red to_, plainly proves him in truth the Mojl
IlJgh God. Lut farther^
3. It has been and is objecled^ That we read
of Ibme that were Difciples^ that is^ v/ere con-
Verted to Chr'iftianltyy and accordingly baftizJd^ .
that yet dcclar'd^ they had mt fo much as heard ^^'^ xi.
there 7i'as an Holy Ghofi. And if foj how could ^'
they believe in him ? For how could they be- Rom. %]
lle^je in h'rm of whom they had not heard ? And 14*
if they were incapable of believing in
him^ becaufc of their not having heard of
him^ and yet were Chriilians ; how can the
Belief of his Dhj'mity be fo necciTary a Part of
Chrifiia7iity^ as has been reprefented ? I reply :
That that Text in the Original^ Hands thus ;
We do not fo much as know whether theltioXy Ghoft
is : I. e. We do not know vv^h ether the Holy
Ghofi is given or fent. And this is not an
arbitrary Senle^ or without Foundation. It
is but borrow'd from another Scripture
Paflage^ where 'tis faid^ that the Holy Ghofi John vl!;
was not yet y hecaufe that Jcfrts was not yet glc- 39.
rif/d. Our Tranilators have indeed added the
Word
2o8 The Deity -
Vs^orAgl'ven to fill up the Senfe 5* and becaufe
it was of their adding^ it is put in another
Charader. But it was not added without
good Reafon. For nothing elfe could be meant
by fuch an Expreffion^ but that the Holy Ghoft^
(who as well as the Son was in Being from the
Beginning) was not yet come down from
Above^ in the Manner that was intended.
So that the coming down of the Holy Ghoft^
depended upon the Glorification of ^hrtst :
And He himfelf plainly declared as much,
John XVI. faying^ ^f ^ S^ ^^^ avjay^ the Comforter 3^7//
^* not come U7ito you : But if I depart ^ I will [efid him
untoyou.V^^h^n then thefe Dilcipies of Jchn Bap-
tlfiy declar'd that they did not fo much as
know whether the Holy Ghoit was^ they could
only mean^ that they did not know whether
He was fent down from Above. For that
there was an Holy Ghofi^ they could not but
know ; St. John having himfeif fpoken of hinl
to his Difciples, promifing them that He
Matth lii ^^^^^ ^^ given them by the MeJJiahj who
jj^ * ' "WdiS to hapiz>e them 7vlrh the }iio\y Gho^. They
could not but know that an Holy Ghofi there
was, fince it was exprefsly declar'd to 'em
that they fhould be hptiz^'d with him. The
only Thing about which it can with any Sha-
dow of Reafon be fappcs^d they could re-
main in Ignorance^ v/as^ whether or no this
Promife was yet accomplifh'd, by the adual
coming down of the Holy Ghofi ^ whom they
had good Reafon to exped. And this was
very confident with their Satisfaction^ as to
his real Being, and his Dl'vinhy^ and his Di-
Itinction from the F^^thcr and the S072, 'Tis
farther objected,
4. That when the Scripture fpeaks of
the Holy Sprit as a Perlon^ 'tis a mere Profo-
fop'jsia j *a figurative fort of Expreflion^ which
is
of the Holy Ghost, 209
is no Argument of a real Being. This is the
grand Objection of Volkelius the Soclnlan. And
it miifl be own'd we have a confiderable
Number of fuch Profipop'eias in Scripture that
may be eafily taken Notice of. Thus we are
told^ That iVifdom hath built her Houfe : jlie hath Prov. x'scl
hewn out her Seuefi Pillars. She hath kiTdher Beafis^ i, 2,, 3*
^je hath mingled her JVine : She hath alfo furnijhed
her Table ;P)e hath fent forth her Maidens :She crleth
upon the Hi^h Places of the City ^ &C. We have alfo
a Hke pompous Defcription given us of Chari-
ty^ which we are told^ jtijfereth long a?td is kind ^ iCor.xIil;
envieth not^ uaunteth not 'tfelf^ js 7tot pujfed tip^ &c. ^^ (^c.
But every Man of common Senfe is aware at
the fir ft Readings that fuch Reprefentations
as thefe are not proper, but figurative. Of-
ten alfo elfe where have Things inanimate
perfonal Adions afcrib'd to them ; as when
the Heavens are faid to decUrc the Glory of G-d;
and the like. But as for the Defcription
which the Scripture gives us of the Holy Ghofi
as of a Perfon^ we ought to look upon it as
a ftrid and proper one^ uniefs there were
fome evident Necellity that required our un-
derftanding of it otherwife. Now that can-
not be pretended. Nay^ a Figure is as much
excluded when He is fpoken of in the Nev^
Teftament Writings^ as could well be fuppos'd^
if it had been defign'd. When our BlelFed S"^-
'viour gave his Difciples a Promife of lending
his Holy Spirit down from Heaven_, his Dii-
courfe has nothing figurative in it. And when
the Book of the A^s tells us how and in
what manner He defcended^ it prefents us
with as plain and naked an Hifiorical Account
of a Matter of Fad:^ as could well be given.
When our Lord fpeaks of the Holy Spirit^ Fie
gives him a Name taken from his Office^ and
calls him the Comforter, And to diftinguifti
■ — ■ p him
2 1 o The Deity
him from himfelf^ with whom it was not im-
poflible but fome might be in Danger of
confounding him^he calls him another Comforter.
John'xiv. And when he rays_, the Comforter ^ which ts the
1 6. Holy Ghoit^ whom the Father will fend In my
Ver. 26. JSJ'amej he jhall teach you all Things^ and brhig all
Tohnxv. T^hings to your Keine7nbrance: And when the Com-
26. furter is come^ whom I ivill fend unto you from
the Father^ euen the Spirit of Truth which
proccedeth from the Father^ he fiall tefiify of me:
J/7.XVI. 3, jVnd when He fays al{b_, When he ts come^ He
'3» willireprove the World of Sin ^ and of Right eoufnefs^
and of Jiidgmeyit : And 7i\ben Hcy the Spirit of
Truth^ IS come^ he will gmde you into all the Truth^
for He jhall not ffeak of hlmfelfy but whatfoe^ver
He Jhall hcar^ that jloall He /peak ; and He fliall
fhe7i^ you Th'mgs to come : Theie and many other
like Expreflions are fo itrong^ and carry fo
much of plain Perfonaiity in them^ as not
to leave the leaf!: room for a rational Sufpi-
cion of any Thing like a Frofopop^eia. At lealt
no Inftances that are at all like them can
be produced.
B E s I D E Sj, Father^ Son^ and Spirit , are of-
ten in fuch a Manner mention'd together^ fo
added one to another^ and fo compared with
each other;, in the New Tefiament^ as not to
leave the le'alt Room to fuppofe there fhould
be a Figure ufed with Reference to the Spirit^
any more than with Reference to the Father^
or the Son. Thus when all are order'd to
be baptlzj'd in the Name oitht Father ^ the 5oz?^
and the Holy Ghoft ; and when we are told^
That there are Dl'verjities of Gifts ^ but the fame
Spirit^ a?id Differences of Adminifi:rations^ but the
famel^OKVty and Di^/erfiiies of Operations ^ but the
fame God : And when the feven Churches of
Afia are faluted_, from him which isy and which
ivas^ and ivhlch is to come^ ajU from the Se'ven
1 Cor.
xii. 4.
Rev. i.
A, 5.
of the Holy Ghost. 211
Spirits before Jjis TLrorje^ a7id from Jefus Chrifi Qerm '
the faithful JVitnefs ; I cannot fee that we xrrj
have a jot more Reafon to reckon there JIJ^
iliould be a Vrcfopop-i-la with Reference to ^^'^^^
the Sfirit, than eitlier with Referejice to the
Sovy or even the Father himfelt. If we
once let locfe to fiich fort of Fancies ^ I
know not where we fliall end. But far-
ther^
5-. We are told that there is no Text of
Scripture can be mention'd^ wherein the
word God denotes the Perfon of the Holy
Ghofi. This is what Crellius f laid no frnall
llrefs upon. And Dr. Clarke in this^ as
well as in a great many other Things^ has
done the fame after him : For he tells us^
That in no Text does the Tvord G O d_, e%fer fig-
nify the Holy Ghoft *. Crellius fays^ That. i?t
none of the places ufually cited ^ in proof of the
Di'uin'ity of the Spirit^, is it either openly writ-
ten or plainly declard^ that the Holy Spirit
is God. 'Tis only concluded by fome Confeauence.
And as for that Confequence 'by which it is con-
cluded that the Holy Spirit is called Jehouaby
It muf be drawn from feueral places. So that
not one in a Thoufand of the common Fcople^ un-
lefs put upon it by another ^ would compare the
places together^ efpecially i7t fuch a mamier as
to draw from thence fuch a ConclufiGn. But^ fays
he^ tho^ we refufe not lawful Conftquences ^ yet
is it recpuifite that fome places jlmild be produced
out of the Sacred Textj in which it is plaijUy
ivritten that the Holy Spirit is God, becaufe
it cannot be, if he was the mofl High Gody
but that it jljould be written pla'mly and often^
P 2 and
t De Vno Vero Deo. Lib. i. §. 3. C(tp. r.
* Reply to Mr. NW/o;?, g<c. p. 74,
2 1 2 The Deity
SeRM. ^^^^ profejjedly cleared. And therefore if no fuch
VII. f^^^^^ ^^'^ ^^ frodiicdy It may law f idly he con-^
vy-^^iK^ eluded^ that thofe Confequences ivhlch are joined
together^ in proof of the things are not war^
rantable. 1 therefore the rather choofe to
give you Crelllus's Words in the Cafe_, both
becaufe he has Itated the Objedion in its
utmoft Strength ,• and that you may fee it
is far from being New. And in Reply to
thiSj I have feveral Things to offer.
I. It appears to me a very vain Thing
for any of us to pretend to fay^ what the
Sacred Scriptures jiiould be or do : It much
more becomes us, to take them as they
are, with Thankfulnefs, and ufe them with
Reverence. CreWms fays, // the Holy Spirit
"ivas the Mofi High God^ it could not bcy but
that that Jhould be plainly and often written.
But what if the Blelfed God whofe Thoughts
are not as our Thoughts^ did not look upon
this as neceffary ! What becomes of his
Argument then ! He intimates that, becaufe
it is not thuSy the Confequences by which he is
proved to be Gody ca^inot he Good, But there
being fufficient Evidences that thofe Confe--
^uences are good, becaufe they follow na-
turally, and without the leaft Force, from
Expreffions us'd under the influence of the
Spirit^ there is a great deal of Reafon for
our acquiefcing in them. And I think, it
much more becomes us to be thankful for
what the Scriptures have done, than to
let our Thoughts be employ'd in Specula-
ting what they fhould have done. For we
know God's Thoughts are not as our Thoughts,
If we'll refufe to acquiefce in what the
Sacred Scripture difcovers, and to yield to
it becaufe it does not fuit our Schemes^ is
xxot raQdeU'd according to our Fancies^ and
does
of the Holy Ghost. 213
does not bring Things in juft in our Me- Serm,
thodj we in effect tell the infinitely Wife yjj
G o Dj that we will not be taught by him^ w^y-O
and cannot be fati^fy'd to take our No-
tions and Meafures from him^ unlefs he'll
teach us in our own Way. And how un-
becoming that isj may be left to Rcafon
itfelf to Judge.
2 It deierves alfo to be confider'd that
according to the Method fome Men take^
it would be no eafy Thing to prove that
the Son^ any more than the Sphh^ was
true and fro^er God^ any otherwife than
by Confequence. For let it once be laid
down for a Maxim that the feveral Names
of God are in their own Nature common^
and that they are all in Scripture afcrib'd
to Angels^ if not to infer iour Great ures_,
(and that adually was the Affertion of
Crellius as well as of fome Modern Wri-
ters) and any even the plainelt Text that
can be produced in Proof of our Bleffed
Saviour's Deity ^ may without any Difficulty
be evaded. It \s true Christ is called
God over and over^ but it is but faying,
as their Scheme dictates to them, that He
is but improperly fo call'd, as Angels alfo
are called Godsy and it ceafes to be from
thence evident that he is true and real God,
And this to me makes it plain, that they
that cavil at the Conje^uential Proof we pro-
duce from Scripture, of the Divinity of
the Holy Ghofty whatever they may pretend,
would have been as little fatisfy'd about
it, even if he had been as often exprefsly
called God in the New-Teltament Writings
as the Son himfelf. I add farther,
5. That an Argument that is fairly drawn
from a Dcfcri^cion of God^ may be at Icaft
p 5 as
214 ^^^ Deity
Sekm. ^^ valid^ as an Argument drawn from the
VIT. ^'^^^ ^^ ^^^' i^ ^3y (I fay) be as valid^
^^^y-xj i^ ^ts own Nature^ and according to Scrip-
tare Ulage. And therefore if there be
good Evidence given^ that the peculiar
Attributes^ and fome true Defcripcions of
GoDj agree to the Holj Spirit^ (which I
think has not been wanting) it is mani-
feftly unreafonable to deny that the Holj
Spirit has the Divine Eflence or Nature
belonging to him. Nor can it be more
abfurd to deny HM-manhy to one that has
the ElTential quahties and properties of a
Man^ than it is to deny Divinity to one
that has the Effential Perfedions^ and di-
ftinguifhing Properties of God. And far-
ther^
4. Both the Son and the Holy Spirit have
fuch Relative Names given them in Scrip-
ture^ with the Addition of the Name of
God to thenij as prove their Deity refpedive-
ly. Thus Christ is often calPd the Son
of God ^ and the Holy Ghoil the Spirit of
God: And from thence^ efpecially if we
take in the Attributes and Works that are
afcrib'd to them^ it may as certainly be
concluded that each of them is God^ as'
from either of their being called God ex-
prefsly and by Name. For the Son cannot
but be of . the fame Nature and Elfence
with the Faiber^ and the Sfirit cannot but
be of the fame Nature and EfTence v^^ith
him whofe Sfirlt he is. And upon this Ac-
county I lee but little Reafon to think^ but
that they who now remain unconvinced of
the Di'vir/lty of the Holy Ghoft^ would have
Itill continud diffatisfy'd^ even tho' he had
been over and over exprefsly called God^
%i\ the Writings of the New Teftament. .
M \: J. It
of the}loiaY Ghost. 215
5-. It is eafy to give a Good Reafon^ Serm.
why it fiiould be lefs neceiTary, for the Ho- yjT
ly spirit to be exprefsly call'd God in Scrip- \^^^^y^
ture_, than the So7t. This was the lefs ne-
celTary of the two^ upon feveral^ Accounts.
For the Son affum'd our Nature^ which
the Sfirit never did. And to this Day this
is a Thing that makes many more inch-
nable to queition his De'ny,, than they would
otherwife be. And withal ; the proper
Deity of the Bleffed Spirit follows from the
Deity of the Son as a neceiTary Confequence_,
by Reafon of his being often join'd as a
Partnerj ading in Conjundionj and Hand-
ing upon a Level with him. To ftrengthen
which Confideration it may eafily be ob-
ferv'd^ that they that have deny^d the Soji's
proper Deity^ have ufually at length pro-
ceeded to deny the Dl'vinity of the Holy
Gboft : \\'hereas they that have been con-
vinced of the proper Deity of the Son^ have
feldom h^fitated as to the Divinity of the
Sfirlt. And after all^ methinks there's no
great Senfe in it^ to lay fo mighty a ftrefs
on this_, that we cannot produce a Text,
in which it is exprefsly faid that the Holy
Ghoft IS Gody when v/e may fo fafely defy
thofe that make the greaceft Noife vv^ith
this ObjecfcioGj, to produce any Text^ ia
which it is faid in fo many Words^ that
the Father himfelf is God, And if notwith-
ftanding this^ we can yet freely own the
Father to be God^ becaufe there is Proof
given of his Dl'vinity ^ I cannot fee why
upon Evidence given from Scripture^ that
the Holy Gboft has thofe things belonging
to him that are Eirential to the Dl-vhihy^^
we may not as freely own his Delty^ not-'
P 4 withltandmg;
^ 1 6 The Deity
Serm. withftanding that he is not exprefsly ftil'd
VII. ^^^J ^^ ^^^ Text or another.
\/-Y^ A^^. y^^ ^^^^^ ^y I "^^^ ^^^ I think
he is in efFed called God^ when />'/«^ r<? f>&e
Holy Ghoj} is faid to be a ly'wg to God; and
when fonie other Expreffions are us'd con-
cerning Him as have been cited in the Dif-
courfe foregoing. And this may be fuffi-
cient in Anfwer to this fifth Objedion.
But thenj
6. I T is alfo obje6ledj that our arguing
from the Application of thofe Things to the
Sprit in one Place of Scripture_, wiiich are
afcrib'd to God or Jehovah in another_, is
fallacious ; becaufe in the fame way^ we migh^
alfo prove that the Holy Sfirlt is the Father or
the Son^ and that the Son is the Father, And
this alfo is the Objedion of Cnllms^ or rar-
ther a farther Inforcement of the Objedion
foregoing. But this runs upon a plain Miftake.
For the Arguments we draw from the places
of Scripture that are referred to^ don't ftand
barely upon this Bottom^ that thofe Things
which in one Place are afcrib'd to G o d or
Jr.HOVAH^ are either there or elfewhere a-
fcrib'd to the Holy Ghofi : But thus Hands the
Cafe. Obferving that thofe Things^ which God
is declar'd either to have done or faid^ im-
mediately^ and without the Help of any Crea-
ture^ in one Place^ are either there or elfe-
where declared to be done or faid by the Holy
Ghofi 5* we from thence conclude (as we think
we have good Reafon) that the Holy Ghofi is
not a Creature^ nor any Thing different from
God himfelf. It mufi: mdeed be own'd that
there are fome^ that acknowledge the Holy
Ghofi^ is not a Creature_, who yet deny that
He is God the Creator ; fuppofing there to
be fome middle Thing between the Creator
anci
of the Holy Ghost,
and the Creature. But I mull own I can find
no fuch middle Thing in my Bible. As far
as I can underftand that Sacred Book^ the
Creator and the Creature are diredly op-
posed, and what is not the one^ muft be
the other. But to pretend that we may as
well conclude that the Holy Ghofi is the Father
or the Sony or that the Son is the Father ^ as
to argue the Dknmty of each from a con-
cern in the fame divine Work_, is perfedly
ridiculous.
There are three Grand Works that are
particularly celebrated in the Sacred Scrip-
tures : and they are Creation ^ Redemption^ and
Sa?icllfication. The Sacred bcriptures inform
us_, that the Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit are
concern'd in each : And the Dh/mity of
every one of them feverally^ may be conclu-
ded from his concern in each of thefe Works :
And yet it by no means follows that the one
is the other^ becaufe all are but One God. But
of this^ more hereafter. Farther
7. It is objeded alfo^ that the Holy Spi-
rit cannot be Gcd^ becaufe he is obtain'd
for us of God by our Trayers. But tho'
the Holy Spirit is God^ yet he is but One
God with the Father and the Son^ and there-
fore is to be woriliip'd joyntly with them^
in the Unity of the Godhead. When we pray
for the Holy Spirit in his Gifts^ Graces and
Comforts^ and obtain a merciful Anfwer^
as we pray to Father ^ Son^ and Spirit ^ fo we
become the Temples of Father ^ Son^ and Spi-
rit: And how this can any more be in-
confident with the Divinity of the Holy Ghofi^
than with the Di-vinlty either of the Father
or the Son^ I can't imagine. Our obtain-
ing Grace from the Holy Spirit upon our
humble and ferious Seeking^ is fo far from
' " / being
2 1 8 The Deity
Serm. being an Argument againft the Dlvlnltj of
Yjj the Holy Sprite that it is rather a confirm-
v,^.^^^ ing Proof of it. 'Tis true our Lord tells
Luke xi. ^^^ Difciples^ that their Hea'venly Father would
13. gi've the Holy Spirit to them that ask him ;
Where by the Holy Spirit we are to under-
stand his Help and Influence^ as far as it is
neceffary to our Salvation. And the Fa-
ther's giving this^ means no more_, than
that that God who under the Difpenfati-
on of the Gofpel has manifefted himfelf to
be Father^ Son^ and Spirit^ and order'd that
we fhould accordingly be devoted to him
as fuchj would be ready gracioufly to ans-
wer our fervent Prayers on this behalf.
And I cannot fee^ why this fhould be any
difficulty in our Way. And then^
8. It is alfo objeded^ that the Holy
Spirit is never once joyn'd with Father and
So7?y in the Apofiolkal Salutatlo7is<\i2it we meet
with in the Writings of the New Tefta-
ment. This is an Argument on which Mr.
Emlyn feems to lay a Con fider able flrefs^
and upon occafion of it he freely infults,,
tho' he's as little able to bear any thing
of that Nature from others as moit Men.
The common Jpfiollcal Salutation runs thus,*
Grace be to you^ and Teace from God our Fa-
ther ^ a7d the Lord Jefus Chrlfi. Now fays
that Writer^ either the Holy Spirit Is whol-
ly left out fro?n among the Ferfons TJJorjJjipped by
Chrifilans^ or the word Father muft be taken for
the whole Deity. If God the Father 770tes the
frft Verfon of the Trinity ^ and Jefus Chrlft the
Lord the fecond Perfon^ then the Sph'i^ is not 171-
eluded in the ObjeB of Divine Worjljip at all,
yind what fiall be fald to this ? Is this to make
the Holy Spirit equal to the other two ? What^
to pray dlfinclly to two Ferfons In particular all
alcf?^ .
o/ ^/:)^ Holy Ghost. 219
ahngy and. ne^ver once to the third ! IVhat is
thJs but flahly to teach all the Churches^ that
there was no third Ftrfcn of ecjii.il Ilonom' j fiice
he wotdd nqj: ha've been fo constantly negle^ed by
the Apoftles in their Vttblick liarjhlp ? And then
he adds _, That // It is [aid that the term
Father is put for the Deity, including the Three
Terfonsy it is z^ery odd^ and looks like a jlnft
for a defperate Caufe^ &c. '*■ And in return
to this^ I have feveral things to offer. As^
I. That I don't think this Writer has
in the prefent Cafe ftated Fad fairly. For I
don't think it true^ that the Holy Spirit is ne-
ver once joyn'd with the Father and Son^ in
the Jpofiolical Salutation, I take it to have
been otherwife^ in St. Johns Salutation of the
Seven Churches oiAfia^ when he was writing
to them. Fie begins thus : Grace be tmto you^ Rgy^ \^ r
and Feace^ from him which is^ and which was^
and which is to come j and from the Se^uen Spirits
which are before his Throne. Where Seven Spirits-
are mentioned before the Trjrone ; the Number
anfwering that of the Churches that were ad-
drefs'd- to : But it is the Holy Spirit ^ from
whom all the Gifts and Graces that were
then in the Church proceeded^ that \s plain-
ly meant. I am not infenfible indeed that
iome have queltion'd whether or no the Holy
Ghofi was referr'd to^ by the Se'ven Spirits be-
fore the Tlorone. And Mr. Emlyn in particular
faySj t That Mr. Jof. Mede has clearly proved
the Seven Spirits to be Seven Angels : And
he addsj That Mr. Baxter and others cannot
deny or difown it. But I fliall here referr
him to his Friend Dr. Whitby f^, who will
give
t Emlyn s Trads. p. 72.
* Ihld. Pag. 55.
'Z De Dekate Chrifti, p, i3.
220 The Deity
give him to underftand^ that all the Anci-
ents underftand the Spirit of God by the
Seven Spirits : So that I fhould have thought
the great Poilcivenefs of the Author referr'd
tOj who alTerts^ That the Holy Spirit is never
once joyn'd with Father and Son in Worftiipj,
might very v/ell have been forborn.
1. Suppose the Holy Ghofi never was fo
much as once joyn'd with Father and Son in
the Salutations with which the Epiftles com-r
monly begin • He may yet be fo brought in
in other (Jafes^ as to be fufhciently evidenc'd
to be One G o d with Father and Son^ and
the fame Objecl of Faith and Worihip. Thus
it is not only throu^Jo the Son^ but hy the
Ephef. il. Spirit^ that we are laid to have Jccefs to the
18. Father: And the Apoftie befeeches the Bre-
Rom. XV. thren^ not only for the Lord Jefus ChriftV
30- Sakey but alfo for the La-ve of the Spirit^ that
they would friz;e together 7i>lth him In their Fray-
ers to God. And this very well deferves
Obfervation. But farther_,
3. Suppose the Holy Ghofi never was joyn'd
with Father and Son^ in a Salutation at the Be-
irinning of any of the Epiftles^ if yet He is
found joyn'd with them in a Benedic'Hon at the
Clofe of an Apcltolical EpiltlCj and that in
fuch a Manner as to leave no Room for the
leaft H^iitation who it was tliat was meant j,
I cannot fee any great Ground for that
Author's Boafting. Now this actually was
the Cafe. For St. ?aul ]\i^ in the Clofe of an
a Cor. Epiftle of his to the Corinthians^ fays^ 7he
xiii. 14. Grace of the Lord Jefus Chriit^ a'ad the Loue of
God_, and the Commu?ilon of the Holy Ghoft^ he
with you all. Amen. One fuch Pallage as
that^ tho' in the Clofe of an Epiftle^ makes
iiis Suggellion as if the Holy Ghofi v/ere con-
Itantly negUchd by the Apofiks In their puhlick
of the Holy Ghost. 221
IVorjljipy asgroundlefs as if it had been plac'd
in the Beginning of it. Nay^
4. Suppose the Holj Ghoft was not exprefs-
ly mentioned by the Apoftles^ either at the
Beginning or End of their Epiftles^ it yet
does not follow^ that He was conflantly neg-
lethd by them hi their pihl'ick fVorJhlp^ if we
have any plain Inftance of their ofFerino;
IForfjIp to Him. Now^ I think^ my laft Dif-
courfe produced an Inltance^ wherein the
Apoftles and their firft Followers^ did lift up
their Voice to Q ou n-ith one Accord^ a?2d faidj
Lord^ Thou art God^ ivhich hafi made Heaven Ads iv,'
(ind Earthy and the Sea^ ajid all that In them is : 24, 25.
yrho by the Month of Thy Servaiit David hafi faid^
Why did the Heathen ragCy and the People imagine
vain Things ? In which Cafe 'tis plain they
luorjljipp^d him as Lord and G o d^ who fpake
the Words referred to by the Mouth of D^-
vid : And it is as plain^ that He that did fo
was the Holy Ghofi. I add fartlier^
5". Suppose it fliould be own d furprizing
to uSj That the Holy Ghofi fhould not be more -
frequently mentioned by the Apoftles joynt-
ly with the Father and Son^ both in their 5^-
lutations and BenedlEtions too_, I cannot fee
why we fhould fcruple to own^ that there
are a great many Things befides this ^ in
the Writings of the ISlew Tfiament^ that it is
not eafy for us to account for. And is it aa
allowable Thing for us prefently to grow
pofitive as to our own Senfe of Matters^ and
exclaim and infult^ if we meet with fbmewhat
that is out of our Reach I How can this be
either wife^ or fafe? And then^
6. I muft own^ That I cannot for my Life
fee that it is fo odd or very abfurd^ as that
Author reprefents it^ to fuppofe in fuch Ape-
fiolical Salutations as he referrs to^ that the
Term
222 The De I t y
Serm. Term Father fliould be put for the whole
VIL '^^''J^ including all the Three Perfons.
^^^,^-y-^ Many as Worthy Men as any the Church of
God has been blefs'd with^ either in ancient
'"or modern Times^ have been of Opinion_,
that the Son and Spirit are often in Scrip-
ture comprehended under the Father. And
methinks it looks a little too alTuming^ for
one fo much the Inferior of many of thofe
Excellent Perfons who have been of that
Mindj to reprefent this as a Shift for a de-
fperate Caitfe, He might have been a little
more modeft. But if it is a Shifty I dare ven-
ture to fay^ 'tis not fo poor an one by far^
as that Author himfelf was put to^ when
to prove that our Lord Jesus Christ
was not a proper Objed of dired Worihipj
John XVI. i^g (.j^^g l^jg faying to his Difciples^ in that Day
^^' yejljall ask we nothings and explains his telling
them^ that at the Time referr'd to^ they
ihould ask him no more Queftions^ as a
forbidding them to offer up their Requefts
and Supplications to him^ \n order to the
having their Wants fupply'd. Nor \^ the
Caiife (whatever his Apprehenfions may be
concerning it) fo dejpcratc^ but that it may
be defended. He reprefents it indeed as a
2. John 3. ridiculous Things for the Father oi^hen difin-
guijh'd from the Son of a Father^ to he put for
the Father and the Son : And yet he would
be hard put to it to give a good Reafon^
Why God tht Father might not be diftinguifli'd
from his Son^ whom in his humane Nature he
had fo dignify'd and exalted^ when at the
fame Time the fame Father included the
• whole Divine Nature as the Fountain of
Bleffing.
But it is farther objecSliedj If the Spirit of
G o D be that to the Bleffed G 0 d^ that the
• Sfirit
of the Holy Ghost.
ISt^lrlt of a Man which is in him^ is to Ma'n^
then the Spirit of God mult be the fame Per-
fon with the Father ^ as the Sprit of a Man is
the fame Perfon with the Man. If the Spirit
of a Alan be the fa?ne Verfon with himlelf, then
the Spirit of G o D muit be th.^ fame Verfon with
himfelf. And as the Spirit of a Man is not
an Objed to be apply'd to^ diftind from
the Perfon of the Man himfelf^ fo neither
is the Spirit cfGod an Objed: to be apply'd to^
diftinct from the Perfon of God himfelf. ^
I anfwer ; that -the Comparifon betweerr
the Spirit of God, as being that to the
Blcffed G o Dj that the Spirit of a Man
which is in him^ is to Man^ coming from
God himfelf^ mull needs be juit and right
as far as it goes : But it does not there-
fore follow that there is Room or Ground
for a Comparifon in all particulars. It does
not follow from the Comparifon in the
Text between the Spirit of GoJ^ and the
Spirit of Man which is. in him-^ that the Spi-
rit of God miift he the fame Verfon 'With the Fa-
ther ^ as the Spirit of Man is the fame Ver-
fon ivith the Man ; For this would make
Gody like Man^ to be a compound Be-
ing 3 which we know he is not. Be-
sides 3 the Spirit of a Man is not proper-
ly the fame Verfon with himfelf: He is but
Part of the fame Perfon^ tho' the Princi-
pal Part. But in the Blelfed God^ there
are no Parts ^ either more or lefs Princi-
pal. The Spirit of God cannot be faid to
be a Part or God : Nor can it be faid he
is the fame Verfon with himfelf. 'Tis enough
if he is the fame Godj with him whole
Spirit he is. And therefore^ tho' the Spi-
rit
p —
* Modeft Plea;/. 54, 55.
The Deity
rit of a Man is not an ObjeB to be apply' J tOy
d/fimB from the Ferfon of the Alan himjelfirom
whom he is not diftind:^ yet the Spirit of
God may he an ObjeB to be apply^d tOy di-
fitnB from the Ferfon of the Father ^ (as it
fhould have been expreflcd^ rather than the
Ferfon of God himfelf) becaufe he is diftind
from the Perfon of the Father^ tho' flill Oz/e
and the fame God.
This I think may be fufficient in Proof
of the Dl'vinity of tiie Holy Ghof, And now
let any Man judge^ whether it does not
argue a ftrange Alfurance in Mr. Woifton
to fay_, the Moderns here are driven Into the
greateft ftraits pofible^ and are abfolutely forcd
to ajjert the Dluinlty of^ and pay Invocation to
the Holy Ghof^ on the foot of jome Foor remote
Humane Reafonings y without the leaf dlreBy Sa-
cred or Original Authority for fo doing, *y f
But let us not think it enough to be
confirm'd and eitablifh'd as to the Divini-
ty of the Holy Ghofty tho' that is a point
of no fmall Importance : It concerns us
to improve this Principle of our Holy Faith.
Let us remember and ferioufly confider^ that
it is upon this Bleffed Spirit to whom we
have been devoted^ that we all depend.
Let us readily give him the Glory of his
Deity^
* The Council of Nice Vindicated, pag. 24.
t I cannot help taking notice of the Magifterlal Air
which Mr. V0nftQn puts on, when he is fpeaking of
paying Invocation to the Holy Ghoft. I cannot, fays he,
hut cxpeR that the Learned imynediately yield up this
plain and clear pointy and leave off all Invocation to the
Holy Ghoft J and to the whole Trinity. Reply to the Con-
fideratlons on his Hift. Preface, and the Premonition,
pag. 73. Methlnks a B^man Dictator could hardly have
exprefs'd hlmfelf with more Poiitivenefs, upon any thing
that belonged to his proper Province.
v^"W
of the Holy Ghost. 225
De'iiy. Let us not fo much as dellre He Sfrm.
fhould be fhut out of the Doxologies of wor- yjV
fhipping Chriitians^ when he from the
firit has been joyn'd with the Fat/jer and
the Son in. Baptlfm^ and was alfo joyn'd with
them by St. Paul in his folcmn BejiedVcllon.
Why ffiould any of us any more Scruple
givnig glory to the Holy Gbofi at the End
of our Prayers^ than did St. Polycarp of
Smyrna^ (one of the moft glorious Martyrs
of the Primitive Church) who when he was
ty'd to the Stake^ and juit going to afcend in
the Flames to Heaven^ to take his Lot and
Portion there with the Spirits of the Jult
made perfect^ concluded his Prayer with
thefe Words : I glorify Thee through the Eternal
High Priefiy Thy belo'ved Son Jefus Chrift ^ -with
whom to Thyfelf and the Holy Ghoft^ be Glory
both now and for ez;er. Amen. *. St. Bafil by
but varying in this Refped^ gave great Of-
fence : And tho' he was a Man of an high
Spirit enoughj he thought it not below hnii
to give the Offended Satisfadion^ by as am-
ple Declarations upon that Head^ as any in
all Antiquity. And that he might give"* the
higheft AlTurance to his Friend Gregory of
Nazlanzum, that he had not upon this Head
deferted the Common Faith^ he ufed a fo-
lemn Lnprecation^ and wifli'd^ That he might
be for ever deferted by the Holy Spirit^ if he
did not adore him as Coeffential with the
Father and the Son^ in Glory ecjual^ in Maje-
Ity coeternal. Let us ailb be as truly con-
cerned for his Honour^ as for the Honour either
Q of
* This concluding Claufe of St. Polycarp" s Prayer, is
thus tranflated by Dr. Cave, and the Learned Reader
may fee this Doxology of his explain d and defended,
BuHl Def Fid. Nic, Seel. 2. /'. 55, &:c.
226 The Deity, &€.
oi Father or Son -^ and let us ihew it by our"
Carriage. Let us rejoyce that we are con-
fign'd to his Care^and are aPart of his Charge.
Let us repair to him for Light^ taking Plea-
fure in the Tnought of his knaving^ as this
Text intimates^ the Things of G o d^ together
with his being both able and ready to dif-
' cover them to us^ as far as is needful. And
let us improve the Light which He is pleased
to afford us to our utmoll_, and walk fuit-
ably.
T o Him alfo let us repair for Turlficatlcn ;
T Theff. remembring^ That if we are chofin to Sm-vatio?!^
iv. 3. it is through SanBification of the Spirit. Let US
I Cor. iil. confider the Apoitle's Sayings That the Temple
16. of QoT> IS holy ; which Temple we ars^ if the Spi-
rit ^/GoD dwellln m. Let us endeavour that
He may have m us an eafy and a quiet Dwel-
ling.. Let us. chearfully apply to him for a
Supply of all our Wants j and particularly for
Strength againft our Corruptions^ for Com-
fort under our Troubles and Prelfures^ and
for Guidance and Affiftance in all Religious
Pra(Slifes_, and in and through the whole of
our Spiritual Warfare. Let our Lulls be ever
fo Itrong, our Temptations ever fo great^ or
our Enemies ever fo mighty^ yet let us not be
difheartn'dj having this AU-wife and Al-
mighty Friend to advife and help us^ whofe
Grace is fufficient for us. Let us keep our-
lelves open to his blelfed Influences^ and rea-
dily^ thankfully^ and chearfully follow his
Condud^ and we niay depend upon it^ it
will be very much to our Advantage : For
we fhall find He will lead us on in the Way
of Truth and Holinefs^ and in the Way of
Peace and Comfort too ,• till He has fitted us
for^ and brought us fafe to^ the Regions of
Lights and Blifs^ and Perfedion^ in the
Upper World. S E R M.
227
^ .^ #. .*. e. .% '% .t. .t' .f. e- ^' 'f • .,%■ 't' .% 't' c*. .1. ^ ^
SERMON VIII.
I Cor. VIII. 4.
We know that there
is none other Goo hut
One.
^ AVING dlftincaiy handled the Dehy s^Irers:
IMm of the i'^^rZ/eTj Son and Holy Ghofiy and hall, T//?/-
endeavour'd to clear the Dizunlty of the d^y ' Lec-
Two latter^ from the Cavils of fuch as either mre ;
deny or obfcure it^ I am now to confider '^^'^' ^i'
thele Three as One God. For tho' Fat/jer^ ^7iv..
Son^ and Holy Gbofi^ be each of them G o d^
yet^ ftiil we may iafely ftand to it^ feeing i];it
Scriptures have herein plainly gone before
ns 3 That there is but 07te only Q^d ; and
there is a true Unity in the Godhead , tho' that
is of fuch a Nature as to be confident with
a Trinity. There neither is- nor can be
any more than One G o d^ cnc D'fvlne Na^ttre :
But in that one Dlvme Nature there are Three
that are dlfi'mguljh'd from each other^ and that
fo equally partake of the One only DMne Na-
ture with all its effential Properties^ that
Q z there
228 The Unity
there is not more of Deity, or of what ne-
ceiTarily belongs to \t, in the One than in.
the Other ^ it being wholly in each of Them^
without any Difpanty or Inequality. As hard
a Saying as this is reprefented by fome^ it is
very Scriptural_, and therefore very fit to be
ufedj by fuch as take their Notions and
Meafures in Things Divine from our facred
Oracles ^. And here my Work will be^
I. To fet before you the Unity of the
Godhead.
II. To fhew you the Confiflency of this
Unity with luch a Difil?jdlon between Fa-
ther, Son, and Holy Ghofi, as is taken no-
tice of in the Sacred Scriptures ; and to
defend this againft thofe who are con-
tinually crying out_, Hojp can thefe Thi\
ings
I. I begin with the Unity of the Godhead,
as to which St. Tatd is exceeding plain in
this Text_, faying^ We kno-w, that there ts none
other God hut One He f peaks of it in fuch a
manner as difcovers , that this was a
Thing about which he had not the leaft He-
fitation. How many other Things foever^
fays he^ we may be ignorant of, this 7ve know
itioft airuredly_, that there is none other God but
One, We are at as great a Certainty as to
this^ as we are that an Idol is nothing in the
World.
* Trinitns hxc, unus Deus ex quo omniay -per quern
emniay in quo omnia. Ita Pnter (^ FiliuSy (S Spritus
SnnHuSj (^ fmgulus quifque horum Deus, ^ fimul omnes
unus Deus : Et fingulus quifque horum pletia fubftantia,
& Jjmul omnes una fubjimtia, Auguftiiius de DodtrinI
Chi'iftiana, Lib. i. ' ' " ^
of the Godhead.
WorU, As for an Idol that is fet up as the
Obje(5l of VVorfliipj, tho' the Matter of it is
fenlible^ and fometimes may be of Value^ yet
it is a mere infignificant^, and empty No-
thing. It is Nothmgy either of itfelf or from
any other. It has no Deity of its own^ nor
any that is borrow'd. As to the Deity afcrib'd
to it^ 'tis a mere Fancy and groundlcfs Ima-
gination ,- and fo may be faid to be Nothing
in the World. And this 'ivc know as certainly
as we know any Thing at all. And in like
Manner^ and with like Certainty^ we either
do or may know^ that there is abfblutely jjone
other God but One. He whom we humbly
adore^ is the Onely God^ in Oppofition to
Gods many^ and Lords many., whether fupreme
or inferior. Whatever Drtficulty fome other
Things which our Thoughts are fometimes
exercis'd about^ may have in them^ and what-
ever Obfcurity they may be involv'd in^ in
this we are very clear^ That there neither ts
nor can he any more than 07ie GoD: And he
that is ignorant of this^ is a Stranger to firft
Principles^ and has not the Knewlcdge of a
Chriitian : And therefore vv^e need not be
furpriz'd to find him blunder moft vvGfully_,
in his Notions of God^ and Carriage to
Him.
I T may I think be worth our while a
little to confider^ the Thing which the A-
poftle here declares he knew fo certainly,
and the Knowledge he had of it.
I. The Thing which St. Vaul here declares
he knew moil certainly^ is this. That there ts
none other God but One. There are indeed (as
is immediately added) Gods many^ and Lords
many. There are many in Tide, and many \r\
Opinion : But there is onely One m Truth and
kcahty. There is but Om Godhead-^ and
(Q J therefore
The Unity
therefore there neither is nor can be more
than Gne God. Be it as it wiii wich Kefped:
to others^ to us ChiiRians^ there really is
hut One G o d. Our God has an Uriliy that
may be faid to be pecuhar to.himfelf. He
not only adually is ^m^ and the Orly G o Dj
but He IS fo Om as that 'tis not pcflibie there
Ihouid be any other belides hii;: Every Be-
ing that isj in a Senfe is One : For nothing
truly IS J but what is undivided in itfelf, and
divided from every Thing Cife. But there is
no Unhj^ that fo abfoluteiy exclud- s ail Mul-
tiplicity^ all Compcfitionj ail Rivaiiliip^ as
that of the Dchj. Every Man is One • but he
is but One of a vait Multitude^ who while
they have the very fame Nature with nim^have
intirely feparate Exiftence^ and differ from
him in their Defigns and Actions^ Inclina-
tions and Motions. There is but one vifible
Sun ; but then there is nothing in the Na-
ture of the Sun^ that intimates it carries in
it any thing of an Abfurdity or Contradidi-
on^ to fuppofe there might have been more.
For He that made that one Sun^ if He had
pleas'dj and it would have ferv'd his Pur-
pofesj might have produc'd feveral others.
Several Parts may make one Whole. Many
Men may make one People or Nation ; many
Men 0ns Army, a^d many Believers One
Church. But as fo the Blefled God^ He
neither is made up of Parts^ nor is He One
of a Multitude^ nor is He in any Capacity
of being multiply'd. When we hear of a
Son of GoDj and a Spirit proceeding from Fa-
ther and Son^ this is no Multiplication or
Increafe in the Deitj. There is If ill but One
De'ity^ Ofie Divine Nature^ that belongs to
Each^ and is common to All. If you fo
much as offer to multiply God in your
Thoughts^
of theGov>mik^. 231
V^VNJ
Thoughts^ you put the greateft Dilhonour Seum,
upon him that can be imagin'd : You in Ef- VIII.
led deltroy him. There is no Unity like his to
be any where met with. Let him ceafe to be
OnCy and He would ceafe to be God. Such is
the Tranfcendency of the Divine Nature_,that
there is no Room for any Multiplication^, or
Competition. If we want a farther Knoviledge
of this Unity y I confefs I know not what Me-
thod we mull take to reach it. God only per-
fectly knows his own Unity j He only knows po-
fitively what it is. Our Notion of it is moilly
Negative^ in Oppofitlon to Divillon^ claih-
ing, or any Thing of that Nature between
the Three. That which we know is_, that as
there is but Owe Father^ One Son^ and One
Spirit^ fo there is but One G o d ^- but how
He is O-ae^ others may inquire that have
more Leifure^ if they are fo difpos'd : For
I for my Part^ think we may very fafely
conclude^ that it our knowing more had been
necelfary or requifite^ more would have been
reveafd to us. But this St. Vaul here de-
clares he knew moll certainly. And then,
2. As to the Apollles Knowledge of this,
'twas clear and fatisfadory, and he had no
remaining Doubt concerning it. Nor was
this a Knowledge that he attain'd with Diffi-
culty^ or that w^as peculiar to himfelf. He
did not firll acquire it by being caught up
into the Third Heaven^ where he made fuch
noble Difcoveries^ and met with fuch improv-
ing and entertaining Sights. But this was a
Knowledge that he had all along_, and that was
common to him with other Chriltians. He
does not therefore fay^ / know^ but^ IVe knov)
that there is none other God but one. For this
was what the whole Body of believing Chri-
ltians kn(L'w as well as he. He and they too
Q^ 4 knew
232 The Unity
Serm. knew \t hoxh from Scripture and Reafon. He
VIII. ^'^^'^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ Revelation under the Old
s^^r\^ Tejiament^ as well as by Means cf the Difco-
veries that were made him from Above^ by
immediate Infph'ation: And others km-w \t
too^ as well as he.
The Apoftle here fpeaking of Things of-
fered to IdolSj that he might fuit the Cafe
he had at prefent under his Confideration,
points in the firlt Verfe of the Chapter to
fome that boafted cf their Knowledge^ and
were pufF'd up with it. They went by the
Name of Gnofiicks^ and pretended in feveral
Things to know mere than Taul himfelf. But
fays he_, We know that ive all ha^rje Knowledge,
We have Knojvledge as well as they, who
pretending to know more than others, do
but betray their Ignorance. And if we know
any Thing at all, we cannot but know this,
that as Idols are nothing but the Fidions of
Men that are deceived, fo there is no God
but One : And whoever have multiply'd Dei-
ties, To us Chriitians, there is none other God hut
One, There cannot be more.
This then we fhculd fix on as a Com-
mon Principle, That there is none other God but
One. And in difcourfing upon it, I propofe,
1. T o give fufficient Proof of the Truth of
this Principle.
2. To clear it from the perverfe GlofTes
of thofe that have mifreprefented it. And,
3. To fhew its Improveablenefs to feveral
good and ufeful Purpofes.
T. Let us confider the Proof we have of
the Truth of this Principle, there ts none other
God but One. And this admits both of i^^-
tional and Scriptural Proof. And,
I. As to the Rational Proof of this Prin-
ciple^ that is far from being contemptible.
of the Godhead.
We may argue in this Cafe, from the ne-
celTary Exiltence of the Deity. God would
not have been an infinitely perfed Beings
if he either were not necelfarily^ or were
not necelTarily what he is. Now let us but
offer to fuppofe there are more Gods than
One^ and there will be no PoUibility of giving
any Evidence^ as to each of them that they
are necelTarily ^ nor can any good Reafoa
be given^ why we fhould believe there are
Two, or Three, or Five, rather than Ten^
or Twenty, or even Five Flundred Gods. Be-
fides 5* if there were feveral Gods^ either they
mult have the fame Excellencies, or ditFe-
rent Excellencies, by which they fhould be
difcriminated from each other. If their
Excellencies were exa(5i:ly the fame, they
all join"d together, could do no more than
one alone : And why then fhould there be
a Number ? And to fuppofe different Excel-
lencies in the Divine Nature, isabfurd^ be-
caufe that is what it is neceffarily : And what
necelTarily is what it is, leaves no room for
Variety. Nor indeed, have we any Signs of
more Gods than one in the Management
and Government of the World.
We may argue alfo from the Infinitude of
the Divine Perfection. For if there be a
God, He muft needs be infinite in all Per-
fections. But two infinite Beings there can-
not be, becaufe either the one of them
would include the other, and fo the includ-
ed muft needs be Finite ,• or it would not
extend to the other, and fo itfelf would not
be Infinite. Thefe Thoughts appear fo Ra-
tional^ and the Arguments they help us to^
carry fuch a Force with them, that it may
be wonder'd they fliould not have more No-
tice taken of them^ and be more generally
difcoverd
234- The Unity
SfcKM. difcover'd in the P^^^w World^ to the effe-
VIII.. ^"?^ checking that Folythelfm and Idolatry
K^/'-s^^ which univerlally prevaiFd. But St. faul has
Rom. i. given us a good Account of this^ in the be-
j 8, i9,©'c ginning of his Epiftie to the Romans. And
we may obferve that a Prophet of the Lord
who liv'd long before him_, when he had
condemn'd allldols^ ordered that: God fhould
Hab. ii. be fought in hts Temple ^ that fo the Faithful
:io. might not admit another God^ than Him
that had manifelted Himfelf in his Word. It
is therefore highly proper^ that
2. We fhould fearch the Scriptures y where
we fliall find fuch Proof of the Unity of the
Godhead^ as is clear and ilrong^ and unan-
fvverable_, upon Suppohtion that the Divini-
ty of thofe Writings is but heartily acknow-
ledg'd. And^
I. Let us look into the Old Teflament^ and
we fhall find the Unity of God loudly pro«
claim'd there from one End to the other.
Deut. iv. 2^^ Lord is God in Heax'cn aho^e^ and in Earth
39. beneath ^ there is none elfe. Know and confider
this in thine Heart, So that this is what G o d's
Ancient People^ whom He had taken the
Charge of above others^ were ordered to take
fpecial Notice of^ and lay a particular Strels
Peut. vi. ^PO^- Hear^ O Ifrael^ the Lord our God is one
^. * Lord. The JcTi^'s were ftraitly charg'd to hear
this^ and let it be deeply imprefs'd upon
them. And accordingly we are told by their
Mafters^ that this was one of the Four Paf-
fages which they us'd to write upon their Phy
latteries^ on Purpoie that they might be con-
tinually reminded of it.' And again^ Sec nowy
Deur. fays G O d_, that J^ e-ven J am^ and there is
XXXU.39. »o God with me. And again in the Prayer
oi Hannah y we have this Acknowledgment:
I Sam. ii. Ti^ere is none hefide Thee j neither is there anyRock
of the Godhead. 235
like our God. And David freely owns the Serm*
fame^ faying^ Who Is God^ fi-je the Lord ^ Or yjJJ^
'jvho is a Reeky fa%'e our God^ And Thoit art ^^.^^y-^j
God alone. The Prophets alfo commonly PfaLxviii.
us'd the very fame Language. O Lord cf-^i.
Hofisy God of Ifraelj that dvjellefi betweefi the //'.Ixxxvi.
Cheruhimsy Thou art the Gody e^ven Thou alone ^ ^°'
of all the Kingdoms of the Earth, And Te are my^^^'^'^^^^*
Witnefjh faith the Lord ^ before me there was '^^ r/,' .|i',j
God form'dy neither pail there he after me. And j^'
Thu^f faith the Lord^ the King of Ilrael^ / am j/,. xllv.
the firfiy and I am the lafly and hefides me there 6, 8.
Is no God. Is there a God befides me^ Tea there lb. xlv.'j^
is no God: I kno7U not any. I am the Lord ^ and i8,ai,2^
there Is none elfe : There is no God befides me.
And in Reality, Hints concerning the
Unity of God are lo often repeated^ that it
looks as if it were the Grand Defign of
Mofes and the Prophets^ and the whole Old
Ttftamenty to eftablilli it, in Oppofition to
the Heathen Vk'orld, in which there was fuch
a Multitude of Gods believ'd and worfhipp'd.
And I can't perceive that we have the ieaft
Occafion to be furpriz'd at this, if we con-
fider that the firll Commandment of the De-
calogue ran thus, Thoufialt have no other Gods
before me. And it is therefore very obfer-
vable, that the Body of the fe-ivs have been
fo immoveably fix'd in the Belief of God's
Unity, that ncv/ throughout their lafl: Cap-
tivity and Difperfion, which has continu'd
nigh upon Seventeen Hundred Years, they
have not quitted this Principle : As is evi-
dent from their Thirteen Articles of Faith^
compcs'd by Maimonidcs : ^ The Second
whereof is the U?2ity of the BleJJed God ^ which
f Cridcal Hiftory of liie Apoftlfs Cr^ed, p. 54.
236
The Unity
Serm. 5s there explain'd to be true in fuch a pecu-
Vlli ^^^^ ^^^ tranfcendent Manner^ as that no-
yy^^<,-^ thing like it can be found "*". And in their
Liturgy according to the Ufe of the Spamardsy
which is read in their Synagogues in thefe
Parts of the World^ in one of their firft
Hymns^ which is an admiring Declaration of
the Excellencies of the Divine Nature^ the
repeated Chorus ^ is in thefe Words : AU Crea-
tures both above and belojv^ ^^fi'^fj ^^^ wltnefs all of
them as One^ that the Lord is One^ and his ISJame is
One, And yet formerly^ no People could be
more prone to Idolatry than this very Jewijh
People^ notwithitanding that the Unity of the
Godhead was fo clearly difcover'd to them^ and
in Appearance fo firmly believ'd among them.
Which is a plain Evidence that neither the
cleareft Eighty nor the molt Orthodox Faith^
can of itfeif be able to cure Perverfenefs^ or
check the Impetuofity of Corruption. But^
2. Let us come to the New Tefiame?a;
and we Ihall find that that runs in the very
fame Strain^ and points us to One onely God.
Our Bleffed Lord himfelf reprefents that Uiiity
of G o D that is fo ftrongly alTerted in the
Book of Deuteronomy y to be the Capital Article
of Faith^ and the Worfhip that is thereupon
Mark due to GoD alone^ to be the frfi and great
xvii. 19. Commandment, And when the Scribe with
vvhom He v\/as difcourfmg^ upon Occafion^
Vcr ^4. inimediately cry'd out^ There is One Gody and
"^^ there
* That celebrated Rabbi thus exprefles hlmfelf a-
bout this matter. Mk Deus unus eft, non duo nut flu^
res duobus, fid unicus : Cujus unitas non eft fimilis indi-
z'iduis, quje referiuntur in mundo : Nee unus eft fpccie,
compleElente -plurn ijidividun : ^ Sed itn unus eft, ut
nulla u^ntns fimilis ifti, in mundo rej^erintur. Hofts
Mdiinonides de Fundamemis Legis. C^p, I
o/'^/je Godhead. 237
tJjere is none other hut He : And to lozje him with Serm,
all the Hearty and our Neighbour as our (elves ^ is yiTT
wore than all ivhole Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices ; (^^'v'^
our Xor^ highly approv'd his "Difcourre;, and
added^ Thou art not far from the Ki^rgdom of God.
Which is a Signification that at lead He was
well pleas'd with his Acknowledgment and
Confeffion. Elfewhere alfo^ having a Refe-
rence to the Book of Deuteronomy ^ He fays,
HeaVy O Ifrael^ the Lord our God is One Lord * ;
That is^ One J EHOv ^H^ And as our Blef-
fed Lord himielf laid great Strefs upon this,
fo alfo did his Difciples after him. They
reprefent the believing of One God m Oppo-
fition to the many Gods of the Heathens3 as
a capital Article of Chriftianity. And there-
fore when St. Paul would reprefent the Con-
verfion of the TheJJalonians^ he fays Thej turnd i Thefl! i.'
to God from Idols ^ to fer^ue the Li-ving and "True 9.
God. And the fame Apoftle fays^ God is One. Galat. ilL
That is^ He is One in Himfelf^ and One in ^°- .
every Difpenfation : One to Jew and Gen- ^"^ ' ^^*
tiles both. And again he declares_, That as '^'y- * -
there is Ojje Lord^ One Faith^ O?;^ Baptifm^ fo ^
there is One God and Father of Jll. And again,
he fays. There is One God : That is. One and
no more. So that putting the Old Teftament
and the New together, we find nothing
plainer than this. That there ts none other God
hut One : And from this Principle nothing
Ihould move us. And now,
II. I proceed to clear this Principle from
the perverfe Glolfes of thofe by whom it
has
* Mark xii. 29. On which Text fee Dr. iVnterUyicTs,
Eight Sermons. ^^^. 114, (3c. hnd PUcxi Dijvut»
d^^Div.Je. Qhrijii Ejjenti^ Par. III. p. 227, &e.
238
The Unity
Sfrm. ^^^ ^^^^ mifreprefented. There being na
YyTy denying the Unity of the Godhead^ which is
over and over fo plainly aflerted^ it has
been the Endeavour of fome_, in order to
the ferving of their own Purpofe^ to give it
a wrong Turn^ that fo by the Help thereof,
they might be the better able to evade cer-
tain other Texts^ which when taken in their
molt natural and obvious Scnfe^ are found
to clafti with fome of their darhng Notions.
I fhall mention Three GIolTcs of theirs^ of
which they have been fo fond^ that they
have not been willing to part with them up-
on any Terms^ becaufe of the great Service
they hope for from them^ in Building their
beloved Bahel.
The firft is this ^ That when the Apo-
flle here and elfewhere declares^ That there
is none other God but One^ his Meaning is^ that
there is but 0?ie Supreme Godj without any In-
timation but that there may be One or more
that may be Gods in a fi:h ordinate Senfe.
Tnelecond Giols is this^ That when the
Apoftle iaySj There is none other God hut One ;
this Limitation is to be underitood^ That
there is none elfe that is of^ Hlmfclf\ and by
Nature God,- or that is independent like
Him.
The third Glofs^ is this • That it is not
more evident 3 that there is none other God
but One^ than it iSj that the Father is He, be-
caufe the Apoftle very exprefsly, and in io
many Words, in the next Verfe but one af-
ter the Text we are now upon, fays. To m
there is hut One God the Father. I fliali touch a
little upon each. And,
I. It has been faid by fome. That when
the Apoftle both here and elfewhere declares^
That there h mm other God but One^ his Mean-
ing
of the Godhead.
ing \Sy That there is but One S//preme God -^
notwithftanding which^ there may be One
or more^ that may be Gods in a fuhordinate
Senfe. But in Return to this^ I have feveral
Things to oifer.
I. The wifer Tagans^ tho' they knew not
how to get clear of Foljtheifmy were yet very
far from fuppoling feveral frpreme^ independejit
Deities. They commonly reckoned there was
but 0?7e Supreme God^ and that the reft that
were calFd and worfliipp'd as Gods_, were
but fubordinate^ and under the Government
of hmi that was Supreme. But tho' this was
the common Senfe of the Gentile World^ yet
I know of no Occafion^ Warranty or Encou-
ragement we have from Scripture to bring
this Tagcin Scheme into Chriftianity *. I can-
not indeed pretend to fay^ but that they
that had only the Light of i^ature to guide
them^ might think they made a tolerable
Provilion for fecuring the Order and Go-
vernment of the W orld^ by fuppofing that
there was a Supre-me God^ that had the Ma-
nagement of other Inferior Deities under him_,
who were all fubjed to his Controul : And
this might encourage them to be for thofe
Gods many^ and Lords many ^ of whom the Apo-
ftle here fpeaks : And they might this Way
hope to avoid that Confufion^ which an
headlefs Rabble of thofe call'd Gods in Hea-
ven and Earthy would have been attended
with. But about any thing of this Kind^
Revelation is wholly lilent^ under Chrifilanityy
as well as under Judalfm. If it be fuppos'd
that
* Aufi flint J inquk Chiyfoft. Arinni ^ Mncedoniiini
Deum mngniim G? pnrvum iuducere, imo Deum erentiim,
ficthni/wkm in Ecclefinm introducentes, De S. Tiin. c. 6,
The Unity
that we have One Supreme God^ how many
and how excellent focver the Beings may
be that He may have under him^ they can-
not any of them be proper Gods. The fup-
pofmg a real Supremacy in him that is above
them^ according to the Notions of Scripture,
overthrows the Deity ot thofe that are un-
der him. For an Inferior God is a plain Con-
tradidion.
2. I F any others befides the One God men-
tioned in this Text_, are calFd Gods in the
OUTefiamenty they are fo calPd^ either /<?//?/_,
or metaphor icalljy or typically. And under the
Gofpel, which yet more clearly lays open
the immenfe Diltance there \s between God
and the Creatures^ the moft High or Supreme
Gody which is the Title of which fome are
fb peculiarly fond, does not diftinguifh be-
tween one God and another, but is us'd for
the common Name of God, Thus when the
Angel told the Virgin Mary^ that the Child
Ihe fliould conceive in her Womb, fhould be
Luke i. caird the Son of t/je Highefi ,• and that ihe
32,35. fhould be cverfhadow'd by the Power of the
Highefi 'y and when our Saviour told hisDif-
ciples, that if they took Delight in doing
Lukevi. good, they fhould be the Children of the
35. Highefi \ ^And wh^n'^t. Stephen in his Speech
Acfts vii. f^ys^ That the Mofi High diuelleth not In Tern-
^8. pl^^ made with Hands : In all thefe Places,
there is not the leail Intimation given of a
Supreme God y^th^t had other Gods under him,'
but 'tis all one as if the plain fimple Name
of God had been us'd. And if fo, then when
the Apoftle fays in my Text, 7'here is none
other God but One^ he could not mean there
is no other Supreme God but One : For there is
no Gcd at all but the Mofi High : And that
is now his Common Name.
When
0'
of the Godhead,
5. When the Apoftle here declares, That
there is none other God but 0?}e^ he dired:ly op-
pofes this 07}e God^ to the many Gods^ that is
the many that 3.rQ caltd^Oods^ in Heaven and
in Earthy mentioned in the Verfe next fol-
lowing. And if he here oppofes the one true
Gody to the jnanj falfe Gods of the Pagans^ then
is it a plain Force upon the Text^ to apply
it to a fuppos'd Supreme God^ that has a Jub-
ordinate God or Gods under him. There is
indeed a certain celebrated Writer^ that will
have it that the Apoftle in this Context in-
timates that there realty are Gods many^ and
Lords 7yiany ,• and that he hath no Reference to
the Gods or Idols of th^ Heathens : And by
Gods in Heaven he fays he means God and the
Angels : And by Gods in Earthy MagifirateSy
who alfo are call'd Lords of the World. But
as Dr. Whitby on the Place obferves^ he here-
in not only has all the Ancieat Commen-
tators againft him_, but the very Words them-
lelves. For when he had exprefsly faid^ ive
ChriltianS kn(rw that there is none other God
but One, if he fllould haVe immediately add-
ed^ there are really Gods many, he would have
contradidred himfelf directly. And why
fliould he be charg'd with that^ when he
declares he fpeaks only of thofe that are cal-
led Gods, whom he thereby plainly feparates
from Him that truly is (0. He hereby inti-
mates as plainly as he well could have done
in Words^ that thefe were only Gods in
Name^ but not in Reality ,• in Word only^
and not in Truth. The fame is alfo evi-
dent from the Words next following. For^
fays he^ though there be among the Pagans,
Gods many^ and Lords w^any, yet to tis Chriftl-
anSj there is but One God, "and 0?fe Lord. And
then whereas that Author fays, That by G^ix
R ' i»
242 The Unity
Serm. in Hea'veny are meant G<?^/ and iheJngels^ it is
VIII* <'^ltogether without Foundation. For no In-
y,^^^^^ llance can be given in the whole New Tefia-
menty where 0£o? is put for God and the An-
gels 3- or where both are mention'd under that
Name. It cannot be fo here : Becaufe the
Apoftlc had not only faid before^ IVe Chri-
Itians know that there is none other God hut One^
but faith afterwards^ that of him are all Things ,*
intimating that the Angels are his Creatures.
And therefore he could not fay between^
that there really are many Gods in Heaven^
meaning God and the Angels. , And if the One
God of the Chriitians be here opposed to
the many Gods of the Heathens^ to fuppofe tlie
Apoftle by our 0?je God^ fhould mean a Su-
preme Gody that had other Gods under him^ is
a grofs Abfurdity that has nothing to fup-
port it "*". But then^
2. Another Glofs to be remov'd^ is
this : It may be fa id that when the Apoftle
here affirms that there is none other God but
Oncy this Limitation is to be underftoodj
that there is none clfe that is of Himfelf^ and
by Nature God^ or that is independent like
Him. But that is fully anfwer'd by the Learn-
ed Flacaus t. ^^ ^ tnay here oblerve^
I. That whereas the Apoftle lays down
Two AlTertions as Handing upon the fame
Foot^ and having an equal Evidence^ there
is no more Realbn for the adding the Limi-
tation that is mention'dj to the latter Affer-
tion^ than to the former. The Two AfTer-
tions
* See this fully cleared, PUc^i Dif^utnt. de Chrijii
Divin. Par. III. pag. IZ2, ^c.
t Dijpiit. pro Div, Dom. nojl. J. Chrijii EJfenfiX
Par. 111. pag. 148.
of the Godhead.
tions laid down^ are thcfe : That an Idol is
nottjing In the IVorld ^ and that there Is noyje other
God but One : And thefe Two Propoilcions are
to be underftood in the very fame Way and
Alanner. If therefore fuch a Limitation as
that mention'd^ is to be added to the latter
Affertion^ it muft alfo be added to the for-
mer. Now there is not the leaft Occafion
for fuch a Limitation to be added to the for-
mer Aifertion. For when the Apoftle fays.
We know that an Idol is 7iothing in the World ^ it
was not his Defign to intimate, that it was
Nothing in itfelfy or of its own Nature : But
that with Refped to Divinity, it was Nothings
neither of itfelf, nor by Derivation. And
in like Manner, when he fays, IVe know
that there is none other God but One^ v/e have as
little Occafion for that Limitation. This
Expreffion is to be underftood as abfolutcly
as the other.
2. T H E adding fuch a Limitation, would
quite alter the State of the Queflion that
was imply'd. The Queflion to which St.
Taul was here laying in an Anfwer, was.
Whether there were more Gods than One ?
Now had he faid. That there w/is none other
God of H/mJl-lfy or of his own Nature^ but One^
it would not have anfwer'd that Queftion :
It would not have fatisfy'd fuck as were in-
quifitive. Whether there wer*not feveral
Gods? For among the Multitude of Gods,
whom the Heathe?ts vvorfhipp'd^ there was
fcarce any one that was thought to be froM
Hlmfelf That was a Thing that was but lit-
tle minded or confider'd. They commonly
look'd upon their Gods^ either as bom fuch,
or made fuch. And therefore when the Apo^
file here fays. We know that an Jdol is nothing in
the Wo/idy iae takes from the G^ds of the Na-
K z tions
The Unity
tions all the Deity that was afcrib'd to theni>
and not a particular Sort of Deity only. And
when he alfirms^ That there is none other God
but Cncy he afcribes that to this One God,
which he took from Uols. And when this
Affertion^ That there is but One Gcd^ is of-
ten to be met with in Scripture without any
fuch Limitation added as that v/hich is pro-
pcs'd^ it may^ I think^ be allow'd to pafs
for a good Argument^ that that Limitation
is not agreeable to the Mind of G o d : And
it mull therefore be a piece of Arrogance_,
for any at their own Pleafure to hmit^ what
God has thought fit continually to exprefs
without any Lnnitation^ and to alter his
Senfe by their Addition. Nay^
5. Such a Limitation would bring in a
contrary Senfe to that which the Apoftle
intended to convey. For it intimates as if
there were feveral true Gods^ and fuch as
were properly fo called, but that One of them
only was ofHimfelf. But this by no means fuits
the Apoftle's Purpofe_, which was to transferr
all Deity from Idob^ to the One True God.
Upon this Suppofition, a Vagan might in Rea-
iomng outdo the Chriitian. For he might
fay, I am free to grant, there is but One
God of Himfclf ; But this is nothing to me, who
wormip Mer^ry^ Minerva^ Mars and Hercu-
les, For I con t efteem or worfhip them as
Gods that are of themfelves. I own and confels
them to be Gods that are born : But Itill if
they are but true Gods, tho' not Gods of
thetnfel'vesy I am far from Worlhipping in
vain. And thus by the Help of fuch a Li-
mitation, the 1 orcc and Edge of this De-
claration of the Apoftle would be much a-
bated, and the PiJgan would go off in Tri-
Tiniph, and there vvoXild be no replying to
him.
of the Godhead^
him. Nay^ when the Apoflle fays^ /re hjow
that an Idol is mth'mg in the World -^ an Idolater
might come in with this Limitation_, and fay^
That he only meantj that 'tis nothing of hfelf:
And that there being many real and true
Godsy in Heaven and in Earthy any Thing that
is worfhipp'd befidcs the One God^ is not an
Idoly provided it be not worfliipp'd as a God of
itfelf And thus they tjiat are for luch a Diftin-
dion as this^ furnifh Men with an admirable
Exciife for Idolatry^ which the Apoftle (had he
been fo difpos'd) might have prevented with
Eafe^ by faying^ that there were only Two or
Three Gods that were to be rcligioufly wor-
fhipp'd^ or that there was but Owe that was
God of himfilf ; and that if there were any
other Godsy they were fo by Means of him
who was God of hlmfelf And his fpeaking in
fome fuch Manner as this^ would molt cer-
tainly have been much more agreeable to his
Wifdom and Charity too^ than to exprefs
himfelf as he has done^ if we are to under-
itand that only in a certain Senfe^ and with a
Limitation^ which he has exprefs'd fimply^
and without any Limitation, by which he has
laid an unhappy Foundation tor Contention
and Error coo^ iu a Thing of the laft Mo-
ment.
?. Another Glofs is this j That it is
not more evident, that there is none other God
but One^ than that the Father is this One God^
as is declar'd in the next Verfe but one,
whch fays. To m there is hut One God the Father.
And this is the Glols which Dr. Clarke de-
clares for. And it is indeed undoubted.
That the Father is this One God ; and the Sc^t
and Holy Ghn(l are fo too. If the Son is God^
and the Holy Ghoft God^ as well as the Father ^
(as has been before didiinctly prov'd) then x\\c
K 3 FatlicYj.
2^6
The Unity
Serm. Father^ Son^ and Hdy Ghofi, nccefTarily mull be
VIII. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^'^* ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ Apoftle would not
ly^-'^\j have faidj To zts there Is none other God but One : He
would rather have faid. There are no other
Gods but Three. And as great a Clamour
as fome Men make againit this^ it is a Con-
ciufion that upon the ftrideft Search appears
to me very jult and natural. And as Things
Itand^ I cannot fee^ either how it can be
avoided^ or why it fhoufd be contelted. For
fince there are Three^ Father ^ Son^ and Holy
Ghofiy to whom the Divine Nature and At-
tributes are afcrib'd in Scripture j what mult
we do ? Mult we calt off the Unity of the Di-
vine Effence ? No certainly : That is too
frequently and plainly alTerted^ for us to
have the lealt Room to call it in queltion.
Mult we then rcje(5i: or overlook thole Places
of Scripture^ which attribute Dl'vinhy to the
Son and Holy Ghofi^ as well as to the Father ?
That is v/hat we canaot well do^ without
cafting off thofe Books of Scripture that con-
tain fach Things^ or proving the Texts cited
to be fpuriousj or criticizing upon them in
fuch a Manner^ as to turn them to another
Senle. But this will not do : And therefore
here mult we fix^ That Father^ Son^ and Spirit ,
are this 07ie God. But this is declar'd againit
by Mr. Emlyn^ v/ho fays^ * Ihis ivill not be a
good Confcquefice^ tmlefs the Three be caWd God in
the fame high and exalted Scnfe^ in which there Is
hut One G o i> alone. For fince there is a Senfe
in vjhich there are Gods many^ and a Senfe of the
Word God J in lvh':ch G o D is fald to be but 07te^
* See the Advertifemenc Inferred between the Appen-
dix CO his Narrative, and that which he calls An Hum-
lie Jnqidry into the Scripture Account r/Jefus Chrllt.
of the Godhead.
the ^tefiio?i will bc^ IFhtther in that Scjife in
-ivhkh God h [aid to be but 0?jc^ any but the
Father be [aid in ScriMurc to be G o Dj tho' in
fame Sevfe the Son may be caWd fo too. In Return
to whichj I have thefe Things to offer.
1. That all the Thrcc^ Fat her ^ Son^ and
Holy Ghofiy are in Effe(5l declared to be G o Dj
in the fame high and exalted Senfe in which
there is but One God alone^ by the Charge
given for our being baptiz^'d in their Name.
And this is more than being calPd God^ if the
bare \J^t of that Name be all that is hereby
intended. Each of them is hereby declar'd to
be God in the fame Senfe^ and all are decla-
red to be but One G o d^ by the Dedication
requir'd to One as well as Another^ without
any Difference : Which Dedication to Each
as GoD^ warrants fuch an Expectation from
Each_, as the One God alone can anfwer ^ and
inferrs fuch Duties owing to Each^ as can
be due to the One God alone. So that if
there be but One God alone^ Each of thefe
Three muit be this One God^ or our Bapdfmal
JDedicarion will encourage Expedations that
cannot be anfwer'd^ and inferr Duties that
cannot be proper_, and fo leave us in wretch-
ed Confufion.
2. There is no Senfe^ in which there
truly are ^nany Gods. The Apoitle fpeaks here
indeed of Gods ?na^y : But to prevent Miftakes^
he tells us plainly^ they are but caWd Gods.
'Tis a meer Fid:ion_, and groundlefs Ima-
gination that there are ma?ty Gods. The
Apoille detefts the Thoughts of it at the
fame Time that he mentions it : And he op-
pofes the Chriftians One G o Dj, to the many
Gods of the Pagans. And this Author by af-
firmingj That there is a Senfe^ in ivhich there
art Gods many, m Effed contradids the Apo-
R 4 ftl<^>
The Unity
ftlc^ who fay?^ T'jere is vonp other God hut One:
that if there is a Senfe in -which there are Gods
many J it is a Pagan Senfc^ and very remote
from the Senfe of the Apoille. 'Tis a Senfe
that no Way becomes a Chriltian Writer to
exprcfs^ becaufe it is both inconfiftent with
Reafon and Revelation. St. Taul declares^ he
hne-w otherwife : And one would think fo
Ihould all that converfe with their Blhks,
5. There not only is a Senfe of the 'ivord
Godj in which God is hut One j but there is
^o Scriptural Senfe of the word God^ in which
the True G o D is more than One. Magi-
ftrates are indeed call'd Gods^ and the Devil
is call'd God^ but all the World knows and
owns that fuch Expreffions 2iVQ figurati'vej and
not to be underftood properly. But whenever
the True God^ and he that properly is God^ is
fpoken of in Scripture^ He is reprefented as
but One ; and fo One^ as that He cannot be mul-
tiply'd. We are there alTur'd^ not only that
there is but One God^ of fuch a particular Sort^
but that there is but OnQ True and Real God
of any Sort. And therefore for this Author
to fay^ That there is a Senfe of the word God^
in which God is but One^ falls vaftly fhort of
the Truth : For if there were any Senfe^ in
which there were more true Gods than One^,
the Unity of the Godhead would be intirely over-
thrown^ and it would be but a vain Thing to
acknowledge it. And,
4. W H E .V the 'Father is faid to be the One
God., neither the Son^ nor Holy Ghofi can be ex-
cluded 5 And the Reafon is, Becaufe there is
i)ut One God. Were there indeed more true
Gods than 0?^^ then the Father might be a
God in one Senfe, the Son in another, and the
Holy Ghofi yet in a third : But if there is but
One God^ then if the Son ^nd the Holy Ghofi too
is
of itZ^e Godhead.
is truly God as well as the Father^ the Father^
Sony and Holj Ghofi mull be but Om G o d j or
elfe we fliall multiply the Deity ^ under a Pre-
tence of fecuring his Unity ^ or make the Deity
contemptible^ under a Pretence of advancing
the Father's Pre-eminence. If the Son and Spl-
rh are not God in the fame Senfe as the Father^
the belt that can be made of Them^ is^ that
they are the Father's Creatures ; and if ihy
the Senfe in which They can be call'd Gods,
will be much too low^ for them to be proper
Objeds of Adoration. And this^ with what
has been offer'd before^, may be fufficient^ in
Return to this Difficulty. 1 now proceed^
III. To fhew you the Improvablenefs of
this Thoughtj That there is none other God hut
One, to ieveral good and ufeful Purpofes.
And^
I. We may from hence inferr^ That the
Arians and Socinlans have little Reafon to in-
grofs to themfelves the Title of Unitarians ;
as if they were the only Perfons that were
zealous in, Handing up for the Unity of the
Godhead. For we that are for a Trinity in the
Deity y according to the Account given us of
God in Scripture, are as much for the Unity of
the Divine Nature, as they either are or can
polTibly be. When we indeed ftand up for
a Trinity in the Deity^ they often confront us
with the l/w/V; of ^od : But that is not the
Matter in Difpute between them and us.
As much as we diiFer from them in other
Particulars, we yet can fay, with St. Paul in
the Text, I^Fe know that there is none other (jod
but One. We bjoir this, as well as the moil
zealous Unitarians that are, and are as free to
pwn it as any of them. We are as ready to
grant
2^0 The Unity
Seum, gi^ant as they to defirCj That if a Trimtj m
VIII. ^^^ ^^'^^y neceiTarily infcrr'd Three <^ods^ that
would be a fufficient Argument againft it.
But that is what we are as free to deny as
they can be to defire we (hould. Nor can 1 fee
that with any Shadow of Reafon^ they can
pretend to rank us with Deniers oiCjod's Unity ^
unlefs they could gi^e good Evidence that the
Diilindion which we (following the Sacred
Scriptures) fuppofe to be between the Father ^
Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ is inconfiftent with it.
But of thisj in the next Difcourfe.
2. T H E Notion of the A£ircwmtesy who
appear'd betimes in the Chriltian Churchy
and who were afterwards followed by the
Ma7iicheesy and held Two Gods^ a Good one^ and
a Bad one^ may be from hence confuted. The
fir ft Article in the Creed was defignedly op-
posed to thefe Mardonltesj upon this Account.
And we have Rcafon to be very thank-
ful that the Scriptures are fo clear upon this
Head ,• and fo fitted to prefcrve us from this
pernicious Error^ by which as valuable a
Man as St. Auitin liimfelf was in no fmall
Danger of being carry'd away. The Mar-
clonltes and the Mankheei after tliem held
Two Self-exiitent Principles^ the one the
Author of all Gocd^ and the other of all
Evil, and reprefented both of 'em as Gods^
and in a perpetual Conteft with each other.
By this Opinion of theirs^ they really dei-
fy'd the Devil^ or Prince of evil Spirits,
making him a Rival wiih God, and intitling
him to a Right cf receiving divine Honour
and \yorfhip. And this Opinion prevailed
more, not only in the Vagan World, but
even among many that were calFd Chrlfilans,
than we can eafily imagine. However, here
we may ftand our Ground ; JVe km-iv there
IS
of the GodheAd.^
Is none oth.r (jod but One. In this the Scriptures
are fo very clear^ that tho' we fhould have
not only that Difficulty to grapple with.
Whence then came E-vil ? (which was the very
Thing that led many aiide) but leveral o-
thers added to it, we need not be fiiaken.
For that Man that will be brought to heii-
tate as to thofe Things in whicti the Scri-
pture is plain, by Ditficulties that oiFer in
his Way, which he is not able to folve to
full Satisfaction, is never like to be eafy or
fteady ,• but bids fair for remaining unjettkd
all his Days.
5. The Clearnefs of the Scriptures as to
the Unity of God J has a great Tendency to
fix our JVorfi'ip , and keep us from being
there in Uncertainty. If indeed there were
fever al Gods whom we were bound to have
a Veneration for, we might well enough be in
Confuilon. But vjhen we know that there is none
other God hut One^ how can we be to feek ?
I can't fee that the Trinity in the Deity need
perplex us. For whether we worfhip Father^
Son, or Holy Qhofi diftindly and apart, and ap-
ply ourfelves feverally to them, for thofe BleC-
fings which the Scriptures incourage us to
exped: from them 3 or whether we addrels
ourfelves to the Father^ through the Media-
tion of the Son^ by the Help of the Sfirlty
we Hill know it is but One God with whom
we have to do. Neither will the Father re-
fent the Honour we give to the Son or Holy
Ghcfi ,• nor eicher Son or Holy Ghofi rcfent
the Ho7Jour we give to the Father : And
therefore we are fafe, and may be eafy ;
and the Unity of the Godhead is our Security
that we run no Hazard.
4. Since
2^2 The Unity
Sekm. 4. S I n c e we fo certainly know that there is
VIII. "^'^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^'^^ ^^^j ^^ i^^^y irately conclude
^/^/"VJ ^^^^ ^^^s o«f Go^ will admit of no Partners or
Rivals_, in Honour, tVorjlnj), and Obedience. The
Command which our Saviour urg'd upon the
Mac. iv, Tempter_, Thou jhalt worjJjip the Lord thy God,
10, and him only jlmlt thou ferve, from hence appears
highly reafbnable ; and the bringing in any
Partners for Worfliip with him^ (as did the
Taga7ts heretofore_, and the Tafifts at this Day)
from hence appears altogether unreafonable^
and downright Idolatry. Xho* the Vagans wor-
Ihipt many Gods, yet they comiiionly own'd
one Chiet among them^ and as for the Inferlour
Gods, they look a upon them as his Deputies_,
Lieutenants^ or Miniifers ^ and pretended
that becaufe of the Charges committed to 'em^
there was a fort of Honour and Worfliip due^
which it concerned them to give. They rec-
koned it an Honour to the Supreme God, to
have a number of Gods under hini^ Obje^s of
Worfliip. And the Divines of the Church of
Rome, argue much at the fame Rate at this
Day^ as to the Nature and Office of Angels,
and Qanonix.'d Saints, and the Degree of Wor-
fliip they reprefent as their Due. But this one
Text_, We knovJ that there is none other God but
one, might be enough one would think to
ftrike them dumb : or at leaft it may preferve
us from being influenced by their Suggeftions.
If there be but one God, then is it plain Idola-
try to Worfliip any other but him.
5". Since there is none other God but one, wc
may very warrantably conclude^ that they
that are Devoted to hini^ fliould be of o?.e
Ephef. iv. Heart : And the Apofl:]e writing to the Ephefi^
3? ^'c. ans, has drawn this Inference ready to our
Hands. Since God is one, they that (erve himj,
and ai:£ Hearty in his Intcreft^ ought to be
of the Godhead.
one in AfFedion at Icaft^ if not in Judgment.
This is very becoming the Children of One
Father y and Servants of One Mafier and Lord^
as well as Perlons that are animated by one
Spirit^ and profels one Faith. This is a Thing
that would much recommend Religion^ and
help to fulfill our Saviour's Prayer_, who
begg'd of his Father that his Difciples and .
Followers might be 0?7e^ as r/j^e Father ^WJ^""^^'"*
Son are One. And the Want of this fhould'*'^^'
be lamented.
6. Since there is none other God but One^
it fhould be the common Concern and Care
of us^ who are favour'd with a diftind Know
ledge of this One God^ to love him fuperla-
tively^ and with a fmcere^ intire^ and un-
divided Aifedion. When the Cry founded
in Ifrael^s EciTSy Hear^ O Ilrael^ the Lord c«r ^^^^•^^'
God is one Lordy this Charge is immediately ^' ^*
grafted upon it^ 7hou jlmlt love the Lord thy
God with all thine Hearty and with all thy Soul^
and with all thy Might. This is the belt Ef-
fed the Senfe of God's Unity can have upon
us : 'Tis what it naturally leads to. 'Tis . «
this One God that has gl^cn us Life and Breath ^^ "'
a7^d allTiyi7igs 'j and that daily loadeth us '^^'^^ pf * Ixvlii.
his Benefits. We in Return^ fhould give him j^'.
our whole Hearts. We fhould all choofe
this One God for ours^ and cleave to him ever
after. We fliould freely and yet deliberately
tell him^ that He is the only One we can
be fatisfy'd to pitch upon for a Portion : pp . ^...
That we have none in Heaven hut him^ and *
nom on Earth that we dejire befides hi?n. Arid
if we are but thus difpos'd_, He will become
ours, and we may hope at length each of us
to be able to fay with David^ 6 God, TIjou art ^^^' ^^^^^'
my (jod : And this will argue us to be inex- *'
preilibly happy.
The
2 54 ^^^^ Unity
Serm. The Gods of the Heathens really were
VTII contemptible^ and not worth the having,
y^^^^^-s^^^ For they could hear no Prayers^ fupply no
Wants^ fatisly no Defires^ and help to no
Bleffings that were needed : But in having
Pf lv*r ^^^^ ^"^ ^^"^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ Things. It
iL^ ^^^' ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^y^ '^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ 5^^^^ ^^ ^""^^y
pr.Ixvii then cry out_, God^ e^jen our own Gody jhaH
C. hlefs us.
Tho' He is but One^ yet there is enough
in him to make us ail Happy. He alone,
tho' One, is as able to give us full Satisfa-
ciion^ as if there were a diftind God for
every one of us. If we have but him, we
have all at once. And tho' each one that has
him^ has all^ yet the Reft that equally depend
upon him, and are equally interefted in him,
have never the lefs : For there is in him, an
Infinite Fulnefs. It's but a poor Comfort to
know that there is a God, and that there Is
none other God but 07je, if He be none of ours.
In believing that there is a God, and that
this God is One, we do no more than the
very Mahor^ieians. For they alfo beheve a
God I and it vv^as one cf the fir ft Dodrines
that their celebrated Prophet Mahomet pro-
pagated among his Arabians, that there was
but One God ^y and that he only is to be
worftiipp'd, and that all Idols were to be
taken away^ and their Worlhip utterly abo-
lifh'd. What do we then more than they,
if we only believe God's Unhj, and ftop there?
Let us be fo wife, as to adl under the In-
fluence of this Belief, and fix on this One
Cod as ours.
In
Prideauxs Life of Mnhometf p. 1 7.
of the Godhead.
I N Other Cafes the Singularity of a valu-
able Thing, is an urgent Argument to
quicken Care to fecure our Propriety. Where
we find but 0?ie Thing of a bort_, we are
apt upon that Account to be the more defi-
rous to have it ours. If there were but 0?;<r
Remedy for a fital Diltemper under which
you were all labouring, or but One Foun-
tain you could drink of, with hope of get-
ting your Thirft fatisfy'd, or but Oije lioufe
in which you could nope to live comforta-
bly, and free from Hurricanes, Storms and
Tempefts j how earneftly defirous , and
how much concerned would you all be, that
this One Remedy, this One Fountain, this One
Houfe niight be yours I Methinks it infi-
nitely more concerns you, to get this Om
God to be yours : And that ttie rather,
becaufe if He is yours, all Things will be
yours y as far as you truly need them.
Behold, I can aifure you He is willing
to be yours, if you are but lincerely deli-
rous He.fliouldbe fo. He offers himfelf to
you ^ and has waited long in Readinefs to be
Gracious. He is defirous you fhould accept
of him, and fo be Happy ; And it will* be
your own Fault, and through your own Re-
fulal, (and that finally perfilted in too) if Fie
is not yours. Do but heartily accept of
him, and devote yourielves and your all to
him, and you are made for ever.
A N D it you have this One God for Yours,
rejoice in your great Happinefs. Be un-
feignedly thankful, and yet humble and
watchful. Live as thofe that have that One
God for yours, who has in him enough for
all. Walk but fuitably, and fo as that He
may have Honour from you, and He will
take Care of you, and fee to it that nothing
may
2P5
The U ]sr I T y
S^RM. may be wanting^ that is neceflary to m-^ke
VIII. you cither now or for ever happy. He will
>^^r>^,^ faiisfy you from himfelf, and as fully ad the
Part ot God to you^ as if there were a ^i-
ftind God for every one of you. He wiU
piide you bji his Cotmfel now j and hring you here-
after to his Eternal Glory.
Sera*,
257
SERMON IX.
I C o R. XII. 4, 5, 6.
iVbijy ?Z?^r^ ^r^ Diverjities of
Gifts ^ hut the fame Spirit.
t^nd there are Differences
of Adminifirations^ hut the
fame Lord, And there are
Diverfties of Operations^
hut it is the fame God,
which worketh all in aU.
A V I N G (hewn that the Father is God^ Salrers^
the Son God^ and the Holy Ghcft God^ hall,T«e/-
and that in the fame Senfe^ and fet ^^y Lec-
before you the Unity of the Godhe^, I Ihall ^^^e, Apr.
now offer fomewhat^ as to the Confiftency ^^- ^^i*^-
of this Unity with fuch a Dlfrin^lon between
Father y Son^ and Holy Gkofi^ as w^e hav^e Hints
of in Scripture^ and endeavour to defend that
2^8
The Distinction
SerM, DlfilnBlon^ againft tliofe who are crying out at
j^ every Turn^ Hoiv can thefe Things ht ^
\^/ryj^ And in this Cafe^ I fhall take my Rife
from the Text propcs'd^ where we have
Three fpoken of, as joint Agents on the Be-
half and for the Benefit ot that one Body
the Churchy into which all that profefs them-
felves Chriftians are baptiz'd^, and of which
all true Believers are the living Members :
And yet thefe Three are but that 07ie God
Ver. 1 8. who (as 'tis intimated in the Context) hat/j
fet the Members^ every one of them In the Bodj^
as It hath fleajcd Him,
So that tlio' "iiJe know that there Is none other
Cod but One^ we yet do^ or may kno-w^ that
t\v\S One is Sfirip^ LQrd^ and Go J , and yet
but One, notwithftanding the Dl'verfities of
Operations, Adminifiratlons, and GtftSy that may
be obferv'd refpedively. Gifts are afcrib a
> to the Spirit, and Ad^mnlftrations to the Sony
and Operations to the Father, who worketh all and
In all ,• and in All there are Dinjerfitles , of
jKinds. and Degrees^ which may be freely
own'dj and have all the Strefs laid on them
that they deferve^ without at all breakhig
in upon that Unity of the Godhead that has
been already fet before us. In the One Di-
vine Effence or Nature^ there is Father, Lord,
and Spirit, from whom are all Operations, Mi-*
mfiries, and Gifts. They all proceed from
One God, Lord, and Spirit, and are manifefted
io to do^ we may fee they are all direded to
the Good of that One Bcdy the Churchy as
* they all began in perfed Unity, So that we
have here a plain Trmlty in Unity, and Unity
in Trinity,
Here is in Reality a Threefold Trinity :
A Trinity of Di'verftties and Differences, a Trinity
of Faculties, and a Trinity of Gi'vers.
in the Go x^uEAD. 259
Here is a Tr'mUy of DJver/itks^ for they Serm.
are thrice mentioned, tho' in Reality they jx,
may be faid to be manifold ,• even as many_, ^^v^
as the Things that are diverfijy'd.
The FacuUks mention'd are Three j ^'^fts^
Adminlfin^tlons^ and Operatloris,
Thf (jlz/ers are alfo Three : The Father^
the Son^ and the Sph-h. And thefe are all
comprehended m^ and manag'd by_, the fa?Ke
GoJy who worketb Jill In all. And yet even
this Unity is not without Dljlmtuon ,• Gifts be-
ing peculiarly afcrib'd to the Sfirlt^ Admlnl-
firailons to the vSow or Lotd^ and Operaiiom to
God the F^fA^er : For He is the Fountain of
all Dlverfitles of Operations ^ as the Son the Lord
is the Manager of all the Differences of Adml-
nifiratlonsy and the Spirit the Diltributer of all
thofe Dlverfitles oi Gifts ^ that at any time are
obferv'd or found in the Church. And all
the gracious Gifts of the Gofpel are beftow'd,
all lacred Mlnljhles are guided_, managed and
fucceeded^ all wonderful Operations are brought
to pafs^ by the joynt and equal Condud: and
Co-operation of thefe Three Divine Per-
fons.
M E T H I N K s that Man mult wilfully iliut
his Eyesj that fees not here 2. Trinity^ even
the very fame Trinity that is taken notice of
in our Baptifm * : And yet this Trinity mult
confift with Unity ^ by Reafon tiiat there is no
one Thing we know more certainly_, than that
there is none other God hut One.
Some that have written upon this Subject-
have taken Notice of a fivefold Trinity. There'?
the Ciceronian TrinUy^ wliich conufts in Three
S z Relations^
* ^'ee on this Text, ?Ucxt Difput, de Div. J. Chrijil
BpntU Par. Ill, p. 219, ^ zzz.
26o The DisTiNCTiOiNT
Relations^ Capacities^ or Refpeds of God
to his Creatures : The Cartefian Trinity ^ which
makes Three Divine Perfons^ and infinite
Minds and Spirits to be but One God : The
Tlatenick Trinity ^ which Dr. Cudworth * lays^
was a TrbiityofGods^ of which the fecond and
third were inferior ^ and which Tetauius af-
fipms t to have given Life to yirlanlfm in the
Chriftian Church : The ylriftotelian Trinity ^
which makes the Three Divine Perfons One
God, as having one and the fame numerical
Subllance : And the Trljiity of the Mobile^ that
has been, and is held to this Day, by the Ge-
nerahty of Common Chriftians, and Divines
too^ who without pretending to explain,
are for receiving what the Scripture declares,
concerning the Sacred Three in whofe
Karnes we were baptiz'd, together with what
follows from thence by necelTary Confe-
quence. For my own Part I am intrreiy for a
Scriptural Trinity^ and am for contending for
no more upon this Subjed:, than I can find in
my Bihky either in exprefs Words, or natural
Confequences : And if any will call this a
Mohb^fl) Trijihy^ or the Trinity of the Mobile ^ tho'
I may be concern'd for the Difrefped they
this Way fhew to Revelation, yet will not
this in the leaft abate my Refped for the
Dodrine, or Readinefs to Hand up for it,
in all fuch Ways as I can difcern to be pro-
per, and ^likely to do real Service to the
Truth. I here propolc,
' I. To give fome Account of that !>///«-
tlion b^XVIQQn- Father y Son ^ and Holy Ghof-^
that
* IntelleB. Syft. pag. 549.
t JbeoL Dopn. de Trm, JJib, I. cap. i.
in fZ?^ Godhead. 261
that is taken Notice of m the SacrecJ
Scriptures.
II. To fhew the Confiltency of this D///V
Blon^ with that U7Jity m the Godhead^ that
has been before aflerted^ and make fome
Return to what is alledg'd in Proot of
an Inconfiftency. And^
III. To fubjoyn fome luitable Reflexions.
I. I (hall begin with an Account of that
Dlfiinclicn between Father^ Son and Holy Ghofiy
that is taken Notice of in the Sacred Scrip-
tures. And here I fliall do Two Things.
1. Shew you^ That a Dlfilntllon there is
between thefe Three^ Father ^ Sc7t and 5p/V/V ;
and that the Scripture takes Notice or this
Difihjcllon^ tho' it reprefents Each of them as
GoDj and all the Three but as Qjie God.
2. Co N SI DER how far the Scriptures go^
and what may be gathered from thence^ with
Relation to the Difilncilon there is between
them. And_,
I. Let it be obferv'd. That a DlfilnBlon
there moft certainly is between thefe Three^
Father y Son^ and Holy Spirit ^ and the Scrip-
ture takes Notice of it too ^ notwith-
ftanding that it reprefents Each of them as
God^ and all of them but as Owe God. That
there is a Dlfilntllon between them is very
plain^ both becaule ^.^fre;^/^ Things are fpo-
ken of them , and becaufe they are fpoken of
in a dijfh'ent Order. -
I- There mufi: be a DlftlnBlon between
Father y Son^ and Holy Spirit ^ becaufe there are
different Things fpoken of them in Scrip-
ture. The Father is faid to beget^ the Son to
S ? be
262 The Distinction'
be begotten^ and the Holy Spirit to proceed,
Nay^ they are in Scripture brought in as
fpeaking of one another^ and to one another^
and therefore there is a Neceffity they fliould
be dijt'mtt from each other. We are told^
John i. I, That th^ Word was with God^ not in him^ but
i' with him ; and therefore dlfihB from him :
And that He was in the Beginning with God, He
was with the Father^ when all Things were
firft created_5 which neither is nor can be all
one as if it had been faid_, that He was with
Ver. 14. himfelf. 'Tis added^ The Pf'brd was made Fkjlj ;
which neither is nor can be all one as if it
had been faid^ that the Fctthcr or the Holy Ghofi
was made Fhjh. And when the Holy Ghofi is faid
to have proceeded from^ or been fent by the
Father^ or the Son^ it neither is nor can be the
fame^ as if He had been faid to have proceed-
ed from himfelfj or to have fent himleif. The
Rom.viii. Father is faid net to have [fared his own Scn^ hut
31. dell'vered him up for us ^'M \ and the Son to be
Tohni.iS. ^^ ^^^ Bofom of the Father ; and to have had a
Ih vil «; Glory w'th the Va-tlicry before J he PFcrld was : Nei-
* ther cf which could have been^ if He were
Matt. XX. ^lOt dfi.nci from Him. The Son is alfo faid
28. to giije hli Lfe a Ranfom for Many ; and to live
Heb. vii. e^ver^ to makt Jnttrcijjion for m. And the Holy
^5- . Ghofi is faid to renew and fmciify us^ and to
Eph. IV. j-^^i ^^j. ^^^Q ijj^ u^y of Rtdcmft':on. Thefe are
^°* Things that are fo very dljferent^ that they
very plainly intimate a Dfiirt'ticn in the
Agents to whom they are reipe6liveiy afcrib'd.
For hv.w can they be any other than dlfiintiy
if the one does wnat the other dues not.^ That
thus it iSj we have the beft of Evidence ima-
ginable from Scripture. For we there have
... th.^ Father brought in declaring Christ "to
Matth.ui. 1^^ his well-beluvcd Son ; and the Son receiving
' ^'^' Baptifhij- and the i:fc'/^ G^o/ defcending upon
' him
in theGo'DUEk d.
him as a Dove^ and all at once. We may
fafely fay^ that this could not be^ if there
were not a D^filndkn.
2. These Three, Father^ Son^ and Hjly
Ghofiy are fpoken of in a chferent Order, For
fometimes one is firft mention'd^ and fome-
times another. In the Baptijmal Charge^ Matt. 18.
They are n>ention'd in their natural Order ^ of i9'
Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft. In like manner
St. John^ fpeaking of the Witilefles to th^
Truth of Chnftianity^ takes notice of them
as the Father J the IVord^ and the Holy Ghvfi, i John v.
But at other times they are rang'd very dlf- ?•
ferently. Thus in the Text I am upon^ the
Holy Spirit is firft nam^d^ then follows Chrifi^
who is the Lordy and God who is the Father^
comes laft of all. And it is the fame alfo_,
when we are told^ That there is One Spirit^ Eph. iv:
One Lord^ and One God and Father of All, But 4, 5, 6,
then at other times Chrift comes firft^ then
follows the Spirit^ and the Father comes laft.
Thusy fays he, through hlm^ i. e. Chrifi^ we both^ Ih. il 18.
that is^ ./^^-f ^nd Gentiles y ha^ve an Accefs by one
Spirit unto the Father. And elfewhere, the A-
poftie begins with Chrifi^ conies next to the
Father y and ends with the Spirit -^ f^yi^gj ^^
whowy that iSj in Chrifi^ ye are built together
for an Habitation of God through the Spirit. So
alfo in his clofmg Benedidion to the Corinthi-
ans ^ he places the Son before the Father ^ wifh-
ing them the Grace of the Lord Jefus Chrift be- iCor.xili.
fore the Love of (jod^ as wefl as before the 14.
Commimion of the Holy (jhoft. St. John alfo places
the Spirit before the Son^ wifhing the Severi
Churches of AJia^ (jr ace from the Seven Spirits Ktv , u
before the Throne ^ before he wiflies it to them4>5-
from Jef/is Chrifi. And this I take for a ve-
ry good Evidence^ both of their Equality^ and
of their Dipncllon. 'Tis an Evidence of their
S 4 Equality j
2^4
The Distinction'
Serm. Efmlity ; becaufe if they had been unequal^
IX. ^^ "^^y reafonably fuppofe they would al-
y,^^^^^ ways have been mention'd in that Order that
would have given feme Intimation of it. And
it is alfo an Evidence of their DlfiinBion ^ be-
caufe it is molt reafonable to apprehend^ that
if they had been undiftinguifli'd^ they would
have been always mention^d in the lame Or-
der^ without any Variation. A DlftinEilon then
there is and mull be_, between the Three in
the Deity : and any Hypothefis that confounds
them^, IS for that Reaicn to be rejeded. It is
a grand Objedion of Dr. CUrke againit the
common Hypothefis on ih^ Trinity^ That it
brings In a Conftifion ofPerfons *. And the Ob-
jection would be unanfwerable^ if it did
bring in a real Ccnfujion : Tho' at the fame
time 'tis grcundlefs^ if it leaves Room for all
the Difilnttlon that the Sacred Scriptures make
between them : Which I take to be the real
Truth. I proceed then^
2. T o confider^ hew far the Scriptures
go about this Matter_, and what may be ga-
thered from thence^ with Relation to the £)/-
flirSion between the Sacred Three. I (hall
endeavour to ftate it in the following Propo-
fitionSj which deferve to be vv^eigh'd^ and
attended to.
Trof. I. These Three are fo dlfihiB^ thaf
one of 'em neither is^ nor can be the other.
The Father neither is^ was^ nor can be the
^on:^ nor the ^on the Father -^ nor the HolyGhofi^
either Father or Son^ but dlflintt from both.
The
■ ' See his Anfwer to fome ConfideratiQns, ^c. J&g^
^57, andaU along.
in
the GODHEAP.
The Vathcr neither is_, nor can be the
^on. For He never came down from Hea-
yen^ nor left his Glory there : He never took
upon him the humane Nature^ nor did He
ever fufFer or die^ make Atconement for Sin_,
or intercede for Sinners as their Advocate,
or rife from the Dead^ or in any Refped ad
the Part of a Mediator. In like Manner,
the Son neither is, nor can be the Father. For
He never begat ^ or had a Son^ nor did
He ever make any one Heir of all Things,
nor fend any one into the World to die tor
Sinners, nor receive Attonement_, nor offer
ro be reconcil'd through the Mediation of
another. And then the Holy Ghcjl^ is nei-
ther Father nor Son. He proceeds from the Fa^ John xv.
ther 5 but not from himfelf He was to glorify 26.
the Sc7i^ and rccel%'e of -what iv as his : But Hel^.xvi.15,
could not be faid to receive of himfelf, that
which was his ov/n^ and glorify himfelf by
fo doing. Withal ^ his coming depended up-
on the SQn\ departing^ and afterwards fend-
ing him. Fie \s> plainly d'lfiingulp'd both from
Father and So7j by his Defcent upon our Sa'Z'l^
our at his Baptij?y/y at which Time we are told,
the Spirit of God defce?7ded like a Doz^e^ and lo^ a MatchJIL
Voice from Heauen^ fij'^^^y ^^^'-^ ^'j ^y bclo'Z'ed Son^ 1 7«
/;; 7rhom I am vjell pUafed. In this Cafe He was
nianifeflly dijlmgujhi'd^ both from the Son on
whom He lightcd_, and from the Father^ who
fpake from Heaven concerning his Son. And
therefore in ancient Times^ when a Man wa3
known or fufpeded to be an /irian^ it vv^as a
com.mon Saying to him. Go to Jordan^ and
thou IV lit fee a Trinity. Father ^Son^ and Spirit then,
are evidently fo diflmB^ as that the one is not
the ether. And therefore it was not vvithout
good Reafon that Tertullian wrote againft
Tiaxeas^^ who affirm'dj That /'; 7vas one and the
[ami
266 The Distinction
SeRM, A^^ Ferfon that ivas caWd by the three Names of
IX. Father J Son^ and Spirit. And yet tho* the
1^,^^^^ Son is net the Father ^ nor the Father the Son^
nor the Holy Spirit^ either Father or Son^ yet
the Son and Spirit may be^ and are_, the One
True God, as well as the Father^ becaufe they
partake of the one Divine Nature, with all
its Excellencies, Properties, and Operations.
The Son is One G o D vvith the Father^ becaufe
He has the fame Spirit with him : And the
Spirit muft be one with Father and Son^ be-
caufe He is the Spirit of the one, ns truly as
He is of the other.
Trop. 11. S u c H a Difiijiciion muft be al-
low'd between Father^ Son^ and Spirit ^ as may
be futiicient to anfwer the Parts and Purpoles
that are feverally affign'd them in the Chri-
ftian Oeconomy, They are indeed One in Na-
ture, in Knowledge, in Prefence^ and in
Energy and Operation : And yet if there be
iiot (o much DiftifMicn own'd between them,
as is neceifary to juftity the diftihB Attri-
butions that are feverally made to them in
Scripture, our facred Writings, for which we
pretend to have no fmall Value, muft una-
voidably fall under Contempt. I'll here on-
ly faften upon the ^x^2it^' ovk o{ Redemption ^
in which the Divine Perfections are repre^
fented as peculiarly confpicuous. The fcrip-
turai Scheme of that Great Work ftands thus :
The Father fends the Son to acquire Salvation
for us j and the Son fends the Holy Spirit to ap-
ply it to us. To conceive this, without any
Diftlnclion between the Father ^ Son^ and Spirit y
would be a greater Difficulty than any which
the Dodrine of the Tri^ilty^ as it has been ge-
nerally held in the Chriftian Church, can be
juitly (aid to carry in it. The Nature of
Satisfa'cilcn^
in the Godhead.
Sattsfa&ion requires a D//?";;^;o;/ in the Dehy.
For he that fuiFers for Siiij, muft be diftin-
guifh'd from him that exadsbatisfacflion. And
no mere Creature is able by his obedient
Sufferings to repair the Divine Honour. G.jd
aflaming the Nature of Mar.^ was alone capa-
ble t)f making that Satlsfict'on that the Gclpel
ipeaks of. The F^f/jer required an honourable
Reparation for the Breach of the divine Law.
The Son bore the Punifhment-, in the Suffer-
ings of the humane Nature which He aflum'd.
The'Blelfed ^^//vV by fandifying us^ quaHfies
and fits us for the receipt of the fileilings pur-
chas'd for us. The Foundation for all this is
wanting^ if there be no D'Jlhi^lo^i between
the Sacred Three. Tho' therefore the Di-
vine ElTence be but One^ yet we cannot help
admitting a threefold DiJthjHion in it. We
mud fo far diitinguifh Father ^ Son^ and Holy
Ghofij as may be futficient to fuit the Frame^
and anfwer the Defign of Chnltianity^ or
elfe we muft declare that to be a Religion^
that is wholly aFidion_, and that has nothing
to fupport it.
Trop. III. T H o' the Father is difiinguiP}\l
from the Son^ and Father and Son are difihi^
from the Holj S fir it ; yet are they not ^;-
fringtiijl/d by any Thing that is proper^ pe-
cuUar_, or eifential to tliQ Deity. Tho' they
are dlfi'mgui^iid one from another by proper
Charaders^ yet are ail the Eifential Attri-
butes and Operations of the Deity common to
them all ; and the Divine Nature is equal
in them all. So that the Son is not a /ijfe-
rent God frcm the Father^ nor the Sinrit from
Father and Son. There are not feveral Godsy
tho' there are feveral that have all Divine
Perfections, It cannot with Truth be laid^
''■ that
268 The Distinction'
Serm. that the Father is one God^ the Son another
IX. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^b Spirit yet another God : They
^^^^yi^ are all Three but Om God; nor does the
D'lfilnBion afTerted^ hnply any Multiplication
of the Divine Effence or Nature. St. John
tells us^ The Word -was God; But he does not
fay^ He was another or a fecond God. The
Holy Ghofi is alfo reprefented as G o d^ but
not another^ or a third God, Any Notion_,
Term or Expreflion that would int'err a Tri-
nity o^Godsy is on that Account to be rejeded.
St. Gregory Naz.lanz.ene^ in one of his Sermons^
anfwering feme who thought the Dodrine of
Three Gods would follow from owning Three
Terfons in the Godhead^ fays^, That tho there are
Three in whom the Godhead is^ yet there is in them
Three hut One Godhead *. And whereas it is
query 'dj If thefe Three are not difiingwp^d by fome
Terfehlonsy how are they at all difiinguijWd ? f . I
anfwer^ Tho' the Scriptures reprefent them
;5s having ail Divine Perfedions in common^
they yet dlfilngmjh them by their Relation to
each other^ and by their different Concern and.
Agency in the Salvation of fallen Man.
Trop. IV. Tho' Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi
are difi^nguifi'd from each other; yet is there no
JDl^lne Nature which is neither Father^ nor Son^
nor Holy Ghofi:. It having been commonly af-
fertedj That in the Deity ^ there is one Effence'
or Nature^ and Three ttrfons^ it has been faid
by fome^ That then there mult be Four to
whom Divinity belongs, 'vlz,. The Dl^Ane Na-
turc^ and the Three Divine Ptrfi)7u. But this
is
* Greg. Na:(. Ornt. XXXVII. De Sj>. San^o «? 9
t Emlyn\ Tvadts. ^ag. 165*
in the Go'DVL^x d. 26^
is a perfect Blunder. For there is no Divine Sfrm.
Nature but what fubfifts in the Three Di'vine j^
Terfons : Nor can it be jultly faid^ that God f^^/^J^
did exift in Order of Nature ^ antece-
dently to a Trinity ; for a Trmlty in the
Dtltj is as neceffary as the Exigence of the
Deity.
Trop, V. The whole Dl^jlne Nature is in
Father^ So7j^ and Holy Ghofl^ and in each of
them confider'd diftindly. 'Tis to G o d that
we are devoted^ when we are baftiz^'d in the
Name of the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy
Ghoft 5* and we are therefore devoted to G o d
in that Way and Manner, becaufe He has
thus manifelted himfelf unto us : And be-
caufe they are each of them Go d, we are.
therefore in that Solemnity devoted to each
of them drflivcfly . Every One of thefe Three
hath not a Part, but the whole Deity in Him-
felf. The Father therefore is the One Only
True G0B3 and to be lov'd, and worfhipp'd^
and liv'd to as fuch ^ and 'tis the fame alfo
as to the Son and Holy Ghofi, And no One of
them is more Wife, Holy, or Powerful, or
more Perfect in any other Refpe^ than the
other Two : So that there is no Room for
any Thing like a DWifion. And whereas it
is faid by a Writer that has diftinguifh'd him-
felf upon this Subjed, That if each Ferfon in
the Trinity has the Perfe^ilo7j of the whole Trini-
ty, then One is as good as all Three '^ : I con-
ceive it will then be time enough to conhder
of that, when it has once been fliewn how
without all the Three, the Chn/ian Schewe as
it is delivered in Scripture, can be ftated and
cxplain'd, fupported and defended.
* Emlyris Trads, pag. 165.
270 The Distinction
Sekm,
IX* ^^^P- ^^- Fathee^ cVo;?^ and Holy Sfirtty
\j^-^ are more dtfihEl; from each other j, thaji they
are from the Dlvlm Nathrc which is common to
them All. They have different Names and Re-
lations , whereas the Diru'm Nature that is in
each^ and the effential Perfedions that belong
to \ty and that concurr in thofe divine Works
that are externalj are intirely the fame. The
Sabdlians reprefented God as One that was
fometimes cail*d Father^ and fometimes Son^
and fometimes Holy Ghofi^ becaufe of diife-
renr Effeds : In the lame Manner as feveral
Attributes are afcrib'd to the fame G o d^ be-
caufe uf different Effeds. But the different
Notions of Father^ Son^ and Sfirit^ that are
given us in Scripture^ and the different Pro-
perties and Works afcrib'd to them^ plainly
fignify more than a Three-nam'd Unity. Our
Johnv. Sauiour {^L-ySy as to tht Father ^ there is another
3^- . that beai eth Witnefs cf me ^ and of the Spl-
lb. xiv. ,,/^ ]^Q f^ys^ I vviU ask the Father y and He
'^' Ihall give you another Comforter. 'Tis afwthcr,
and a77othery and not the fame. Nor is it bare-
ly another Name that was meant. We can't be
haptiz/d into a bare Trinity of Names y nor can
mere Names bear Witnefs. If the Holy Ghofi
I&.xv.26.was a mere Name^ He could not ttjiify of
C H R I s Tj, as 'tis declared He lliould.
Trop. VII. We may be fat'sfadorily and ful-
ly Convinced of the Difi.na'icn between Father ^
tion^ and Holy Ghofi^ without pretending to
allign^ or fo much as to be able to conceive,
the particular Gromids cf that Ufihtlion. Thefe
are not unfolded to us ui Scripture,- nay^ I
den t know that they are fo mucn as touch'd
on there. And therefore methinks a iate
Wricer takes abundantly too much upon hun^
when
in the Godhead.
when he tells us^ he will tmra'vel the mtvkate
Lahjr'mth of this great Mjftcry^ fo as to help ns
to as clear an Jj7iderjlandh%g of it^ as of any other
Doftrine of Chrlftianity *. But alter all^ he has
left it as much in the dark_, as he found it.
There is alfo another Author that has made
a Noife^ that appears veyy angry with the
Three Hjpofiafes or Subfiftcnas^ and reprefents
Creation y Redemption ^ and Scndificatlony as the
Terfonalitles that confiltute the Three Perfons^ Fa-
ther^ Son^ and HoiyGhoft \. And by fo do-
ings inftead of making Tilings clearer J he en-
deavours to create Confulion. Nor is the
common Way of the Scboolmcn fatisfadory.
They tell us^ ft That God is Three Ferfons^
as He is Self living y Self knowing y Selflo'ving :
And is no more than Three Ptrfinsy becaufe
thefe are the only effential^ immanent or in-
ternal Ads of God. But to make the Dz/jwif/;-
cn between the Three Ferfins in the Deitjy to
be the fame with what there is between the
Mind and its Ads_, will I doubt leave us
wholly at a Lofs^ as to thofe Diverfitles of
Gifts y Differences of Adminifirations y and Dl'ver-
Cttles of Operatlonsy which this Text fpeaks of
in the Cafe of the Sacred Three. However^
to pretend to deny there is any DifiinlUon
between the Sacred Three^ becaufe the Grounds
of it are conceaPd from us^ would be to of-
fer Violence to the plain and frequent Decla-
rations of the Holy Scriptures^, concerning
the Deity of the Son^ and the Holy Sprit,
Prop.
* The Scripture Trinity intelligibly explain d,
pag. lo.
t Clendon's Treatife of the Word Per fen ^ pag. 178,
179, ^c.
tt See Mr. Stephen Nye's Inftltutions concerning the
lioly Tiinit^. pag. 5^ ^, ^r.
272 The Distinction
Troj>. VIII. Whereas amon'g thofe that \
own this DiftlnBlon to be real and not ima^ \
gmary only^ it is by fome affcrted to be
Modal J while others affirm it to be Ej/ential ;
and fome contend that it is Specifical only,
while others will have it to be Numerical ,• I
not being able to find any fachWords as thefe
in the Bible ^ am for dropping them in
the Debate. 1 am a great Enemy to dark-
Job ning Connfel by Words without Knowledge ^ and
xxxviii. running into Heats about different Ways of
*• Expreliion_, where the Thing meant, may
be the fame. It had been well for the Chri-
ftian Church, had there been due Care ta-
ken all along in this Refped. I cannot but
highly approve of the Temper that is dif-
cover'd in a Letter from a Council of A-
kxandria to the Church of Antlochy in which
they advife them not to dlfpnte upon the SubjeS'i
cf the Hypoftafesj (about which fome were
inclined to perpetuate a Debate) becaufe they
that ownd Three Hypoffafes in the Trinity,
and they that oivnd but One^ were of the fame
Sentiment^ and only differ d in the Way of Ex-preffi-
on *. I am very inclinable to think it may
have been much the fame^ with fome that
have contended, whether the Dtpnttlon in
the Trinity were Modal^ or Efjmtial^ Speclficaly
or Numerical ; they have meant the fame
Things but different Words have confound-
ed them t-
The Creek Church generally us'd the
Word Hjpofafis to denote the DlJtMion there
is
* Vid. Athnnnf Op. Tom. i. f. 574, C^c.
t Vid JVerenfdfii Dijfert. de Logomachiis Eruditorum]
Cap. II.
in the Godhead.
is between the Sacred Three ,- and that Word
the Crlticks fay properly lignihes Subfiajzce or
Eeing *. And becaule Three Hypofiafes in
this Senfe of the Word_, was look'd upon
as implying three Gods^ a confiderable Dif-
pute arofe. It was therefore declared that
this Term was in this Cafe defign'd to fig-
nify^ not a feparate Being or Subficvnce^ but
fomething more than a Islame ,• and intend^
ed to intimate a Suhfifience. JBut the Lathi
Church not fatisfy'd with the Word Hypo-
fiafis which in their Apprehenfion lignify'd
Siibfiance or Being, brought in the Word Ver-
{en. And I cannot fee there is any jufl
'Occafion for Offence at that Wordj while
it \s own'd to be intended only to fignify
the Difi'mctlon there is between Father^ Son^
and Spirit f. Dr. Clarke fays 1^ Ihcre Is not
in Nature any other Notion of a Ferfony than a^
it fignlfics an intelligent Agent or Being : And
adds^ That whencrjer the l^Vord Is us^d otherwlfe^
no Man ca7% tell what It fignifies. But for my
Part^ I fay with Archbifhop I'lllotfon ^, That
there are Three Differences m the Deity _, which
the Scripture [peaks of^ by the Names of Father^
Son and Holy Ghoft^ and e'very where [peaks
of them^ as we tife to do of Three difllnbl Per-
Jons : And therefore fee no lieafon why In this Ar^
T gument
* The Latins generaHy difowa'd Three Subftances*
Faujiinus therefore fays, mirnynur illos Catholicos pro*
haripoffc, (jui Pntrls (J Filii (3 Sjfiritus San^J trcs
fubjl (I'll t ids confitcntur,
t See an Account of this Matter, in Forbsfu In^
Jlru^. Lib. I. cap. ii. §. 8.
I Reply to Mr. Nelfon, 8cc. p. 40."
* See his Sermons concerning the Divinity ani
Incarnation of ourBlelTcdSAvieuft, Serm, U./» »^f
The Distinction
fTument we jlwuld nicely ahfialn from ttfing the Word
Perfon^ nor can fee any fufi Reafon to mar r el at
this Term *. And now I go on^
II. T o fiiew the Confiftency of this D/-
fi'inBlon between the Sacred Three^ with that
Unity in the Godhead that has been before afTert-
edj and make fome Return to what is alledg d
to prove it inconfiftent. I Ihall not itay to
fhew you how reconcileable this Difiintlion
in the Deity is with the Divine Sirriplicity •\y
about which feme have odd Notions : Nor
ihall I touch on fever al other Objedions that
have been made. I think it may here be
fufficient to make fuch Remarks as thefe
that follow.
I. I T is reprefented as moft grofsly ab-
furd and ridiculous to hold fach a DiflnBi-
on in the Divine Nature^ while yet it is own'd
to be but One. It is faid^ How can one he
Three^ and Three One ^ But the Queftion is^
Whether we meet not with fomething like
this in our Bibles ? And whether thofe Sa-
cred Writings for which we have Reafon to
have the higheft Veneration^ don't intimate
to usj that tho' there is but One God^ there
yet are Three to whom the Divine Nature
with all its eflential Excellencies and Per-
fections properly belongs ? If they give us
this Information^ then is it on them^ and
their Divine Author that thefe Gentlemen
pour
* See on the Word Pcrfn^ Princlp, contre les Socin.
far Th. le Blanc, Sedl. I. ch. i. Art. II. f. 9.
t See that Objedion anfwer'd in Mr. IV. Lorimers
Scriptural Demonftration of the true Deity of the E-
tQi'iialWord, ^. 59, C^w
in the Godhead. 275
pour Contempt^ when they throw out this Serm.
Reflexion. But tho' it may well enough j^,
grieve us^ to find them fo audacious^ as in v-t^n^
fuch a Manner to arraign the Moft High^
(for which without Repentance they will
have a fad Account to give) yet can I not per-
ceive that any fuch Regard is due to them^
as that we fhould own that to be Inconfiflmty
on which they will venture to pafs a Jeft^
when we have it from the very belt Authority^
that thus it is ! However_, 'tis no new Thing
for the Chrifilan Scheme to be ridicul'd about
its Trinity in Unity. For that prophane Wretch
Lucian ^^ who liv'd as long ago as in the
Year of our Lord 176^, who is famous for
his witty Dialogues^ in which he fo mifera-
bly infulted the poor Chriftians^ in his Thl-
lopatn^y (or fuppofe it was drawn up by
fome other Author as fome have afferted^
it is to me much at one) fpeaks of a God
that was one of three^ and three of one^ which
he reprefents as moft monltroufly ridicu-
lous. 'Tis molt certainly the God of Chri-
Itians that is there referred to^ and infult-
ed. And the Paffage fhews that it was at
that Time the Current Apprehenfion of the"
Tagans ^ that the Chrlftlans belie v'd a God 3
that was One and yet Three^ or Three in
one Deity. Socinus took Notice of this Paf-
fage with Surppize^ and did not ftick to
declare^ That he knew nothing in all Anti-
quity more clear for the My iter y of the Tri-
7uty^ according to the Modern Notion of it.
But thofe People jultly deferve to fall under
a general Contempt that will be banter'd out
ot their Religion by a profane Jelt. St. Vaul
T 2 was
See tn Mojnty VarU Sacr4, Vol II, p^ x85^ J 87.
The Distinction
was of another Mind. For he declares with
Vehemence^ That what others efteem'd a
Caufe of Blufhingj was to him a Ground of
Triumph and Boaftmg. G o BforbU^ fays he_,
t/jar Ijiwiild glory J fiz'e m the Crofs of Christ-
This was the Matter of his Glorying^ as much
Freedom as others took to run it down. In-
deed the whole Dodrine of Salvation hy the
I Cor i ^^^^^ of C H R I s Tj was to the Jews a Stumhllng-
^ ' ' block^ and to the Greeks Foolljlmefs. Men of in-
quiriilg Reafon^ and a flaihy Wit^ could not
digefl the Wonder of the hcamat'wn : and it
appear'd to them a molt monitrous Abfurdity^
to talk of a Virgin's conceivings and a God's
being born : It let them a Laughing^ to hear
of the Death of the Prince of Life^ and theRe-
furredion and Afcenfion of the crucify'd Lord
of Glory They thought it the abfurdelt Thing
imaginable^ to exped Life from One that
w^as himfelf fubjeded to Death^ and BlelTed-
nels from One that was made a Curfe. Such
Things as thefe^ together with a Tr'mity in
Unity y and Unity m Trinity^ were what fuch
Wretches as Celfm^ and Porphyry^ Julian and
Lticlan^ ridicuPd as monftrous. But both in
Matth.xl. ancient and Modern Times,, Wlfdom ts jufil-
^9' fied of her Children.
2. Tis faid^ That 'tis fo Iwpoflihle^ that
there fliould be but One G0D3 and yet Three
that equally poffefs all Divine Perfedions^
that no one of common Senfe can believe it.
But we have this from a Revelation^ the Di-
vinity of w^hich is well attefled, and it is ma-
nifcft^ that there is no Impoffibiiity in it.
And if we may be allow'd to declare Things
jwpojjibhy whenever we are unable to con-
ceive the Way or Manner of thenij I don't
fee how we can avoids running into the ut-
moft Confuiion. There are leveral Things
that
in the Godhead?
that we are bound to believe^ of which we
are not able to form any diftind Concepti-
ons. But if upon that account we'll pre-
tend to lay they are iinpajjlble, we in effect
refufe to take the Bounds and Meafures that
God has fix'd^ and prefume to fix others for
ourfelves. None can think a Trinity in the
Deity to be mor Q iwpoffihley than Hcodemr^fy a
Malter in Ifrael^ thought that Nevj Birth to be^
which our Sa^jiour preach'd to him^ and re-
prefented as abfolutely neceffary to his feeing^
the Kingdom of God. Tho' he own'd our Lord
J E s u s to be d! Teacher come from G o D_, he yet
cries OUt^ Can a Man he born wheyi he ts f?/^ ? Joh. lu. 4,^
Can he enter the fecond time into his Moth^r^s Womb
and he horn ? But was the New Birth therefore
impofihle I No ; far from it I This was only
his grofs Mifconception. And the Cafe is
juft the fame with thofe that reprefent a
Trinity in the Deity as impoffihle. But_,
5. 'Ti 5 iaid^ That to ailert but one Divine
Eilence, and Three that equally partake of ic^
is a downright Contradldlon, To which I an-
Iwer^
I. That the only Pretence upon which
this can be imagin'd to be a ContradiBion^ is
for this Reafon^ Becaufe we cannot conceive
how it can be : And if we may reprefent
every Thing of that Nature as a ContradiBlon^
we Ihall never have done. Several of the Di-
vine Perfections^ Such as Omniprefence_,
3iternity_, and Prefcience of future Contin-
genciesj can no more be accounted for by us_,
than a Trinity in Unity. We are no more
able to fay^ how God fliould be a Being
without a Beginning, or how He fhould be
able certainly to forefee contingent Events
at a Diftance^ or be at once prefent in all
Places^ than how there ihould be Three that
T 5 equally
278
The Distinction
Serm. equally ^zvt^ikQoitht One Divine Nature, And
IX. what can more appear to be a ContradiHion
v„o^->^ even in Terms^ than that God fhould be
made Man^ and the Eternal die ? But if
fuch Things as thefe^ tho' dearly manifefted
in the Scripture^ muft be faid to carry a Con-
tradiBicn in 'em^ becaufe we are unable to ac-
/count for 'em^ or are unable readily to recon-
cile them^ we may as well lay the Scriptures
afide as of no farther Ufe^ and follow our
own Fancies^ without pretending to own a
Revelation. For what can a divine Reve-
lation fignify that muft be under our Cor-
redion I By giving into fuch a Method^ we
open a wide Gap to Sceptic ifm and Infidelity.
I addj
2. That tho' a Trinity in Unity muft be
own'd to carry in it no fmall Difficulty^ yet
can it not confiftently either with Truth or
Juftice be faid to be a ContradiBlon^ becaufe
we don't pretend that Father ^ Son^ and Holy
Ghofiy are Three in the fame Refped in which
they are One, We don't aifert a Trinity of
Gods which would really be a ContradlBlon^ but
^ Trinity in the Godhead. Father ^ Son^ and Holy
Ghofiy are One v/ith refped to the Godhead,
and the Perfedions that belong to it ; but
they are Three in their Relations to each other^
as well as in their Relations to the Creatures_,
and particularly to Man_, and that as redeem-
ed^ fandify'd^ and fav'd. And wherein lies
the Contradi(5i:ion of this ? They are fo far
Ihree^ that different Things are afcrib'd to
them^ according to their different Relations :
And yet (as Gregory Naz,lanz-en expreifes it)
"^ E^ery One of them has an Unity with the other ,
'XO lefs than that which He has with hlmfelf, by rea*
[on
Orcit, XXXVII. de $}. 5.
in the Godhead. 279
[on of the Identity of Effince and Tower. ThisisSERM.
no ContradlBion^^ becaufe it is no denying and jv
affirming the fame Thing in the fame Senfe. ^^/^s^^^
Perhaps it will be faid^ and it has been acflual-
ly faid^ That to fay the Father // God^ and the
Son God^ and the Holy Ghoft God^ and yet there
are not Three Gods^ hut One God^ zs therefore a
Co7itrad:Itlony hecattjc the Term God is In the fame
Tojit'ion^ both affirrnd of Three ^ and deny^d to be^
long to more than One. But 'tis anfwer'd^ That
the Term God is net in that Pofition affirmed
of Three feparate Beings^ but only of a Being
that is elTentially One^ notwithftanding a tri-
ple DlftlnHlon: And therefore each may be
G o Dj and yet all T'jree but One God, vvith-
Qut any ContradlBlon : For no Mortal can
prove. That there can be no U^/^?^ that can
make all the Three^ One Beings One tt S^o;/,
One G o D 5 or that ilich an U?iion implies any
thing of an Impoffibility.
3. 1 T would certainly be much more modefi^
to afcribe the Difficulty of our conceiving
this Matter, to fome other Caufe^ than to
its carrying a ContradlBion in it. All mufl al-
low that Boethius was a great Man_, not only
as to his Rank and Quality^ but alfo his Learn-
ing and Piety : And he writing upon the Trl-
nUy^ (which Difcourfe of his is yet extant,
and well known to the Learned) reprefents
the Difficulty of our conceiving Turee In One^
and Ojte In Three ^ as arifmg trom our Imagina-
tions ^ which are fo fiWd with the Divifion ani
Multiplicity of compound and material Things^ that
it IS a ^ery hard Matter for them fo to recoiled
themfelvesy as to confider the firjl Principles and
Grounds of Unity and Diverfity, And the ta-
king any fuch Method as this, is certainly
much more becoming fuch dependent, dim-
iighted Creatures as we are^ than to pretend
T4 *
28o The Distinction
Serm, a ContradiBion^ m a Matter that is unavoid-
IX. ^^^y ^tf^J^^^d with fo much Obfcurity.
\y^Y^ 4- I cannot difcern that we have the leafl
Reafon to be afham'd_, frankly to ownour-
felves altogether ignorant^ How the FatheVy
Son^ and Holy Ghofi fubfift in the One Di'vlne Na-
ture. For we may well be ignorant of itj
lince God has not difcover'd it ta us. The
' Scriptures no where tell us^ either in what
Ma7jner the Son is begotten of the Father ^ or
in what Manner the Holy Ghofi proceeds from
Father and Son. And how then can we pretend
to fay^ how thefe Three^ Father ^ Son^ and Hcly
Ghofi fubfift in One ? And it no way becomes
us to determine the Way and Manner ^ where
the Scripture is filent : It may and ihould be
enough for us^ that the Thing itfelf is reveal-
ed. Since it is fo^ if there be a Contradlcllon
m it^ God muft anfwer for it_, not we. As
for the U7uty of G o d_, we may rationally con-
clude it_, as well as read it in Scripture :
And therefore there we may be faid to walk
by Sight. But as for the Trmlty \n. the Deity ^
\\s enough for us to believe it^ becaufe we
have it reveaPd to us in our facred Records^
that there are Three to whom all divine Per-
fedions and Operations do belong. And if
any ask us^ How this can he ? 'Tis enough for
us to fay^ We know not. If this be cliarg'd
with being a Contradu^m;^thc Reflexion is caft
on God rather than us. If it be faid^ that if it
be a CGntrad:Biony we may conclude it cannot
come from God^ and therefore the Drift of
the Argument is to convince us it cannot be
reveal'd^ and we are miltaken in fuppofmg it :
I anfwer^ That when once we hnd it re-
veal'd^ we may from thence conclude^ it can-
pot be a Contraditi'ion^ and that the fuppoling
it to be onCj mult be a great Miftake. Ana
the
in the Godhead.' 281
the ArgumePxt^ (to fay the leaft) is as ftrong SeRm.
on this Side as t'other ,- and I confefs _, I ^
think much ftronger : Becaule we have far ^y^l^^
better Evidence that the Dodrine of the Tri-
nity is contain'd in Scripture_, than can
be given on the other Side^ that this Du-
drine has any thing in it of a real Contradi-
Bion. If it be faid^ We are led by Prejudice in
interpreting Scripture in this Senfc^ J think
we have much more Reafon to lay^ That
thofe of the oppofite Sentiments ^ are led
by Frejitdiccy to charge this Dodrine with a,
Contradltiion. But befides^ they themfelvcs
that bring this Charge againft the Dodrine
of the Trinity y cannot but own when they are
urg'dj that the Di^'ij^e Ejjince is Infinite^ and
therefore beyond the Grafp or Fathom of fi-
nite Creatures. When therefore we plain-
ly difcern by our infpir'd Writings^ that tho*
there is but OneGoY)^ yet the .Vow and Holy
Ghofi are as truly and properly this One God
as the Father himfelf ^ for them to fay this is a
Contradi^^iGn^ is to fall to Reaf'oning about the
Dl^jhe Ej/encey that is own'd to be infinite^
juit in the fame Manner as if it bore a Pro-
portion to our dim Light^ and fb was li-
mited and bounded. And thus while they
charge others with a ContradlBlony they fall
into one of the worft Sort of Contradltiions
themlelves.
But what are we^ that we offer to take
upon us at fuch a Rate as this ! Is not the
Effence of the Deity Infolte ? How then can
we pretend to fay^ how far its Perfedions
and My finks may go^ andvvhere they muft
ftop^ or elfe there will be a Co7Jtr a diction ? He
that can do this upon good Grounds^ mult
be able to comprehend the Dlvhe Ej]evce^
' jogecher with the Myfierks which it con-
tains.
The Distinction
tains^ which molt certainly is too much for
finite Underftandings.
Nor will it be enough to fay^ in fuch a
Cafe^ That however 'tis as to other Things^
the Unity of God is fufficiently compre-
hendedj and that that gives a Right to
charge with a Coniradlcilon^ where that Unity
is own'd in Words^ and opposed in Reality.
For befides our underltanding of the Nature
of Unliy^ it would be plainly requifite that
we fliould alfo comprehend that Property^
which is faid to contraditl this Unity ^ and that
is Trinity, "i This fhould be fo far comprehend-
edy or underftocd at lealt^ as to be plainly
difcern'd to be altogether inconfiltent. For
in order to our having a Right to fay that
any two Properties are ccntradlchry^ it is not
enough to have a diltind Idea of one of
them.; We mufc clearly fee them both toge-
ther ; or we Ihall not be able fairly to point
out the Contradiction ^ fince it may lo fall out_,
that that of which we are ignorant^ without
any thing like Inconfiitence^ may agree moft
peri^clly \vm\ that which is known. It would
indeed be requifite that we fliould have a
complete and diftmcl Idea of all the Proper-
tics that belong to the BlefTed G o d^ in or-
der to fhew wiierein a Trmlty of Perfons con-
tradicts an Unity of Effence : And by Confe-r
quence we mull comprehend that which is
incomprehenfibie^ than which no Contradlcil-
on can be more gx-ofs. Or elfe we fliall fall
into another Abfurdity, which is^ to deter-
mine as to the Way and Manner of a Subjed:,
which we not only do not comprehend y
bat which never can be comprehended by
us. I fliould think it would rather become
each of us to fay^ with Gregory Naz^lanzen^
I cannot think of One ^ but I am foon da^lsd with
tlK
in the Godhead.^
the Brlgbtnefs of the Three : nor can I difcern
Three y but I am foon brought hack again to One *.
And now^
III. I am to fubjoyn fome fuitable Refle-
xions. Andj
I. From what has been ofFer'd^ it plainly
appears^ That there is no Neceility of our
being either Sabelllans^ or Trltheljby to avoid
being Arlans. It has been afferted by fbme.
That all that fpeak out about this Dodrine^
if they are not Arlans ^ muft be driven either
CO SabeUlanlfm^ Or Trlthelfm. If they are No*
mlnal Tr I nit arlans, they fall into the former :
If Real^ into the latter. If they are Nomi-
nal Trinitarians ^ they alTert the lame Indlvl-
dual Subftance^ under Three different Modes
of Subfiftence ,• and that isfaidtobe Sabeilla-
nlfm. And if they are Real Trinitarians and
own Three diltind Subfiftences^ then they
are Trlthelfis. But I think it our fafelt Way
to adhere to Scripture^ and then we need
not be either one or t'other. We need not
be Sabelllansj who own'd no Other Trinity
but of different Appearances and Manife-
ilations of God to Mankind. And this we
fufficiently efcape^ if we own^ That tho' there
is none other God but One j yet that Oite God is Fa-
ther^ Son^ and Sfivlty who each of them equally
pofTefs all Divine Perfedions^ and from whom
as diflind^ are all thofe diiferent Operations^
Mlnlfiratlom ^ and Gifts^ that my Text fpeaks
of. Nor need we be Trlthelfis^ or own Three
Gods. For we may ftill acknowledge that Fa^
thery Son and Sprit ^ are much more One^ than
ieveral
* Sfrm, de Sacro Ba^^,
The Distinction
feveral Citizens are Ove^ m the Community
of the fame City ,• or than Men are One in
partaking of one Nature. We may ftiU ac^
knowledge freely^ That as the Divine Ejjence
wonderfully excells all other Beings, fo alfb
does it in its Singularity, and the Simplicity
of its Unity wonderfully exceed the Unity of
any other Beings. Sahellim deny'd any Diftin-
6llon of Terfons in the Deity ; while Anus ad-
mitted the DlftinBion of Ferfons^ but rejeded
the Unity of Ejjence^ or the Community of it.
But we have no Occafion to do one or
t'other, nor ihall we if we follow the Scrip-
tures. For joyning the DifilncHon of Father^
Sony and Holy Ghoji^ with the Unity of the
Godhead ., we may effectually fecure the Chrl-
filan Scheme y and avoid wliatever would un-
dermine or overthrow it.
2. Another Refledion I would make,
3S this. That it 5s at any Time a great and
manii'efl; Weaknefs, for^ us to let what is
conceald fi'om us, and is not to be compre-
hended, hinder us from adhering firmly to
what is difcover'd and reveal'd. Why ihould
we deny either the Unity of the Di'vine Na-
ture ^ or a Trinity in the Deity ^ on account of
our not knowing how it is that Father ^ Son^
and Holy Ghofi^ partake of the One Divine
Nature i Or how it i$ , that Three can be One^
and One Three ? An Effence that is Infinite^
may w^ell enough be fuppos'd capable of ha-
ving a great many Properties that we can-
not explain ; nay, that we fliall never be
able to comprehend. I don't fee how we
can help admitting a great many Things
of that Sort. We can in Reality no more
underlland the Way of the Creation ^ than how
there ihould be ^^ Trinity in the Deity, For
who can tell which Way it .was^ that Nor-
thing
in the Godhead.
thing became Something? Or if it fhould
be laidj that Matter is eternal^ we may
ftfely defy any Mortal to tell us, How a
Being that is lb imperfed as Matter^ fhould
be and fubfilt of itfclf from Eternity. I in
this Cafe fay_, jubfifi of itfclf , becaufj' in rea-
lity^ that would be the Cafe of Matter^ if
it was not created. And if we might ad-
mit of nothing in Religion that has a AIj-
ftcry in it that we cannot comprehendj I
cannot fee but that cur Light muit bound
that of G o d's Revelation^ and be the Mea-
Ture of his Light ; than Vv^hich nothing
could be offer d that was more ridicu-
lous.
F o R my Partj the mere I conhder Things^
the more fully I am convinc'd^ that it is
enough for us_, for God to reveal to
us
any Thing that is myflerlous^ how difpro-
qortionate foever it may be to our Light.
This is fufficient to warrant our receiv^ing
tho' we cannot comprehend it : Becaufc
then if there be any Thing ftill hid-
den from uSj as to the Way and Manner ^
there is yet fomething that is clear^ and
that isj the Revelation^ and the Truth of
it. And I think we may fafely appeal e-
ven to Reafon itfelf upon this Head^ Whe-
ther it is more jult and fit^ to rejed what
is clear and reveaPd^ on tlie Account of
what is hidden and incomprehenfible ,• or to
keep filent about what is in itfelf incompre-
henlible^ on the Account of what is clear and
reveaPd. I cannot fee^ why we fhould Itick
to affirm the latter of thefe Two to be every
Way more proper j moft for God's Honour,
and our own Advantage. But this will na-
turally come to be confider'd more diltind-
ly in the Sequel.
S E R M.
287
SERMON X.
Jeremiah VI. 16.
Thus faith the Lord, Stand
ye in the Ways and fee ^ and
ask for the old Paths, "where
is the good IVay^ and vjalk
therein , and ye jloaJl find
reft for your Souls.
^HEN the Ancient Jeivijh Church Salrers-
grew degeneratej there was a great hall, T^d'/n
Mixture of falfe Prophets with the -'^'^^ Lee-
True and Faithful^ and it was no ^^'^ ;
cafy Thing to diftinguiih between them. It ^^"£- -^*
was thcFetore a main Part of their Work^^^'^*
who really had a Prophetick Miffion^, to
deted fuch as were but Pretenders^ who
took upon 'em to bring Meflages from God,
tho' He never fent them. Jeremy whole
Miflion was well attefted^ gives this as one
Characler of fuch, a little" before my Text,
Tbac
288 The Old Scheme and New
That they healed the Hurt of the Daiighter of
his Feoplejl/ghtljy fiyi^gy Pe^ce^ peace ^ when there
_ ^ _ 'iVfl!i,.7io Fcafie, And he adds^ That they were
Jer.vi. 14. grown fo audacious_, as not to be ajlmmi
Ver. 15. when they had committed Ahomination '^ neithcY
could they blufi^ even when the Event dif-
prov'd thcm^ and gave them the Lye. This
OGcafion'd great Struggles^ and the People
were divided^ and neither knew whom to
believe^ nor to whom to adhere. A Rul^
therefore is here given them for their Con-
dndy and by following it^ they might hope
to get through the Difficulty. They are
charg'd from God not to proceed rafhly^ but
to ftavd in the JVays and fce^ that is^ conlidef^
and carefully make Inquiry. They were to
itskfor the old Paths. They are bid to confult
jintlquhy^ and note the Path which their Pi-
ous Progenitors^ the old Patriarchs^ Abraham^
Ifaacy and Jr/coh had walked in. They were
to mind the good Way^ which fuch as they
were had choien^ and found lafe and com-
fortable : They were to take care to walk
therein^ and continue fo doing ; and then it
was promis'dj That they jhould find Reft for
their Souls ^ and have good Satisfadion they
were lal^*^ and in no Danger of mifcarry-
ing.
iNf like Manner^ in the Chrlfthm Churchy
there have been^ and ftill are great Contefts
with relped to Truth and Error. And that
upon no Head more than the Doctrine of the
Trlv'iijy which is the Subjed I am upon; And
how can we take a better Way than to fol-
low the Prophet's Rule^ when we have accom-
modated it to the Circumftances of our
Cafe .^ There are fome that tell us^ That
the Sche777e they have happily fallen upon as
to this Dodnne^ is clenr and fafe^ and no
^ ' other
compared, as to Antiquity. 289
other Is Defenfiblc : While others declare an
oppolite Scheme^ to be much more fully con-
firm'd and evidenc'd, tho' it be not without
its attending Ditficulties. What then can
be more proper for us^ than to fiand in the
Way and fee ^ and diligently confider and com-
pare^ and ask for the old i'aths y inquiringvvhat
they held about this Matter that received
Infcrudion from our Saviour himfelf^ or
fate under the Miniftry of his Difciples^ and
their SuccelTors ? What more fit^ than that we
ask (and that wdth Concern) PVhere is the good
Way ? and walk therein. This moll certainly
is a likely Method to find refi for our Souls,
It is my Defign to compare together the
two oppolite Schemes y the Old^LndthtNew^ up-
on this important Head of the Chriftian Do-
ctrine. By the Old one^ I mean_, that which
has generally obtained in the Refor?n'd Church-
es_, and that does fo to this Day. "By t\iQ Nev^
Scheme y Lmean^ that diiFercnt Set of Noti-*
ons concerning Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^
which fome would obtrude upon us^ and
which they applaud as much more rational and
accountable, . This New Scheme has appear'ci
with feveral Faces at different Timesj ac-
cording as Men have had different Turns to
ferve : And it is not well fettled unto this
very Day , nor is it eafy to fay wher^ it will.
But that I may not be to feek in profecuting
the Argument, I (hall chiefly take Mr. jEw/>»
and Mr. Whifion for the Standards. of zhAsNeiiA
Scheme ^ and that the rather_, becaufe they be-
ing more open than fome others^ 'tis more
eafy to difcovcr what it is they intend and
aim at. And yet I fliall not. wholly pafs by
others neither^ where I can perceive the con-
fidering what they have offer'd, to be likely
to ferve the Caufc of Txuth,
290 The Old Scheme and New
Serm. I ihall then fet myfelf to purfue a Com-*
^^ parifon between the Old Scheme and the New,
^^/^^^"-^^ under a double View^ firfl: with refpe(5t to
Anticjuity : And fuppofing you to ask for the
Old Pathsy I fhall endeavour to give you what
Satisfadion I can in a narrow Compafs. And
then^ Secondly^ 1 fiiall take the pains to com-
pare them together^ in themfclves^ and their
own Nature^ as to the Objections to which
they are exposed, and the Difficulties with
which they are attended^ c^c. fo as to fhew
you that the Old Scheme truly points us to the
GoodTVay^ the Way in which we may hope to
fina ^^^Jtfor CUT Sotilsy in a Matter of as great
Moment as this Part of the Chriftian Do-
ctrine muft be own'd to be^ by all that duly
confider it.
I begin with comparing the Old Scheme^
and the New upon the Dodrine of the TVi-
mtj togethier^ with refped to Antlquhy^ that
fo I may give Satisfaction to fuch of you as
here ask for the Old Paths. But I am fenlible at
my Entrance^ of a double Difficulty. For
it may be very plaufibly faid_, That in fuch a
Cafe as this^ its hard to referr the common
People to Antiquity y where fo much Time and
Pains is needful to pafs a certain Judgment^
and where even the Learned themfelves arc
fo much divided. They that have taken the
inoft Pains to find out the Senfe of the And^
ents upon this Head^ give a very difFerent_,
ajid in fome refpeds contrary Reprefentation
of it. And one that has very lately llgnaliz'd
himfelf upon this Argument^ freely tells us^
That * this Contrcvcrjy is of a U others the moft
nice and intricate y and that it is verj eajy for a
fVrii
rmr
t Pi'. Uj^^^i^^^J> A^fwer to Dr. IVbithys Reply^ p. 27,
compafd^ as to Antiquity. 291
Writer y that has a mini to It^ to confound a7jd puz-
Zjle fitch Readers as hai'e not been conquer fant in it.
And it may feem as if this Method were like-
ly to create Confufion, when the Supporters
of th New Scheme^ (after all that Bifhop Bull
has offered in Proof of the Antiquity of the cp-
pofite Scheme) continue to affert with fo much
PofitivenefSj that they have the Generality
of the Writers before the Council of Kice
on their Side. And to this it may be added^
That the referring to Antiquity for Satisfadi-
on about the Trinity^ ' will ot all People ap-
pear to come with the worlt Grace ^ from
thofe that in other Matters can make light of
the Ancients^ and are fo free and forward in
palling Cenfures upon 'em ; and that in a
Way that difcovers no very profound Refpect
for them.
I dare not fay^ as Sandlus^ That the Scrip-
ture not being of prl'vate Interpretation ^ -we mufi
Interpret it according to the unanlmons Confent of
the Dolors of the Frlmlth'e Church ^. This JS
carrying the Matter much too far. The Scri-
pture is the only proper Rule of Faith : And
nothing could by the Ancients_,any more than
the Moderns^ be added to what that offers
to be believ'd. Nor do I think the Proof
of the Trinity fhould be fetch'd from the ivz-
thersy but from the Scriptures, And yet feme
having rais'd a great Noife and Clamour^ as
to a mighty Change in the Faith in this
Refpedj fmce the hrft Settlement of Chrifti-
anity, I think it maybe ofgoodUfe tofee^
that the very fame Fahh^ as to the Subftance
ot it^ was derl^jdfrom Fathers to Fathers f^ la
the iirit Ages of the Church.
• Uj But
♦ Kucl. Hijl. Fxclcf. Lib. !. rag. 228.
Lib, dc S)'n, iS'/c, Script^
292 The Old Scheme and New
Shrm. But I defire it may be obferv'd_, That it
X, is not bare Jntiquity I in this Cafe referr t03
l^'^fs^ abftradling from real Goodnefs, If a Path
Job xxii. be Old^ but not Good^ it may with Safety be
15. rejedied. There is an old Way -ivhlch wicked
Mm ha^je trodden : And it is to be detefted^
let it be ever fo old. But if asking for the old
Tatbsy we find they point us to the Good Way^
it may not a httle confirm us^ to find it An-
cient. Truth is in all Cafes of the greateft
' Antlcjuhy, if we were but able to trace it up
to the Fountain-head : And yet it cannot be
deny'd^ but that Error may fometimes have
the more Wrinkled Face^ fo as to impofe on
fuch as don't fearch with great Care and
Caution ^ and therefore the Name of Jntlqul-
ty fhould not lead us blindfold : and yet
real Ajmqultyy when well prov'd_, is a good
Evidence of Truth.
The beil Proof of Antiquity ^ both under
yudalfm and Chrlfiianltyy is to be fetch'd from
the Sacred Scriptures. It has been much de-
bated among the Learned^ How far the Do-
ctrine of the Trinity was known un-
der Jndalfm, and can be prov'd from the
Old Teftament, In'tht general its plain e-
nough_, fuch Hints Were then given of that
^Dod:rine^ as with the Affiftance of the ad-
ditional Light given us by the New Ttfla-
men't^ may contribute not a little to our Con-
firmation. We are therefore told_, That our
Luke 24'. LordJ e s u s bcglmilng at Moles and all the Pro^
27, 'phetSy expounded to his DJfclples in all the Scriptures^
the Tlo'ings concerning^ him [elf : Among which
undoubtedly p thojfe ancient PaiTages are
included which bear Witnefs to his Divi-
nity_, in Conjundion with the Father and Holy
Spirit^ as well as thofe which fignify'd be-
forehand his Suffer ingSj Refur region andUni-
verfal
compar^d^ as to Antiquity. 293
verfal Dominion. Nor is the Proof of the an-
cientncfs of this Dodrine that is this Way to
be colledcdj at all to be made light of *. But
'tis to the Writings of the Nev^ Tt-fiament \wq
Chrifiians mult fly as our la ft Refort^ for Proof
of the Old Paths J and Satisfadion as to the Good.
^j.Whatfoever cannot be prov'd from thence^'
may be fafely rejeded as upftart and novel..
And therefore in fetting before you fuch!
Evidence as I have done^ that the Old Scheie
is deliver'd to us in the Holy Scripture^ I have
given you the beft Proof imaginable of its
real Antiquity ^ and fuch as the common Peo-
ple muft be allowed capable of judging of^
as well as Men of Letters. And yet lince
the Patrons of the Ntw Scheme^ do with fo
much Pofitivenefs commonly afTert^ That the
firlt Writings among Chriltians^ after thofe
of the New Tefiamenty are intirely favourable
to their Notions ; and are from thence fo
ready to inferr^ that in all likely hood we are
miitaken^ in the Senfe we put upon our Sa-
cred Writings^ in the Paffages that are com-
monly cited from thence upon this Head^ I
think it may be a Piece of Service to the
Truths to lliew^ that this is a groundlefs
Suggeftion. And tho' it is notorious^ that
a particular tracing the Sentiments of thofc
that liv'd in the firft Ages of the Churchy
with Refped to the Trinity^ is a Thing of
which all are not of themlelves capable_, yet
v/hen they hear what is alledg'd on both
Sides, I cannot fee why they may'n't pafs
a tolerable Judgment in this as well as in
other Matters. Nor is there any great Dan-
U 3 ger
f See Dr. IQiight's Eight Sermons in Defence of
I he Divinity of oui- Lord JesusChrist, C^c.
294 ^^^ ^^^ Scheme and New
Serm. gcr attending the Difquifition^, fo v/e do but
X, adhere to our Principle^, and while we in
^^^,^1^-^^ order to the detecting the Falfhood of their
Suggeftion^ have recourfe to the firft Chrifti-
an Writers^ lay our main Strefs upon the
Scriptures, When we inquire into the Senfe of
the Fathers y we need not {et them upon a Le-
vel with our Sacred Writings^ or fancy them
free from the common Defers and Infirmi-
ties of other human Writers. We may have
all the Refped that is due to them or their
WorkSj and yet ftill fuppofe them to have
all the Imperfedions with which any have
juftly charg'd them : And we may be con-
ilrnVd in adhering to the Truth which the
Scriptures deliver to us upon as momentous a
Head as that of the frlnltyy by finding it ge-
nerally own'd by thofe Wtiters that we have
remaining^ that fucceeded in the Church to
thofe that were infpir'd ; and obferving that
they are on our Side^ unlefs fo far as they con-
traaid themfelves and one another. And this
Convidion I Ihall endeavour to faiten^by an
Indudion of Particular s^ out of the remaining
Writings cf the Three firit Centuries^ after
our Holy Religion took Place in the World.
I T cannot indeed be deny'd^ but that
there is a great deal of Truth in the Ob-
fervation ot St. Jerome *^ That before Arr^s
appear 'd in the Worlds the Fathers deHver'd
many Things innocently^ and without taking
fo much heed to their Words as they might
have done ,- and indeed_, fome Things that
can hardly efcape the Cavils of wrangling
Spirits : And yet in the main their Sentiments
concerning the Trinity^ were the fame that
are embrac'd to this Day^ ty thofe that ad-
I.iere to that which I call the Old Scheme.
A5
*
A^oi II, Contrn i^uffn.
compar'dy as to Antiquity.^ 295
As to the/r/ Ceniuryy all agree, that we Serm»
have very few Writings now extant. The ^
chief of them are the Epiftle of Sz. Barn^rbas^ '
and the Book calPd the Rtfiai- oi Hermas^ and
the Writings of St, Clement of Rowc.
I begin with the Epiltle of St. Barnabas^
the Frame and Contexture whereof is own'd
by Dr. Caoje t ^o be intricate and obfcure,
made up of uncouth Allegories^ and forc'd
and improbable Interpretations of Scripture,
And yet, even in him we have this Palfage i
And the Lord took upon him to fuffer for our Souls ^
tho He was Lord of the whole Earthy to ivhom
God faid before the Foundation of the World ^ Let ms
make Man after our Image and Likenefs, This
fmgle Paffage is an Evidence that he was
in the main m the Old Scheme ^ and is not to
be reconciled with the New, And even Dr.
Wloitby 4. owns. That aU the Fathers from th^
Apoftles J'imes^ were of Opinion^ that ^od the Fa-
ther in the Creation^ /pake to his Son and Spi-
rit, or at leafi to the Son, in a Way of Confulta-
tion about making Man f^. And if fo, they
could not be in the New Scheme^ which itands
upon a quite different Bottom.
Hermas's Fafior^ is a Writing that fome
have highly applauded ; But Bp. Pearfw^ fays,
tit 't:is a Book that almoft all in our Days
condemn, tho' Bp. JSw/^muft there be.excep-
ted, who applauds him and his Performance *.
For my Part, I fee no great Rcafon to adr-
mire him or his Work. But be it as it will
as to that, we in him have this Paffage ; Tloe
Sou of God is wore ancient than all the Creatures^
u 4 t
t Life of St. BnrnnbtiSy pag. 19.
I StriEluYce Patrum in Genef. pag. i.
tl See alfo Dr. Kjiight\ firft Sermon, fag. 5, (^c.
t-l-t Find. Igiiat. Par, I. cap. ill.
* Def. Fid, ^ic. Seii, I. cnp, ii. §. 3, ^c.
296 The Old Scheme and ^ e w
fo^that he was prefent with his Father In Council y_
about producing the Creatures : The reconciling
which with thtNcw Scheme^ \s I coniefSj be-
yond my Skill 14..
But the chief and molt valuable Writer'
in the firft Century ^ after the infpir'd Authors
of the Jslew Tejtament^ is St. Clement of Rome,
He it mult be own'd^ is blam'd by as great a
Man as Thotlus "^_, as one that did not /peak fo
highly of our Blejjed Sa'viour^ as were to he de-
JiPdj (of which Cenfure of his great Ufe is
made by our Modern Arlans^ and Arlanlz^ers A-
and yet St. Bafd f quotes a remarkable Pal^
fage from him^ concerning the 7rlnlty^ in
thefe Words ; But Clement the Elder fays^ God
lives y and the Lord Jefus Chrlft^ and the Holy Spirit,
By which Words he intimates^ that God the
Father y and Jefus Chrlfi^ and the Holy Spirit^ are
the Living and True G o d^ whom^ forfaking
Idolsj we are alone to worfliip and adore.
And tho' we don't now meet with this Paf-
fage^ either in his firft Epiftle to the Corln-
Wtans^ or in the Fragment of his fecond Epi-
llle^ wfiich is (till extant^ yet it might per-
haps be in that Part either of his firlt or fecond
Epiftle which is now wanting. Or if not^
we may (I fhould think) fo far depend upon
St. Bafii^ as to conclude that fuch a Paflagd
ns thiS3 was in his Days to be found in fome
or other of his genume Writings : And there-
fore we may be allowed to make the very
' fame
U K/W. Petavli Theol. Dogm. deTiimr. Ub. II.
Cap. 8. §.4. ^c' Kon eft ujiius perfni.c Hlccre, faclamiis
fid im/tginem (^ fimilitudinem noftrnm • jcd neque diver-
fit Deitatls. Nnm- plurnlitns horum vcrboru7?J, i. e. facia-
mus, (^ noftram, Patris & Filli Perfonnsfignlficat. Quod
nutem fingtdnriter imaginem dicltf una Dait^.s, una vici
tus utriufque fortiin^t mnmfcfta'tur, Faufti. de Tiihit.'
* Vld. BMotL Cod. CXXVI.
t lorn. If- p. '358. -E^rr. Pn-'ft 1639.
compar'd^ as to Antiquity.' 297
fame Ufe of ir^ as if it was at this Day to be Serm
found^ in its proper Place. Nay really^ in Y *
that very Epiftie of his to the Qorlmhiajis ^^^^^s^L^
lOvhich we have ftill in our Hands, and which ^^
next to the Scriptures is one of the moft va-
luable iPieces oi Ant'ic^mty wc have_, he, as Mon-
fieur Le iV/.y'w^ obferves ^y freaks ofChn^rwt
as a mere Man^ hut as of One whom y/hh the Holy
Spirit, he -was not aJljam'J to joyn with GoD. For
thefe are his Words : Ha've -ivemtOne God ^ and
One C H R I ^ Tj ^nd One Holy Spirit fi^ed abroad
ijpon 7is ? This is plainly the Language of one
in that Set of Notions about the T r i n i t y,
which I call the 0/^ Scheme.
But then, as to thofe calPd St. Clement's
Confiltutions y Or the Jlpofiolical Confihutions f,
which fome have afcrib'd to him as the Au-
thor^
* Varin Sncra. Vol. II. pag. 153, c^c.
t Upon careful perufing the Apoliolical Conftitutions
more than once, I cannor help thinking that that Man
muft have fome veiy great OccaGon for them, that can
give 'em the reading, as Mr. PVlnJicn has pubiifli'd 'em,
and think 'em genuine. What can any Man make of
fuch a PafTage ns this 5 (Book 2. Sed. 15.) Tenths of
Salv/itlon, nre the fir ft Letter of the Knme ofjefus ?. Can
any Man in his fenfes, think fuch a Strain as this could
come from the Apoftles, which occurrs, Book z. Sedl.
18 : Thou fljalt not cnH thy Btjhop to Account^ nor wntch
his Ad-miniJlrtitio7i, how he does it, when, or to vohom^ or
rrhcre, or whether he do it well^ or ill, or indifferently ;
^r'hc has one who will call him to Account, the Lord
Gcd, who fut this Adyniyiiftraticn into his hands i Me-
thinks this is a Maxim that is admirably fitted to fcreen
and favour a corrupt Clergy 1
For my Part, I know not how to think that Determi-
nation about'M/rrrM^^r Apoftolical, that occurs, Book III.
5edl. 31. in thefe Words : Once ?7!Arrying according to
(he Law is Bjghtmis ; feco?jd AUniagej after the
promifc:
298 T^f Old Scheme ^«^ New
Ky*>/^>^
Serm. thor^ which Mr. Whifton out of his Zeal foF
Y ' the Purity of the Chriltian Religion, (or ra-
ther for Arlanlfmy for which he hopes, from
thence to have confiderable Supports) would
obtrude upon the World as a confiderable Part
of the Ginon ot the Noif Jefiament j it is ai^
Wo^^
proynlfe are mcked ; third Marriages are indications of in^
contine'ricy-y but fuel) Marriages as are beyond the third are
manifeji Fornicationj atidunquefiionableVncleannefs.^on
can I imagine, that the Apoftles lliould quote the
Sibyls, as is done here, Book V. Se6V. 43 : Or that they
would reprelent Lent as of Chrift's own appointment,
as is done here, Book V. Sedr. 45 ; or lay a mighty
ftrefs upon fraying towards the Eaft^ as is here done,
Book VII. Sect. 63. Or that they fhould put upon
fraying for thofe that are departed in the faith ; as is
alfo here done, Book VIII. Sedt. 66. Thefe are things
that upon divers accounts appear xo me incredible^ ,
Nor can I think the Apoftles could reckon it worth their
while to provide a Fly. Clap for the Communion.
But I think verily he muft have an Head peculiarly
turn'd, that can reckon it an obfervation deferving
Strefs, that the Books of the C(?w/?/>//^/(?»j are Eight in
Number, and that this Number is Twenty two times
repeated according to the Letrers of the HebrexQ Alpha-
bet in the 119th Plalm ; which Pfalm (its faid) feems
to be as it were a Prophetical Encomium upon, and
recommendation of, the Laws, Statutes, Judgments,
and Precepts, contained in thefe Conftiturions. Effay on
the Apofi, Confiitut. p. 291, 293. I (liould take Chri-
ftianity to be a very whimfical thing, if it gave any
jreal encouragement to fuch enormous Fancies.
Nor can I help thinking that Man to be much at ^
lofs for Evidence, and willing to take and lay hold of
any thing for Proof, who cites feveral Ancient Writers
to prove the Coufiitutions genuine, of whom heyctowns
that they never lo much as faw them, which he acknow-
ledges to have been the cafe of Tertullian, and Cyprian,
and Ephrem of Edcffa, whom he yet produces in com-
mon with othei's, to encreafe the Number of his Evi-
dences, p. 394, 412, and 581. ' But
compar'dy as to Antiquity. 299
Work generally reckoned fpurhm and corrupt Serxu
by the Learned of all Perfuafions. Among v
the Papiftsj their greateft Men^ fuch as Beliar-
mine^ Baronimy Farron^ and Tetavimy declare it
their Opinion,, That thefe QonjiiuLUons are
doubtful^ uncertain^ apocryphal^ falfe^ cor-
rupt.
But 'tis hard to keep from fmiling to find fuch a
Writer as Mr. Winfton comp'aining vviih fo much vehe-
mence of the Power of Prejudice , in the Cafe of Monf.
Daille , who wrote warmly agalnft thefe Conftituti^
onSf pag. 438, when he himfelf fhews himlelf fo mi«
ferably over-run with Prejudices , in a variety of I^-
ftances :
As when he prefers his beloved Conjlitutions to the
univerfally acknowledged divinely infpir'd Writings of
the Nf w Tejiament : declaring that inftead of Corredt-
ing the Conftitutions by St. Jolms Gofpel, (where they
dilTer from each other) we ought to Correci the prefenc
Copys of St. Johfi by the Ccnjlitunons : Nay, that this
is to be done, in many Cales, wherein there appear^
a variety' between the ConHitutions, and the Gofpel
Hiftory. p. 688. ^
As alfo when he intimates his raifed Expecftation,^
that the Notions fupported by thefe ConHitutio^is will
exceedingly contribute to the fetting up or promoting
Chrift's Kingdom in the World, which he is impati-
ently loolcing for : Both which are fuch glaring Prcju^
dices on his part, that they make the particular menti-
oning of others the lefs needful.
After all, he that would fee thefe ConHitutions clear-
ly prov'd Spurious, may coniulc Dallxus de Pfeudepl^
grr.phis Apofiolicis ; and l^ottcns Large Preface to his
iidition of the Epitlles ofSt. C/^wewf, Printed at Cnm^
brid^ey in '&vo. 17 18. And a Trad: of Dr. J^icJj.
Smnlbroke, intit. The Pretended Authority of the Clemen^
tine Conflitutions confuted. 06t. 17 14.
Thele AfoSloUcnl InHitutions, Mr. iVhi^on declares
in 17 1 1. (Hiiloricnl Preface y p. i.) to ht an Original,
Divine and Sacred Book^ of our I^eligion : And ibid. pag.
88, that upon a full examination, he takes their Sacre4
Author ityf
300.
Serm.
The Old Scheme and New
Serm. r^P^3 adulterated^ and of no Authority or
^ Significance in Religious Matters. And there-
fore we have no Reafon to wonder that Dailies
and Rl-vety and Bhndel^ and Dr. Ca've t? and
the moll Learned among the Proteftants^
are for difcarding them.- Which is very
90nfiltent with owning^ that they have fe-
veral valuable Things intermix'd.
And as to the Recognitions^ which have been
^fcrib'd to the fame St. Cleme?ity they are yet
lefs to be regarded than the Confiltutions.
And I believe there are few that are at the
Pains to read them^ as Mr. Whlfion has pub-
lifh'd 'em in E^jgUfloy but what will readily
fall in with that Opinion *.
The
Authority to be unde^iiable: And pag. loi. that they are
equal in their Authority to the Four'Gofpeh -, and fujferi-
our in Authority to the Episfhs of fingle A^oBles. And
xd Aj)p. to the Hi§l. Pref. p. 5 1. that it is the moft Sa-
cred of the Canonical Books of the Nevp Testament. And
in this Year, 1711. in his large Preface in return to my
Lord jKottingham, pag. 8. he fays, he is slill more cer*
tainly affurd of the genuinenefs of thefe Constitutions, '^
t In his Prolegomena to his Script. Ecchfiaftic. Hift.
Litcraria. pag. 9. he has thefe Words : In CanonihuSj (3
Cojijlitutionihus Apoflolicis y 7iuUibi non occurrunt fexceyi-
ia de Tcmplis, altaribus, confecrationibus, veftimentisy
fejlis publicisy jejuniis, de miffis, baptifmi tempore, (3 ad-
minijirandi modo, de exorcifmo, poe?iitentia, monaacha^
fu, (3 infinita alia, .avo Apojlolico ?iondum nata.
. * Mr. JVhiHon as much as he applauds thefe %co^r
nitions, yet owns that there ave feveral Chronological
tni^ak.es in 'err] ^ Prim. Chrift. revived. Vol. V. Pref. p*
III. and that the Work was not drawn up by Clemeni:
himfelf. Pref. p. 18. and yet he commends the Boole
for its internal Characiers of Honcfty and Genuinenefs.
Pref. p. 48. and conchides it a voork^of an Authentick.
vature ; of the greateH Vfe and Advantage to the Church
af Christ ^ and derivd from the Co'fnp anions of the Apc^
mcsi
compar^d^ as to Antiqinty. 301'
The Writings of the Fathers in the fecond Serm-
Century that remain ^ that have been re- X.
ckon'd to deferve molt Regard^ are the Let- \^,<y^
ters of St. Jgnathfs oi A^jtloch^ and St.Poljcarp
of Smjrva; the Letters of the Church of
Smyrna after Voljcarfs Martyrdom j Juftin
Marty/s
Sites. Ibid. But methinks they muft have been Hmnge
Companions of the ApoHles, that fhould be fo ill ao
quainted with 'em as to cry My Lord J/im'es, or My Lord
Peter, when they were addreifiirg themfelves to Perfons
that fo little affedled Titles as they ! And methinks Vis
very odd, that they who were fuch plain Men, fliould
be reprefented as ufing fo many Compliments in their
Difcourfe, as are common in this Work ! And who
can imagine that one of Peters fincerity, fliould fay of
Gamnliel, that he was one of the Brethren in the Faithy,
but by the Apojlles advice was ftill amoyig the JcvQSy as is
here infinuated. Book I. i 64. What a Ludicrous Mi-
racle is that fpoken of Book I. §. 71. relating to two
Sepulchres, that were every Year whited of their own
accord } And as to the ten Pairs mention d Book III.
they have fomething in 'em that is ver)^ ridiculous.
And what can be more foolifh and abfurd, than that
change of Fauflinianus\ Face into Simon's, about which
fuch a ftir is made, Book X. — • In reality, this whole
work is a meer Romance, in which tho' there are a
few good Things intermixed, yet there are a great
many Errors, with reference both to Dodrlnes and
Facfts, which cannot be charg'd upon the Apoftle?, and
their immediate Followers ; without refledting upon
ChrilVianity in the grofleft manner. And this I aot
fatisfy'd will be the Sentiment of moft People that will
take the pains to read this Work as Mr. hijifton has
publifh'd it. And at the fame time it fliould not be forgot-
ten, that Eiifcbius (Eccl. Hift. L. 3. cap. 3.) tells us, that
none of the Ancie^it, or Modern Writers of the Church
in his time, made ufe of Teflimonies takpi from thofe
Books : And the famous Cardinal Bnronius {Armo 102.)
declares he doth net thinks fit to make ufe of them in his
Book^ , becaufe all wife Men that have read Vwz, kflovf
thnt they abound with foolifl: a?2d idle Fables, "
302 The Old Scheme and New
Serm. Martyr's^' ovks^y the Works of Irenaus of Ly^
Y ons againlt Hereiies ^ Tlno^hUus of Antloch to
t,,^^^ Autolycus^ concerning the Chriftian Faith •
Athenagoras"^ Apolcgy _; the Works of Clement
of Alexandria ,- and of TertuUian the Famous
African, I (hall touch a little upon each.
As to the Letters of St. Ignat'ms oi' Antloch ^
*tis yet under Debate which of them are ge-
nuine_, and how far they are fo. The Learned
Dalllc (with whom Salmafim and Blondel con-
curr) took much Pains in a Tra(5l of a conii-
derable Length and Bignefs^ to prove them
to be of no great Value. Dr. Hammond^ and
Bp. Vearfon ftrcnuoufly contended that Seven
of them weregenuine^ and endeavoured with
a great deal ot Learning to prove^ That tho
in the common Copies there were Interpola '
. tionSj yet the Mcdicean Copy was right. And
now at laft comes Mr. Whifion and contends as
earneftly. That thofe which the Learned Men
foremention'd thought Interpolated^, were the
genuine Epiftles of Ignatius. Tho' the main
Reafon that appears to have induced him to
ftand up for 'em^ was the Support he hoped
to receive from thence for his Arian Scheme of
Notions^ and for the maintaining the Credit
t)f his dearly beloved Apojlollcal Confiltutlons.
Thefe two Things he mentions as Corollaries *,•
but they plainly appear to be frmclfks m his
Scheme^ and Frincifles of which he is fo ex-
tremely fond^ as that he'l rather facrifice
the Credit of hjfplrarloTi^and even of the whole
Chriftian hditutlony than confent to part with
them. That very Mcdicean Copy of thefe
Letters_,which Archbiihop Vfiier^ and Bp. Tear-
fi
on.
* Prim. Chrift. revivM. Vol, I, Diflercauon on th^
Epiftles oflgnalus, p. loi.
compared J as to Antiquity. 30^
fcTfy Jpiijc VoJJius^ and CptelerhtSy fo much ap- Serm.
plauded^ Mr. U'Vifion will have to be the ivorji y^^
in the World : And he freely declares^ That v>^^^<>j
thefe finaller EfifiUs 'which the Learned fo carnefi-
ly contended^ were true and genuine ^ are flahily
tmworthy of fo great a Man as Ignatius^ and
by no means agreeable to the Chara5ler we ha-ve of
him in Eufebius^ Jerom^ Chryfoftom^ &€. f.
Nor is he himfelf lefs itrenuoully oppos'd here-
in by Mr. Wotton 4.. There does not appear
to have been any one of Air. /^^//?(7w's Opi-
nion in this Refped before him, except Mo^
rlnus : And Bp Fearfon v/onder'd at him 4-1-
But in all Probability he'd have wonder 'd
yet more at Mr. Whlfton^ had he liv'd til!
now. Dr. IVhhby alfo reprefents it as no eafy
Tiling to reconcile this Writer to himfelf, or
exculehis Inconfiftency *. But not Haying
to debate thefe Matters^ I fliall 6nly oblerve^
That even Mr. Whtfon himfelf, after all his
Caution^ has left thofe Things in Ignatius'^
Epiltles_, which favour the Old Scheme, For
in his applauded larger Epiftles^ there isKfhis
Exprefuon^ Tor what does a Man profit me^ If
be jhall pralfe mty and blafphcme my Lord? not
cwnlng him to be GoD bearing Flejh about him ;
^n G^oKoyuy CLV70V fet^Koo'o^^v 05or **. While 111
the fmaller it itands thus: For what does a
Man profit me^ If he fljall pralfe me^ and blaf-
fheme my Lord^ not confejfmg that He bore FuJJj a-
bcHt him ? /XM ouaKoy^v avtov ^ct^y.o^'^^v •\, Now
the
t Ihid, pag. 10, and p. 20.
- i Pref. ad Clement. Eplft. Cant, impref An. 1718..
U Vind. Ignat. Cap. V.
* Prefat. ad Difquific. Modeft. pag. 5.
** See P0jifion\ larger and fmaller Epiftles ofi^-
»/^^'*/;. p. 5,16.
The Old Scheme and New
the not confeffing thisj could not be proper
Blafphemj'y if He vvas not truly and properly
God. And again_, I wljlj you all Happmefs in
our God J ESUS<<^HKi SI +. And if He truly
is our God ; and fo our G o d^ as that we
have all Happinefs in him^ the higheft Ve-
neration mull: moft certainly be his Due.
And this is a main Thing that the Old Scheme
contends for. And in the Epiftle to the
;Epbe/iansy there is this remarkable VafCigQ ;
We hanje alfo aThyficlan^ our Lord afid God Jesus
C H R I S Tj, tbe onelj begotten Son^ aitd the Word
before the tVorld began ,- Who afterivard became
Man of the Plrg'm Mary. For the Word ii^as
made Flejlj, Being hcorporeal^ He was In a Body ;
Being Impajjlble, He was in a fajjible Body^ ■ Be-
ino- Immortal^ He was hi a mortal Body : Being
nfe^ He was liable to Corruption *. Which PaP-
fage was afterwards cited both by Theodoret
and Athanafiiis^ againit thofe that had errone-
ous Notions concerning our Lord Jesus
Christ..
Of St. Tolycarpy another Writer m the fe-
coflu Century^ we have nothing remaining
but a fmgle Epiftle^ and a few Fragments.
Among the latter we may reckon his Prayer
at his Martyrdom^ that is mentioned by Eufc-
bim t, which was clos'd with this remarkable
Doxolo^y : Wherefore concerning ail Things ^ I pralfcy
and bTefsy and glorify Thee^ through the Eternal
High Briefly Jeius Chrift^ Xy beloved Son^ thro^
Tvbom^ to Thee^ with Him^ and Thy Holy Spirit^ be
Glory ^ noWy and throigh euerlafling Ages. And
this is the more remarkable^^ bccaule St. foly-
carp
* Ibid. p. 360, 361. "t Ibid. p. ito, 125:
t Eccl. Hift. Li]?. 3. cap. 15,
compared ^ as to Antiquity. 30$
carp was an immediate Auditor of St. John^ if Serm,
not of other Apoftlcs *. X,
The Church of Smyrna alfo conclude their ^^^^^
Epiftle concerning tne Martyrdom of this
holy Man^ in this Manner 2 Brethren^ we omjh
you Health in the Lord^ ivhllfiyou walk according ti)
the Go/pel of Jefus Chrift^ with whom Glory be to
the God and Father^ and to the Holy Ghofi^ for the
Salivation of the Saints whom He hath chofen. And
Co they exprefslyafcribe to the Holy Spirit toge-
ther with the Father and the Son^ divine Glory
and Honour^ and as much diftinguifti between
the Son and the Father^ as between them both
and the Holy Spirit. And I muft confefs^ I
cannot fee how the moft zealous for the Old
Scheme^ Gould in this Refped be able to ex-
prefs themfelves more frankly or fully^ in io
narrow a Compafs.
Aripdes alfo who liv'd a little after St. Voly^
carpy in the Reign of the Emperor Mrian^
according to Eujtblm fj and Jerom \.y and the
Roman Martyrology^ offer'd a Eook to the Em-
peror about the Chriftian Religion^ in which
there was an Oration which he publickly pro-
nounced, in the Prefence of the Emperor, in
Proof that Jesus was the Onely God. And if^
as Petavius himfelf obferves fl, in this Oration^
tho' it is not now extant. He prov'd Chrifi.
to be the Onely True God, he own'd the Con-
fubftantiality of the Verfons Without any Diffe-
rence or InecfHality,
X jufiln
* \VIch Refped to ch'u Doxolog; of Sr. Polycdrf, I
referr the Reader to Bulli Def. S'id. Nie. Sedt. II. p. 53.
And to Dr. l^nterUndh Anfwer to Dr. pPhitbys R«*
ply pag. 28. G?c.
* EccL Hiji. Lib. IV.
4. Catal. Script. Eccl.
tl Dogm, Lib. IL cap, xu Par, X.
^o6 The Old Scheme and New
Serm. Jupj^ Martyr comts next ; and he^ in that
X * which. is caird his kcond Jpologj^ replying
v^^^^-s^ to the Unbelievers who accus'd the Chrifti-
ans as Atheifts^ for their refafing the Wor-
Ihip of Idols^ declares that Chrlftians are
no Athelfis ^ for that tho they defph^d and con-
temn d thofe that the Gentiles faljly caWd and
efieernd Gods _, yet they rellgloujly honour d and
oiwrjhipp'd the Triune G o D^ li^ho -was djfiingmjlid
by Three Terfons. And by this Paffage of his^
we are furnifh'd with a lufficient Anfwer to
the bold Challenge of Mr. Whlfion^ as to the
ihewing one fingle Catholick Tellimony be-
fore the Days of Athanafim^ which amrm'd
the Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ to be the One
God of the Chriitian Religion *. For I
think this does it efFedually f- The plain
Senfe of Juftln in that PaiTage is this^ That
as for the Chriitians^ tho' they had no Va-
lue at all for thofe whom the Gentiles efteem'd
and worfhipp'd as Gods ; yet they moft re-
ligioufly worfhipp'd the True G o Dj Father ^
So?/y and Holy Spirit. And therefore_, if either
the Son^ or the Holy Spirit was not the True
G o Vy the Cbrlfilans would be guilty of the
very Fault of the Gentiles ^ in Worfhipping one
'or another^ that in Reality was not God.
Often alfo in his other Writings does Jufiln
declare
* Prim. Chiift. revived, VoL I. Hlft. Praef. f- clxx.
^-^KeiVQVTii^ -nv 'TTA^'' ajJ^I^ i\\oV lK^'Qv]dLy'TnUllCLTt
70 'rejxp^ntaov ffz&o(xiQct i^ Tejcavv^^. Apol. 2. It is
indeed faid , he joyns Angels too as the Objedls of Wor-
fliip ; but we may very tairly underftand the PafTage of
Angels as being taught by the Son joyntly with us, ra-
ther than as to be wornilpp'd by us joyntly with the
Father and Son, and the Prophetick Sprit. Upon which
the Reader may confulr Bp. Bull's fhort Animadvcrfions
on the Antmkctilfmiis or Gilbert QUrk^*
compar'^d^ as to Antiquity. 307
declare Christ to be the true^ and natu-
ral^ and proper Son of God ^ and to be caird
God and Lord^ the Lord of Hofts^ and the
God of Ifraely in the Old Tefia7nent : And he
fignineSj that it was He that appear'd to
Abram and Mofes^ and the other Patriarchs^
and was worfiiipp'd by them as their God.
And in his Dialogue with Trypho the Je-w^ he
declares^ that the Son is a different Tcrfon from
the Father^ hut not of a different Nature,
I T has indeed been atlirm'd by fome^ That
it was Jufiln that firft brought the Opinion
of the 'Son's Prarexiftence before the World
waSj and the Creation of the World by him^
out of the School of Vlato into the Church of
Christ : But that Suggeftion has been
fufficiently anfwer'd by Bp. Bull *.
Irenam in his Book againft Herefies^ which
is as hkely as any to give us a right Notion
of Frlmltix'e Chrijilanlty ^ ^^ySj, That Cbrlfi :s
with the Father^ the God of the Livings who both
(pake to Mofes_, and was manlfefied to the Fa^
thers f. And that Author Arguing with the
proud Valentlnlans^ who pretended to a Sort
of Omnifcience^ has this Paffage ; * For thou^
O Man^ art not unmade y nor dldfi thou always cc-
exlfi with G o D^ as did his own IVord, And af*
ter wards, fpeaking of the Father^ he fays.
For there ts always with him his Word and M^ifdom^
the Son and Spirit, by whom^ ayid in whom Hs
made all Things freely ^ and of his own Accord ,*
and to whom He fpake^ fry'^^^i Let us make Man
after our Image and Likenefs '\\., And il^deed, it
X 2 looks
* Prmit. ^ Apofiol. Trad-lflo de Jcfu, Cm; Dkln. In^
tioduEl.
i- Llh.lV. cap. II. ^ Lib, II. cr:P, 4?,
n Lib, IV. c^f, 37^
308 The Old Scheme and Ne\v
looks as if this Writer was not. very friendly
to the New Scheme^ that Mr. Whlfion is fo an-
gry with him for faying fo much of the Sen'i
Eternity "*".
A T tne fame time with Irenaus^ liv'd Victor
the Bifliop of Rome^ till whofe Days^ the Fol-
lowers of Artanon afferted^ That the Succef-
fors of the Apoftles concurred with them^
in holding Christ our Sa^jiour to be a
mere Man. This Truth (which would at
once have fubverted the whole Dodlrine of
the TrhiUy^ ) they faid^ was taught and
preach'd univerfally till the End of the Se-
cond Century^ anci the Beginning of the
Third ; but then it was adulterated f. But
to prove this to be ^ grofs Miltake^ Eufeblus
appeals to the Holy Scriptures^ and the Wri-
'tings of the Fathers^ who liv'd before F7^or ;
fuch as Juftln^ and MUtlades ^zndi Tatlany^Ltid Cle^
meni\,3.nd IreTj^-eus^^.nd Melho^who (he fays) all of
'cm ailerted Christ's Divinity. He appeals al-
fo to the Tfalws and Hymns that were in thofe
Ancient Times written by the Chriil:ians_, and
commonly ufed in their publick Worfhipping
Affemblies^ in Praife of Christ^ the Word of
G0D3 which afcrib'd Divinity to him. And the
altering of thefe Hymns ^ was afterwards one
grand Charge that was brought againft PW of
Sawofatum tlie Bifliop oi Antioch^ who was de-
pos'd for his Heterodoxy.
Theophllm o^ Antioch in his Book to AutolycuSj
faySj That the three Days that preceded the crea^
tion of the Sun and Moon, were Types of the Trini-
ty, that is of God J and of his Word^ and of his
Wifdom. .
And
* See Append, to Pilm. Chrift. revived VoL V. fag,
S, 9-
t Eu^ehiu Hjft. Ecchf Lib. V. cap. xxviii.
compctr'dy as to Antiquity, ^op
And Athenagoras in his Embafiy for the Ser
Chriftians has this PalTage ; I'VJjo can hdp adml- X.^*
ring to hear that we that own GoD the F^ther^ and
God the Son_, and the Holy Spirit^ declaring their
Tower In Unhy^ and their Difilntlion in Order^
jlwidd be caird Atheifis ? By which^ as Le Moyne
well obferves *_, he acknowledges the Divi-
nity of Father^ Scn^ and Holy Ghofi^ who do
not make Three Gods^ but are One God in
Nature and Effence^ but dljiln^ from each
other in Order^ and in their feveral Sub-
fiftencies-, very agreeably with the Account
of the Nicene Council.
Clemetit oi Alexandria is a moft Itrenuous Af-
fertor of the Trinity. In him we have a full Con-
-feflion of it in thefe Words: * There is One Fa-
ther of the Unlverfefine Word of the Univerfe^ and
One Holy Spirit which is e^ery-whcre prefent. He
fpendsthe whole eighth Chapter of his Padagc-
gue^ mproving^ That all the Attributes of the
Father are common to the Son with him^becaufe
of the fame Divine Nature common to Both :
And that whatever is faid of the Father^ a-
grees alfo to the Son : And in the Clofc of the
whole^ he praifes the Trinity in thefe Words ;
To the onely Father and Son_, Son and Fa-
ther^ to the Son that is Teacher and Mafier^
together vnth the Holy Ghofl : Who is All in
One 5* a7^d in whom are all Things : By 7vhom all
Things are one j and by whom that is which always
is ; Of whom all are Members : Whofe me the
Glory and the Ages : who is eijery Way Goodj
every way Beautiful ^ every way Wife^ every way
Jujt ^ To whom he Glory ^ now and for ever.
Amen. Where we have One God in Three
Terfonsy as plainly as in the Writings of Arha-
nafius himlelf.
X : Mr.
t Varin Sncra. p. 168, 1 F^dflgog, cap. y.
3 1 o The Old Scheme and New-
Mr. WVifion indeed fays *^ That Clew em's lait
and famoufeft Work_, ftyl'd his r^o7L/7r<yV«f was
fo plainly Arian^ that the following Ages car'd
not to tranfmit it to Pofterity, and fo it is
almoft intirely loft to us^ to our great De-
triment as to the Knowledge of the ancient
Doctrines and Prad:ifes of Chriftianity. But
the great Thotius f vehemently inveighs a-
gainft that Work of his^ as full of 600 Blaf-
phemies againft Christ: And 'tis from
him Mr. Winfion has his Notion. His Sugge-
ilion about it^ will be but little regarded
by fuch as know that the Learned generally
reckon that blafphemous Work that was fa-
ther'd upon Clement^ not to have been ge-
nuine : Which Judgment of theirs is abun-'
dantly confirm'd hy Fbotlm^ who tells us^ That
in thofe Hypotjpofes it was taught^ That Mat-
ter was eternal^ and that Eve fprang from
A^ajn in an obfcene Way,- together with ma-
ny other Things^ that could be afcrib'd to
this ClemcTit by none but fome bold Impo-
ftor |.
And finally_, TertuUhmy the mcft ancient
Author of the Latin Churchy, upon the ap-
pearing of Praxeas 2it Rome ^ in the Beginning
of the Third Century ^ who aiferted_, That the
Tr'mlty in U^ilty was but one Vtrfon conlider^d
under three different Refpefe^ argu'd againft
his Opinion as a novel Error_, opposed to it
the receiv'd Dodrine of the Churchy and af-
ferted a 777«/(; of diftincl Perfons^ from the
Creeds and ConfeJJlons of Faith^ which had been
the Standards of Religion fi'om the firft Plant-
ing
* EiTay on the.Apoftol. Conftliut. cW. iv. v, 594.
t Cod. CXXVI. png. 305.
\ S^,QJBnlliDpf.FiiL A7Vf»?.Scd:. II. r. or.
compar'dy m to AnJtiquity. 3 1 1
ing of Chriftianity. He freely owns a Ti-inlty Serm.
of or in the one Divinity^ Father ^ Son^ and
Holy Ghofi *. And he exprefsly fays^ That
Father y Son^ and Holy Spirit^ are of one Suh-
fiance f. And afterwards he fpeaks of be-
lieving In Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft^ as a
Thing common from the Beginning of the Go/pel ^
before there were any Hereticks \.. And by this
means^ he plainly intimates^ that it was not
barely his own private Opinion about thisMat-
ter^ nor the Opinion of any one particular
Do<5lor_, nor any Opinion that was firit Itart-
ed in or near the Time of Praxeas^ that he
there declared ,* but the common_, general^
prevailing^ and Catholick Opinion. He ex-
prefsly calls the Father God^ the Son God^, and
the Holy Ghofi God,- and in fo many Words
fays^ tnat each of Them is God 4-t- He
declares^ That he ahvays held one SubfiancCy in
tribus coh^rentibuSj that is_, in Three united f^f.
Mr. IVhlfim fays *_, how Ttrtidllan came to
know that there was in the Trinity^ una Sub-
fiantla in tribus coharentib/is^ without the leall
Pretence to Divine Revelation^ or Apofloli-
cal Tradition, he does not underfland. I an-
fwer. He pleads both Divine Revelation, and
Apoltolical Tradition for it. He fiys, Thar
it is meer Judaifm to belleoje One God in fucb
a Senfe^ as not to include the Son, a7id after the
Son, the Holy Ghoft "^*. And he prefently
X 4 adds.
*
De Pudiclti/t. cap. xxi.
t Contr. Praxeam, cap. i.
4 Contra. Prax. cap. ii.
tl Contr, Prax, cap. xiil.
tit Contr. Prax. cap. iv.
* Account of Pnm. Faith, p/fg;. 189 J
^ Contr. Prax, car*, xxx.
3 1 2 The Old Scheme and N ew
Serm. addSj What J^eedivas there of the Gofpel^ "whlcb
Y^ is the Stibftance of the New Teltament^ that fixes
^^^^-^ ^^^ -^^5^ ^^^ ^^^ Trophets until John_, // Father,
Son^ and Spirit^ that are from thence beliei/^d to
he Three ^ do not afford us One God ? He afferts.
That the Three Perfons of the Divinity^ as they
are of one Suhftance^ fo they are alfo of one State ^
and one Tower *.
I T mult be own'dj that Schlichtm^lus f ^C-
ferts_, That TertulUan after he was inftruded
by Mont anus y invented a new Rule of Faith ^ by
which he laid the Foundations of Athanafianlfm,
But this Suggeftion has no Foundation. His
turning Montanift did not in this Refped pro-
duce any Alteration in him. For as to Do-
<5trine_, and the Rule of Faith ^ he ftill agreed
with the Catholicksy as he often intimates :
And from thence proceeded that tart Speech
of his I, That Teople rejethd Montanus_, Maxi-
milla, apd Prifcilla_, not becaufe they had at all de-
parted from the Rule of Fait h^ but becaufe they rather
taught Men to fafi, than to marry often. And in
the feveral Bocks he wrote after his turning
Montanifiy he itiil difputes or contends about
VlfclpUne^ as is obferv'd by Rigaltlus^ that was
as converfant with his Works as any M^^
can pretend to be. Monfieur DaillcaliOy who
niuft be own'd by all, to have been very con-
verfant with that Father, fays of TertulUany
That his Montanifm put no Separation at all be-
tween him and other Chrifiians^ fave only In Pohit
if Dlfcipline^ which he^ accord i7ig to the Severity of
his Nature y would haue to he mofi har^j and rigo-
rQtis : For as for hh Dothlne^ he cojiftantly kept to
the
* Com. Prei.x. cap. il.
t P^rafat. /leiverfuiMeifneru^ Luther AnuW}*
\ Co7nrft Pfych, b^p, ic.
com^ar'd, as to Antiquity.' 3 1 3
tbe ^ery fame Rule ^ and the 'very fame Faith that Serm.
the Catholicks did *. However^ Mr. Ifljifion 5^^ '
in a late Trad which is inticul'd^ The true ^yf>^^^
Origin of the Sabellian and Athanafian DoBrines
of theTnmzVy takes up Schllchtlngius's Sugge-
uion_, and lays^ That Tertullian fully and fre-
auently allows ^ and Infifis^ that his Hypothefis con-
cernivg the frolatlon of the Son and Spirit^ their
Unity of Subftance ^ and the Myftery of their O eco-
nomy ^ was really and p' overly derWdy not from the
Ride of Faith ^ nor from the natural Import of the
Scriptures^ nor from any ^pojlolical TradiHony to
none of which does he e^uer appeal for fuch Notions ;
lut merely from the Proclian Dotlrlne^ and the Pa-
raclete o/^Montanus. But it is a mere Fancy,
that as far as I can perceive^ has nothing to
(upport it. For TtrtulUan himfelf (who moft
certainly may be allow'd as capable of giving
an Account oi his own Sentiments and their
Grounds^ as Mr. VVldifton') declares^ That he
always held that Faith which he inculcates in
his Difcourfe againft Praxeas, He not only
did it after his Acquaintance with Montanus.^^
but long before. Nor had he his Doctrine of
the Trinity from Montanus^ but from the Scri-
ptures. For (fays he) Scripture omms O- de-
7nonJh'atio7iem O* diftinciionem 'Trinitatis oflendmit,
AH the Scriptures hold forth the Reality ^ and the
Difiin^ion of the Trinity f- And prcfently
after he aflerts^, That this Rule wan ctirrenty
from the Beginning of the Gofpelj even before the very
firfi Heretlcks^ and much mure btfore Praxeas^ ii'bo
WJsbut late y and ofTefterday. We belie -je One one-
ly GOD^ but under this Dlft>c?jfatlon (which we call
^tKovoy.UJ that his Word^ who ca?ne out from
Hhn^ by whom all Thmgs were made^ and without
whom
* Treat, ofthe Right Ule of the Fathers, BQok\l.p^6<).
\ C9ritr,Vrnx» cap. xi,
The Old Scheme and New
-ivhom nothing Tvas made^ is the Son of this One
onely God. And that He was [mt of the Fa-
ther Into the Virgin^ and born of her both Man
and G O Dj Son of Man ^ a7id Son of GoD^ and
najfid Jesus Christ; n'ho fent from the
Father the Holy Spirit^ the Paraclete^ the San-
Bifier of the Faith of thofe who beliez'e in the Fa-
ther^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghoft *. By
which he as plainly intimates^ that he does
not herein deliver his own private Opinionj
or the peculiar Opinion of any other Do-
diox^ or an Opinion that arofe and fpread in
the Time oiVraxeas^ or a little before , but the
common^ prevailing Opinion of the whole C^-
ihol'ick Churchy as he well could do in Words.
S o that depending on the Reprefentations
of thofe^ who have learnt the Art of forcing
their own Senfe both upon the Sacred Scrip*-
tures^ and upon other Writings^ is neither
wife nor (afe.
In the mean Time^ it neither can be dit-
own'd^ nor need it be conceaFd, That Ter-
tuUlan does fay^ That there was a Time when
the Son was 7iot f. But in fo faying^ I don't
apprehend it was his intention to deny his
Eternity ;
* Banc I{eguUm nh initio Bvangelii dccucurriffc, eti/im
'a7itc priores quofque Hctreticos, nedum /inte Praxeam
nuperum (^ heUernum. Credimus unicum Deum , fub
h/7c tnmen difper<fationej quam lix.woix.ta.v diciwus, ut tini-
ci Dei, fit (^ Filiusfemo ipfius qui ex ipfo procejferit,
per quem omninfaHn fint, & fine quo fr.ci urn eft 7iibil.
Hunc miffium a Patrc in Virginem, & ex ca nntnm ^ ho-
mincm & Deum, Filinm hominis, (3 Filium Dei, ^ cog-
nominatum Jefum Chriftum, qui miferit a Pntre Sp.^ Sn7>
^,um, Pnrndctum, SmHificatorcm Fidei eorum, qui ere-
dmit in Patrcm, (^ Filium, G? Sp, $anHum. Ter t. conL.
Piax. cap, xi.
t l-ib, ndv, Ecrmo^emm,
compared ^ as to Antiquity. 3 1 5
Eternity : He rather referrs to his Prolatlon
before the Formation of theWorld^ till vvhich_,
He was not what He was afterwards. But
not itaying upon this^ I referr the Reader in
the Margin^ to fuch Authors as I think have
ofFer'd what with candid Perfons may be
fufficient to clear him "*". And thus I have
done with the fecond Century.
The moft celebrated Writers of the third
Century^ are Mlnucius Felix^ Hifpolytus^ Julhit
Africantts^ Orlgen^ St. Cyprian^ Nuvattany Gre^
gory the Wonder Worker^ and Dennis ot Alex^
4indria.
Minutlus Felix wrote a Defence of Chrlfilanl^
ty in Anfwer to the Objections of the Va-
^^;;/3which muft be own'd to be aii elegant^
and yet is a fuperficial Writing : And die Au-
thor of it rather fets himfelf to fhew the Ri-
diculoufnefs of the Pagan Sentiments^ and to
confute them out of their own Writers^ than
to explain or prove the Chriftian Dodtrine^,
in its elTential or peculiar Principles. I fee
no Reafon therefore to wonder at his Silence
about the Trinity.
But HippolytHs wrote a Book concerning
God Three and OnCy or the Triune God:
Which Title alone_, (had we no more to pro-
duce from him) is a plain Evidence of his be-
ing in a quite contrary Scheme of Notions^
from that which Arlus afterwards endeavour-
ed to fpread and propagate. The fame Hlp-^
folytus alio tells USj That we can ha^ve no right
Conception uf the One G O d_, hut by helk'vlng in
a real Father^ Son^ and Holy Gholt f. And
he
i.t .'■ ■ . .. . '
* LeUoyne, Varia Sncrn. Vol. II. p. 216, 117, 6c.
And Bulli Def. Fid. Nic.
t VU. Op. ex Edit. Fdrklf. Tom, IL pag. %'. ccn-^
$ra Noetim, - - . ..
3 1 6 The Old Scheme and New
he clofes with this Doxology : To Him be Glory
and Voiver^ together with the Father and the Ho-
ly Spirit^ In the holy Churchy both now and through
everlaftlng Ages *.
Julius Africanus is a Chronologer and Hi-
ftcrian^ and no Explainer or Detender of the
Chriitian Faith ^ and therefore we have the
lefs Reafon to exped any Light from hiqi
about the Trinity, And yet St. Bafil tj, from
the fifth Book ot his Chronicon cites a remarkar
ble Doxology y in thefe Words ; f^e render Thanks
to Hlmy who ga've our Lord Jefus Chrift to be a
Savlpury to whom with the Holy Ghoft^ be Glory
and Majefy for e^ver.
And the great and Learned Orlgen^ who
comes titxt^ (of whom St. Jercm 4- gave thi^
CharacJ^r^ That none but the Ignorant can deny
hut that next to the AfoJrleSy he was one of the
greatefi Mafiers of the Church) wrote much up-
on this and other Parts of the Chriftian Dor-
dirine^ and there is not any one of all the Fa-
thers from whom we might have expeded
more Light than from him^ had we but had
his Works intire^ or had not even rhey that
are in part preferv'd^ been fadly mangled and
adulterated. Which is a Thing that \z much
to be lamented. However^ tho' none of the
ancient Writers were worfe u(ed than he^ ei-
ther as to his Reputationj or as to his WorkSj,
yet he being own'd by feveral among the An-
cients that defended liim^ to have been in the
common Sentiments with Relped: to the Trl-^
nltyy notwithftanding that in fome Things re-
lating to it_, he exprefs'd himfelf a little dif-
ferently
* Ibid, pag. lo.
\ De Sp. Sanclo, cap. xxlx.
[ P7\efat» in Lib, de J<om, Hehr,
compared y as to Antiquity. 3 r 7
ferently from others th^t went before him^ I Serm.
cannot fee why we may not very fafely re- j^^
ckon him to concurr with us_, upon this Head ^^^^^^^
of Chriftian Dodrine. And it may conftrm
us in that Belief^ to obferve^ that when Beryl*
lus^ Bifliop of Bofira in Arabia^ fell into dan-
gerous Errors about our BlefTed Saviour^ af-
letting^ That before his Incarnation he had
no proper Subftance or Perfonal Deity^ but
only had his Father's Deity refiding in him^
Origen was according to the Account of Eufe-
bins *^ the Perfon that was pitch'd upon to
deal with him i and upon Converfation he
adually did recover and reclaim him ,• which
can hardly be fuppos'd^ had he held our Sa'vi-
onr to have been but a God by Office^ according
to the New Scheme, The kSis of this Affair^
were for a long time prefcrv'din the Church,
and therein the Herefy of Beryllus^ the Judg-
ment of the Bifhops that met about him^ and
the Queftions put to him by Origen^ with the
whole Conference^, were committed to Wri-
ting. The Prefervation liereof might have
given us a great deal of Light ; And the Lofs
is irreparable. But we may have further Evi-
dence in the Cafe^ from feveral of his Works,
which we have Itill remaining. In his Dif-
courfes upon St. John's Gofpel, fpeaking of
Baptlfm^ he mentions the Deity of the adorable
Trinity f. And in his Book agamft Celfus^ he
often calls the Word Godj and reprefents him
as 00T&'? and ctAw9»f ©£;?; as really and truly GoD.
And when Celfus objected againlt the Chrifti-
ans^ That they might find tault with the Gen-
tiles for ferving many Gods, if they themfelves
did
* Hip. Eccl. L. 6, c. ^r
t op. Tom, z, p. 124. ex Edit, Huetii-
3 1 8 The Old Scheme and New
Serm. <iid not ferve Chrlfi^ a Man^ whom they pre- ij
]j^ tended ioh<^God : Origen returned this for An- II
s^^s^m^ fvver^ That if Celfus had underftood that Say- |
ingj I and my Father are One^ and that Paf-
fage in our Lord's Prayer^ as Tijou and I are
One^ he would not have thought that Chrilti-
ans worfhipp'd any other but G o d^ the Lord
of the Univerfe : For (fays he) He fays^
TIh Father is in me^ and I in the Father *. And
he adds prefently after^ IVe worjljip One Gody
Father and Son.
T I s true^ there is a Paflage in his Dif-
courfe of Trajer^ that founds very harfh :
Care (fays he) muft he taken ^ that no begotten
Being he the Ohje^ of Prayer ^ no not Chrift him"
felfy hut only GoD the Father of the Uni-verfe^ to
whom alfo our Saviour hlmfelf frayd f. But
there muft there have been fome Corruption^
or he is inconfiftent with himfelf. For he
himfelf fays exprefsly^ We muft only fray to him
that IS God over AU ; and we muft alfo fray to the
tmbegotten Word of God 4-. And elfe where he
fays **_, Let him pray to the Word of God ^ who
h able to heal him. And like Paflages occurr
often in his Commentaries. And in the Be-
ginning of his laft Book againlt Celfusy he
himfelf prays to Chrift in thefe Words^ en-
tring on the 8th Book ; I befeech God^ and his
only begotten Word to be prefe72t with me. So that
either that Place in Origen which fome lay fuch
a Strefs upon^ is corrupt y or genuine. It it be
corrupted y we have no Reafon at all to regard it :
And if it be genuine y that Writer was incon-
fiitent
*
Orig. Cont. Celf. Lib. 8. pag. 385.
t jD? Orat. pag. 50.
i Co7it. Ccf. Lib. 8. p. 395.
** Contr. Cef Lib. 5. pag. 238.
compar'dy as to Antiquity, or ^
^-^'W
fiftent with himfelf ^ and is no more to be fol- Serm
low'd by us in that^ than in his other Mi- xr *
flakes and Errors^ of which (as great a Man
as he was) he had very many. But for fur-
ther and more particular Proof, I referr to
Bifliop Bull^s Colledions.
St. Cyprian that comes next^ is as clear in
the Dodtrine of the Trinity as any one ; and
this is fo generally own'd^ that 'tis ncedlefs
to flay to prove it. I fliall only obferve^ That
in his Works he often explains the Baptifmal
Commiffion^ in the fame Way with thofe in
the Old Siil^eme ;, and he alfo applies the Saying
of St. John about the Three Witneflesj Thefe
Three are One^ to Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofiy
as they do ; fo that 'twould be to but little
Purpofe to give farther Proof of his intire
Concurrence with them.
Next follows Novatlan^ whofe Difcourfe
upon the Trinity defcrves particular Regard ;
and that the rather^ becaufe 'tis commonly
reckoned to be extraded from the Writings
of Tertullian. He has this Expreffion,- If
Chrifi be only Man^ how comes It to pajs that He
is prefent eijery -where to be called upon^ ivhen It
Is mofi certainly the Nature not of Man^ but of God
to be prefent every-where ? And how (fays he)
r^» Chrift ^e the Firft-born of e^very Creature ^ un-
lefs becaufe as to his Dlulne Nature the Word pro-
ceeded from God the Father before the whole
Creation ? He alfo explains the noted Text in
Thill f plans of C h R i s t's being really in the Form
of God y with thofe that are in the Old Scheme,
He does not indeed aifert the Divinity of the
Holy Ghofi : And yet he afcribes thofe Things
to him that can belong to none but One that
is truly God. And tho' in fome Paflages
he lefl'ens the Bleifed Spirit^ yet 'tis not un-
likely but that (as Ruffinns fuggefts) they
might
320 The Old Scheme and New
Serm. might be adulterated by the Macedonians :
X, which is therefore the more probable^ be-
l^^^nyrC,^ caufe this Author plainly lays^ down fuch
Principles,, concerning the Trinity^ as would
as well prove the Divinity of the Holy GhofI-,
as of the Son of God.
A s to Gregory the Wonder-worker^ the
Bifhop of Neocafarea^ he was one ofOr/^e?/s
Scholars^ he was almoft ador'd^ during his
Life^ and after his Death. St. Bafd made it
the Matter of his Boafting^ that he was in-
-^ Itruded by his Grandmother in the Dodrine
of this holy Man. We need look no fur-
ther for his Sentiments; of the Sacred Three^
than his Confejfion of Faith ^ in which he open-
ly declared for a perfed: Trinity^ without any
Diviflon^ but One in Glory^ So^eraignty^ and
Eternity, Dr. Whlthy ridicules this Creed of
St. Gregory y which was faid to be brought
him in a Dream^ &-c. *. But St. Gregory Nyjfen
. iays^ it was ufed in the initiating of the Peo-
ple ; that isj 'twas learnt and recited by the
Catechumens. St. Gregory Naz,ianzen recites the
lalt Words of it^ and iays^ he heard 'em from
a wife Man ; and they were thefe : That /»
tbe Trinity there was nothing fer^vlle^ nor created,
ftor ad'ventltious f- And this wife Man^ Elias
of Crete ^ his Commentator fays^ was St. Gre-
gory Thaumatiirgiis. St. Bafil indeed complains^
That fome Things in his Works gave an Ad-
vantage to Hereticks 4- : But he fliews that
they were luch as would bear foftning ^ and
were dropp'd in the Heat of Difpute^ rather
than to be reckon'd Declarations of his real
Opinions*
* Fratfut. ad Difqulfi. modefit.
t Greg. Nrt:(. Oraf. XL. pag. 66S.
i BafiL Ep. 61. pag. xoi.
compardy as to Antiquity. 32 1
Opinions. The fame Gregory in one of his
Sermons, * expounding thofe Words ot our
Blelfed Saviour to John the Baptlfiy I ha^je need
to he haptiz^ed of Jhee^ ai-id comefl Thou to me ?
gives iiich a Glofs^and fo defcants upon them^
as very plainly to difcover, what his Beliet"
was as to the Dodrine of the Trmhy. When
(lays he) J baptlz^e others y I haptiz^e in Toy Name ^
that they may belie'ue in Thee who comeft with Glc^
ry. But haptWing Thce^ of whom Jhall I make
mention ? In whoje Nime jlmll I baptiz^e Thee ?
Shall I do it In the Name cf the Father ? But Thou
hafi the whole Father in Thyfelfy and art wholly In
the Father. Shall I do It In the Name of the Son ?
Bta there is no other befides Thee^ that Is by JVI.-
tttre the Son of God. Shall I do it in the Name
of the Holy Ghoft ? But He ts always together
with Thee, as confuhfvanVial with Thee^ and of the
fame Will a?id Seytfe^ and of efjual Voiver^ and like
Honour y and with Thee He receives Adoration from
all.
Denis of Alexandria^ the laft of the Fathers
mention'd in this Period, was undoubtedly
one of the greatelt Men of the Age he liv'd
in. But St. BafKaySy He fow'd the firft Seeds
of the Impiety of the Anomaans ; and contend-
ing too eagerly againll Sabelllus^ chang'd one
Evil for another, c^c. t And it muft be own'd.
That contending with the Sabelllans^ he did
make iife of fuch Exprellions, as tempted
fome to believe that he favour'd the contrary
Error. He was hereupon accused in a Sy-
nod at Rome^ and wrote an Apology ^ in which
he defended himfelf, and affaulted his Adver-*
faries, and taught a quite contrary Dodrine
Y to
* In ^/DiSla Theophnnih.
\ BrfiLEp, X1,I. P.ig. Co,6x.
^22 The Old Scheme and New
to that of the ArUns. And this we have from.
Athavafms^ who cites Pallages from the Wri-
ting he referrs to in Proof of what he affirms.
'*■ "And if that Letter were but his^ that is
Written to the Council oi Antloch^ that was
affemblcd upon the account of the Errors of
Vaid^ the Bifhop of that City^ we fhould have
plain Proof that he was far from the Arlan
Notions. For in that Letter Je[us Chrljl is
reprcfented as God o'ver all^ the Lordy and
God of Ifrael : And the Holy Spirit is alio re-
prcfented as God, And therefore he could
not but be in the Old Scheme. But it having
been queffion'd by. man)'^ Whether that Let-
ter was genuine^ I fliali not infill: upon it :
Tho' it is certain both from Eufehlus f and
St. Jerom \,y that St. Dejus^ the Alexandrian^
who was expected to haVe been at the Coun-
cil of Antioch^ rather chofe to write upon the
Subjed of the Debate^ and the latter ex-
preisly alTerts^ that he wrote againft Tatd of
Samojatum^ and that it was a tew Days be-
fore his Death too.
B u T be it as it will as to that^ I cannot
forbear taking notice, That in that Antiochi"
an Ccuncilj that met upon Occafion of the
Errors of Vaul of Safnojatum^ in which the
Alexandrian De?iis was expeded to have been
prefentj tho' he dy'd during the Sitting of
the Council^ the Fathers declar'd with great
Unanimity_, That Jem Chrlfi was by all the
Churches under Hearuen^ belk'v^d to he GoDj
that humbled him[elf\ ivhen He was equal with
G o D If. Hiis (fay they) /'/ the Faith which
we
* Athnn. Oj). Vol. I. pag. 548.
t £ccl. HijL ]Ab. VII. cap. xxviu
i C^t/il. Script. Ecclefiitfiic,
ti Co?idL Xom, L pag. K48,
compared, as to Antiquity. 32 q
ii'e rccei'v^d from the Beginnings and is delivered
and freftr'v'd in the holy Catholic Church to this
iiery Day from the hleJJ'ed ^no flies. It cannot in-
deed be deny'd^, that tliefe Mtlochlan Coun-
cils v/hich met upon Cccafion of Fatas Er-
rors ^ did declare againft that very Word
ofAouTiQ-y Confubfiantlal^ which was afterwards
made ufe of by the Council of JShe ; and yet
the Anttoch'ran did not differ in Senfe from the
Niccne Fathers. For ?Ws (^rand Error lay in
this^ That he held the Flefii of the Son to be
deify'dj and made of one Subftance with the
Father. In that Senfe the Fathers of the two
Councils of jlntloch held ylnn. iGG^ and 270^
were altogether againft the ufe of the Word
ouo«V.(^. Not that they deny'd the Son to be
of the fame Subfiance With the Father ^ but be-
caufe they look'd upon it as blafphemous^ to
allert that the Flefli of Christ was deify 'd,
and made the fame with the Subftance of the
Father *. And therefore thofe m the Arlajz
Scheme^ have no Occafion hereupon to tri-
umph^ as they are fometimes apt to do.
And tho' Denis O^ Alexandria was not_, as
he was invited^ at the Antlochian Council,, in
which Faul was condemn'd^ we have yet a
Doxology of his^ in his fecond Epiftie to Denis
of Ro?'ne cited by St. Bafl f ^ in thele Words ;
To God the Father^ and his Son^ c//rZ,WJefus
Cvhrift^ with the Holy Ghoft, be Glory and Povj-
er^ for ever and e'ver. Amen. And thiSj as
Bifnop StUimgfleet obferves 4-^ is the more con-
fiderable, bee a ufe he lays^ He did herein follow
\ 2 tht
* See L? yiojne^ Not. G? Obfiyvat. ad Polycar^i £-
fij}. fag. 240.
T Oe Sp. SanSlo. cap. xxi^.
Viadic. of the Dodrine of the Ti2.tyiTy^ p. 199,
324. The Old Scheme andl^t'^
the avctcnt Ctifiom and Rule of the Church '^ and he
joyiid 7vlth it^ praijing G O D in the fame Voice
V-\'th thofe who ha^cc gone heforc us. Which
the Bifhop^ faySj flievvs how early thefe Doxo-
logies to Fraher^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ had been
uied in the Chriilian Church.
H o w E V E R3 from the Forwardnefs of the
Chriitian Church to cenfure and condemns
this Vaul the Samofatenlan^ for his wrong No-
tions cf the Trinity^ (together with Ehlon and
/Irtemon^ who liv'd before him, and Theodotus^
Noetusy SabellhiSy and Fraxeas^ who liv'd after
him) we may very warrantably and fafcly
conclude^ the Prevalence cf the Doctrine of
the l/muty in the Chriftian Church, and that
it was the common Sentiment, that it could
not be deny'd, or difown'd, without great
Danger j and that thofe only were own'd as^
Brethren, that acknowledged the proper Dei-
ty of Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft^ and manag'd
tiieir Worjlup accordingly.
And vv^ith this, 1 mall clofe my Account of
the Senfe of the three firft Centuries about this
Matter, and fhall leave it to all Mankind, from
hence to judge, what Regard is to be had to
one, that ihall not ftick to declare himfelf
fatisfydy that the common Doctrines relating to
the Trinity and Jncartmtlon^ have no more Fonn^
dcitien in gcirultK Anth^iilty^ than Fur gat or y ^ and
I'ranfvhfrantlatlon *. 'Tis plain, he thought he
fliould do no inconfiderable Service, by de-
livering the Church from the Doctrine of the
Trinity y and that alio of Christ's eternal
Dl'vlnity^ and his Incarnation.
I think we may, from what has been of-
fered, very plainly difcover. That the Faith
of
* m:ijtc7is Hlft. Pj-ef. prefiK'd ro Prim. Chrlft.
Reviv'd^ Vo;. I, //rj, xxx.
compar^d^ as to Antiquity. ^2 ^
of the firft Fathers of the Chriiiian Churchy
ac to the Evcr-blcffed Trh/ryy was in the
Main.j and in Subftance the lame. They ge-
nerally own'd a Trinity in the Dcltj^ and af-
lerted the Divinity and Eternity ot the Word^
and Holy Ghofi^ as well as of the Father, They
declar'd^ That the iVord was in God from all
Eternity^ as One diftinguifh'd from the ¥a-
tber 'j and that it was by Him that the Father
created and governed the World: That this
Word appear'd to the ancient Patriarchs in
different Forms and Shapes^ and was at lad
hcarfujte : That Jefus Chrifi was this Word made
Ma7j^ and was God and Man both together_,
having two intire and per fed Natures : That
he had a Soul and a Body like ours ^ and
took this Body in the Womb of the Virgin
Alary : That his Flefli was true; and that He
really fuffer'd and dy'd : That He was made
Man^ to fave Men that were loll by the Sin
of the firft Man : That He came to explain
the Truth to them^ iet them an Example^
and redeem them by his Death : That He af-
terwards rofe again ; and would at lafl judge
the World. This is the Faith which the hril
Fathers of the Chriflian Church generally
profefs'd^ and which all the Churches de-
clared they received from the Apoitlcs : And
this is the Old Way of Itating that Do-
ctrine which was reprefented as neccllary to
be believ'd^ in order to the becoming Chri-
Itians.
I T neverchelefs deferves our Obfervation^
That this Unity of Faith among the Fathers
of the firft Centuries^ did net exclude a di-
verllty of Sentiments upon the Head of the
Trlnhy, in feveral Particulars. Some of them
made ufe of Expreffions with refpecl to the
PerCon of the Word^ that fetm to lefTen his
Y J Divinity.
326 The Old Scheme and New
Serm. Divinity. As when they fpeak of his being
X. begotten at the Beginnhig of the JVorU^ and being
s^ryr^^ I'/Z/^/c^ tho' the Father is not fo j and his be-
ing a Portion of the Father'^ Subftame^ &c. And
yet they may^ almoft all of them^ with the
Help oi a little Charity^ be fo favourably in-
terpretedj as not to break in upon the Faith
which they openly declared for. When they
Ipeak cf the JVonrs being begotten^ at the Bcgm-
ning of the IVorld ; their Meaning could not be_,
that He then firfl began to be , for they own
that He was before ; He was from all Eter-
nity in God. But they underftood Genera^
tion in another Senfe than we commonly do ;
thereby meaning a certain Frolatlon or EmiJJiov^
when God was upon creating the World.
Tis in this Senfe^ that fome of them fay^ That
the Word which was from all Eternity In G o D ^ was
hegottefi in Timc^ mid had not always the ^taVity of
Son. And when they fpeak of the 6Ws be-
ing 'vifihle^ while they acknowledge the Fa-
thtr's Jnuljihllity^ they did not mean that the
Son was of a different Nature from the Father -^
but only that it is by the Son that the Father
does ali that He does externally ,• and confe-
quently that it is by him that He made him-
Mi'vijihle to Men. And when they fay^ That
the ion v\ as a Forticn of the Father's Subftance^
their Meaning was^ That He was not cre-
ated out cf Sothmg^ as Arius afterwards
taught^ but was cf the fame Subjhmce with
the Futhtr : And that the Father had in him all
the Divinity that was in the Son and Holy Spi-
rit. P^nA when we are ready to make fuch
charitable Allowances as theie^ to the Wri-
ters that liv'd in the early Ages of the Chri-
ftian Churchy (and not without Reafon) I
confefs^ I cannot fee, why we may net do
the Ijkc to thofc that live in later Times^
withcut
compafd^ as to Antiquity. 327
without rigoroufly cenfuring a Divcrfity of
ExpreilioHj where the fame 'Faith is adher'd
to_, in the Subftance of it.
So that they run too fafl^ and talk with-
out Book, that reprefent the Council of AT/Ve
as coining a new I^aith. The Fathers who
iiv'd before that Council, were for the. fame
Do6lrine of the Jrlnkj^ and particularly the
fame proper, eternal Divinity of the Son^ with
the Members of that Council, or the Wri-
ters either in that or the following Ages.
They might perhaps fometimes ditFer in
Words, and in the Manner of exprefling
themfelves, but not in the Subltance of their
Faith. For any then to lay. That the Fa-
thers that fate in the Council of Nice^ An,
22^. quite adulterated the ancient Chriltiaa
Faith, jultled out the old one, and fubif icuted
one in the Room of it that was intireiy nevv^
and never known or heard of b«^fore, is mere
Rant and Bluffer, dellgn'd to bear Men down
with Noife and Conhdence, where a Foun-
dation cannot be laid for Convidion by lober
Reafoning.
It from hence appears on the contrary.
That Arim and his Followers were the real
Jnno'vators. They affirm'd. That the Son of God
had a Beginnings and proceeded out of a State
ot Nonexifience ,* that He was mliber equal to
the Father, nor cocjjtntlal with him ,• that there
was a Time when He was not ,• and, that accord^
Ing to the Freedo7n of h:s Wlll^ He was capable of
Vice and Vertue : Nay, they did not fcruple to
call him . a Creature^ and the IVorkmanJhh of
God: Whereas the Body of the Fathers
before the Council of Nlce^ held the Son to be
of an eternal^ uncreated^ immutable^ and ftrlHly
divine Subftance. Flere then there was a great
Innovation. And tho^ Arms had the Con-
y 4 lidence
328 The Old Scheme and New
fidence to tell Alexander his Bifhop^ in his
Letter to him^ That what he contended
for_, was no more than what he had learn-
ed from his own publick Sermons in the
Church ^ and his Followers boafted that
' many that liv'd before them were in the
fame .Sentiments : Yet when Matters were
put upon that Iffue^ and the Jrlans were in
the Time of the Emperor Theodofius^ prefs'd
by the Catholkks^ and fairly challenged to re-
ferr the Matter in Controverfy to the con-
curring Judgment of the Writers before them,
they declin'5 it_, and durit not abide theTry-
ial ("^). -This which is reported both by in,-
\ E. H. crates f and Soz^omen 4-^ I take to be as good
Lib. V. a Proof as the jSlature of the Thing will bear_,
cap. X. That the Arlaiis were fenfible they had inno-
4- E. H. vated
J-lb. VII.
cap. xii.
(*) Tho' the uirianf dnvft not at that Time ftand the
Tryal upon the Head of Antiquity ; yen Mr. PVhiftcn
is for makhig an Experiment. In feveral of his Wri-
tings, and particularly his Letter to the E. of Kotting-
hnm, and his large Preface in return to his Lordlhip's
licply, he with great Earneftnefs propofes and urges a
Reference or Ari^/uration. He'd have all good Men
and Leanicd Chrijilnns imagd in the Controverfy, meet
together, and take all the original Records of Chriftiani-
tv for their Umpire. And vohen they had agreed what
Teflimoriics they would allovo for Authentick., he'd have
each Side cxirad PafTages for themlelves, relating to
the Dodrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, and de-
liver them to the adverfe Party to examine them. And
moves, that when they had on both Sides taken all thefe
Things into mature Co7ifideration, that were necelfary
to determine the true Senle of the feveral Paffages ai-
led g'd, they fhould draw up a faithful Account of the
who^e, fign it, and recommend it to tlie free perufal
of every "good Chriftian. This he applauds as the
enely Method for difcovering the v/hole Truth and Evi-
dence
compared, as to Antiquity. 329
vated in the Chriilian Faith. And tho' J
am far from thinkings they would upon that
Account merely^ have defcrv'd Condem-
nation^ if they had agreed with Scripture,
which is infinitely preferable to all the
Fathers ; yet when they neither agreed
with the Scriptures , nor with the Fa-
thers^
dence In this Matter, difcernlng whether the ancient
Monuments appealed to are genuine and of fufficient
Authority, and preventing Complaints of falfe Tran-
flatlons, and otiier Defedts in Qijotations, and Mif-
rakcs in the Writers oi' one anothers Meaning, Mif-
iriterprerations of Scripture, and Endeavours to prove
or difrrove by remote Evalions, and novel Confe-
quences, where Men can fmd no dired: Teftimo-
nies, (^c. This he thinks would foun brhiy Miners
to rji End.
But the Projedl I doubt is Imprac5licab]e ; or if
try'd, would not do any fuch Service as is imagined,
'Tls hard to fay, where this Agreement muft begin.
Let a few agree, and a creat many cppofe, and thp
Produdt will not be much regarded. Meetings In
larpe bodies have fo feldom been found to contribute
much to the clearing and lettling of Trifth, that Vis
not to be wonder'd at if a Number fiiould be
altogether againft 'em. There is but little Reafon, as
far as I can perceive, to exped: that all good M^w,
r.yid Learned Chriftir.ns ingagcd in this ControverJ),
ihould agree upon fuch a Meeting.
But fuppoling it agreed to pretty generally, what
Sreps muft be taken, to bring fuch a Meeting to an-
fv;er the End defignd ? Who fiiall be the Referees?
Who Oiall have the Choice of 'em ? fi;i their Num-
ber and Qiialiiicadons, and Place of Meedng, and
give 'em Meafures to proceed bv r
How in particular, fliali rheir Number be deter,
mind? If the Meeting v/as to lie open to all, at PiCa.
fure, 1 doubt there Vvould be nothing but Confufion. If
fhe Referees were many, B"imefs would be hinder'd ;
330
The Old Scheme and New
Serm. thers ^ that liv'd before 'em ^ they were
^^ certainly very unreafonable to be fo noify>
and
NW^V^^
If few, feveral would be apt to be dIflatlsfyM, either
on the account of fome apprehended Defedl in the
Perfons pirch'd on, or becaufe fome others were abr
lent, whom they might take to be more difinterefted,
or more experienc'd, or fome how or other better
i]ualify'd than thofe imploy'd.
Let this be got over, and the Number agreed to be
Twelve or Twenty ; 'tis query'd, Who muft be the
FcrfonSy and how they fhall be determined ? 'Tis not at
all unlikely, but Mr. li^hifto7i may as to this, think
himfelf as fit to diredl as any Man : Whil^ others (and
perhaps a Majority) may think him the moft improper
terfon of any, to have the leaft Concern in fuch a
Meeting, or be fo much as prefent at it. His Allega-
tions that he has publifliVl, or any Additions he fliall
rnake to 'em, may be fit to be confider'd by the Re-
ferees ; but he being one that has fo indecently re-
fled:ed on the Sentiments of the Generality of Chri-
ftians in fome capital ?vlntters, and that has been very
free In afperfing feveral of his Superiors, and that has
been cenfur'd and condemn'd by the Convocation, it
may be thought no way proper for him to be a Refe-
ree. And '^ou'd not ^is fpoil all ? Would not Mr.
PVhiflon reckon himfefr fadly injuv'd, freely pour
oiu his Invetibives, and declare agninft all Proceed-
ings r Would he not prefently defpair of any good
Succefs?
Well, to prevent his Clamour, Til fuppofe this £«-
fehUn Gentleman (for an Ari^ny it feems, he is no
loni',er) to have pafs*d the Pikes, and to be admitted
for one : 'Tis query'd, What we muft do for the reft ?
Shall Dr. H^atcrland be another ? I'm afraid he and
Mr. Whiftcn would never be able to agree, either v?hnt
"Xejiimonics to allow for /luthaitick,, or when they had la-
hen^llthoje things into wf.ture confiderntiui thnt vcerc nc'
ccffary to dcteryninc, (3c. And 1 might fay the fame as
fo feveral others, likely to be propos'd. Belides, fome
piay be fit for fuch Employment, and not willing to in-
compared ^ as to Antiquity, ^^r
and pofitive^ and vehement in running down Ser\k
all that differed from them. ^
And
unrsJ
gage In it ; others willing, and not fit ; and others both
willing and fit, and yet obje(fled againft. Some thac
are admitted may prove very troublefom : And after
all, fome muft be excluded that may be aggrieved, anci
ilrive to prejudice others againft Proceedings, and thac
way do abundance of mifchief.
But that I may advance, V\\ fuppofe the Number
-fixM, and the Perfons too, ft! 11 Td fain know who caa
oblige them, neglecting their own Atfairs, to continue
meeting fo often, and for fo long a time together, as will
be neceifary to bring Things to an Head ? Or fuppofe
one cr two in the Company fliould be of an alfuming
Spirit, able to bear no contradidUon, and perpetually
jangling if Matters are not carried iheir Way : What
muft be done with fuch ? And how fliall they be re-
ftrain'd, that buiinefs may go forward }
Let it be yielded, that the Cbnirmnn fliould be (b
far impower'd. But then again I query, who m.uft this
Chnirmnnhe} Of which Side? How chofen ? And
vhe;herhe muft be always the fame? Or cho fen each
time by a Major Vote ? Lefs things than thefe have
before now, rais'd a Flame in Meetings from which
there were great expectations. ▼.'
But that we mayn't fpoil fo good a Defign In the
very entrance, let us fuppofe it determin'd, that the
Ch^lrttiari be cho!en each time by the Majority prefent,
and that the Majority alfo determ/me, bow often the
Meetings rna|l be re^^eated : Yet ftill when they come
to Debates, they may be at Crofs Purpofes nil the
rpdy, which Mr. Pi^j. complains, was the cafe between
my I.d. N. and him.
"Well, what if when the Conferences are begun, the
Referees can't agree, \vhr.t Tejlimonics are Authc7itick^}
Mr. IVh. declares himfe.f certainly adur'd, that i\\t Afo-
fiolical Ccnfiltutions are genuine, and is for equalling
them to Scripture, if not for preferring them ; while
others declare th?y fee not the leaft value upon Citations
' from
332 The Old Scheme and New
Serm. And (as I was hinting at the Beginning)
X,' tho' the Scriptures are the ody :^ule of Faiph ;
U^^>J y^^. I think it may be allow'd to add to our
SatisFadion and Comfort^ to find upon Search
that we are in the old Paths which have been
trodden
from any fuch Apocryphal Books, or Spurious Pieces ?
Or what if rhey wholly difarree about other necelTary
Prelhninarles ? What muft be done ? How can they
proceed ? The DlfFerences may be fo great, and mana-
ged with fuch Anunofi:y, that they may fall tcgtiher
by the Ears ; and can this do any Service ?
Or fuppofe they (lioyld go on, till they come to fome
JfTue (dio' nothing can be more unlikely) what will be the
Confequence ? Say that they r.gree in Ibme few things,
and differ in many more, Where will be the great
Advantage ? Let the fumm of the Conferences be
Printed : Who wilJi be the better } PoiTibly after great
pains taken, there may be fome Efcapes : may not
ihofe when dlfcover'd, be improved by ftanders by, to
the difadvanrage of the Referees, and the fruftrating
all their endeavours ? Will not every Man be ftill as
much at Liberty to judge for himfelf as before?
And when Men of Senfe find the Referees differ from
"am in their Sentiments, will they not be apttocenfure
'em as partial, byafs'djjliu' imposed on ? and thereupon
write againft *em, and rW 'em down ? And what if af-
ter all, the generality of fober Chriftians fhould agree
vjholly to drop the Fathers in the Debate, and keep
to Scripture only, taking that to be the beft Inter-
preter of itfelf ? Would not all the Pains taken about
the Fathers then turn to a poor Account ? And what,
if after fuch a Conference here at Home, and a Deter-
mination on one Side, there fliould be another abroad,
r.nd the Dererm/ination there fliould be oppofre ?
Will not Perfons ftiil be as much to feek as ever?
Upon the Whole, I tuke this Projedt to be Chime-
y'lcnly and fo far from being likely, if it were put in
execution, to Vrcveyit rJl further Occnficn for Difpute
find Ccntrcverfy^ as is pretended, that it would rather
create new Controverfies, that would never come to
-i^ End, and "do a great deal more Hurt than Good.
compared ^ as to Antiqiiity^ ^c^c^
v-or^
trodden by thcfe who liv'd in the C/mrc/j of Serm.
C/jrifiy next atter the iacrcd Writers. For my v
own Part J I freely grant^ I fhould conclude my
felf fafe^ keeping clofe to Scripture^ tho' I had
few if any of the Fathers of the Church oji
nw Side : And yet when 1 take my Notions
ot the Trinity from the Word of God^ to find
the Body of the Writers in the moft early
Ages of the Chriftian Church concurring, is
no fmall additional Satisfadion to me. It is
a real Pleafure not only to have good Com-
pany, but Occafion to obferve. That the
Truth in io capital a Matter continu'd for
fome Time m the Churchy before it was re-
markably corrupted.
B UT in the Clofe of all, I cannot forbear
oblerving. That tho' we may upon good
Grounds be fatisfy'd, that we are in the
old Vaths^ the Paths that are not only Scrip-
tural, but have been alfo trodden by thofc
that came next after the infpir'd Writers,-
yet there is one Thing farther neceffary to
our finding Refi to our Sci/lx^ and that is. That
we live agreeably to the Doctrine we own^
and make a right pra6lical Improvement of it.
Without this, all is as Nothing. For what
does it fignify to fix in the Truth upon Search
and Inquiry, and bold It In Unr ight confine fs^
when we have done ! That will but heighten
our Guilt, and aggravate our Condemna-
tion.
As much as I am for adhering to the 0/i
ScJjcmCy I yet freely own, that if two Perfons
offer, of which the one is m the right, and the
other in the wrong, upon the Trinity^ or any
other capital Branch of the Chriitian Do-
(ftrine, if he that is in the wrong be re-
markable for a pious and holy Lile, while
he that is in the right, allows himfelf in
known
334
The Old Scheme and New
Serm. known Vice and Impiety^ I fhould be much
y^^ more inclinable to efteem the tormer than
the latter : For I take Error joyn'd with
Itrid Piety^ to be vaftly preferable to Truth
joyn'd with known Ungodlinefs : At leall^
I am fure it will prove better to the Parties
concern'd^ in the final Iffue. And I can-
not help being of Opinion, That a wicked
life is the worlt and molt dangerous Herefy.
Nor am I here alone ; for the Learned Dr.
Waterlandy as zealous as he is for the Do-
drine of the Trlmty^ has yet deckr'd. That
every Hcrefy m Morality^ is of more fernicioiis Con-
fequencey than Herejies in Points of Tojitkue Reli-
gion ■*'.
Let us therefore all make it our earnefi re-
queft to Almighty God, That together with
Orthodox Notions ni our Heads, we may have
upright and honeft Hearts j Llearts truly de-
Voted to Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ and
then we fiiall find the Truth will have a dif-
ferent Reliih from what can otherwife be ex-
pected : And it will efFecrually fecure^ both
our prefent Peace and Comfort_, and our
eVerlafting Happinefs.
* See the Cafe of Arinn Subfcrlption conlider'd,
and the feveral Pleas and Excure;s for it, particularly
examined oiid confuted, /. 7.
SERM.
335
SERMON XI.
Jeremiah VT. i6.
This faith the J^ OK d, Stand
ye in the Ways and fee ^ and
ask for the old Vaths^ where
ts the good Way^ and walk
therein , and ye Jhall find
reft for your Souls.
HEN Travellers meet with more
Scilreis-
ways before them than one^ 'tis rec- hall,T«ff.
kon'd a peice of common Difcretion^ day ' Ltc^
^o Hand ftill^ and make enquiry, which leads cure ;
to the Place they are defigning for. And Sept. 6»
the very fame Courfe as all Men are for tak- ^ Tid-
ing in a common Journey, does the Pro-
phet here advife the People of God to take,
in their Motions towards that refi of Sottl^
which is earneftly defir'd by all that know
how to value Thmgs accordmg to their De-
ferc. Hardly any comnarifon Cv-iu bw more natu-
ral
33^ The Old ^chtmt preferable to
Sfrm. ral or more common^ than that of the Courfe
Yj * we feverally take in this prefeiit Life to a
Journey. Every one is travellings and defigns
and defires to bend his Courle towards Refi
and Happinefs. And it not a little concerns
us to take care^ not only that we fet out well^
but that we take right Roads and Paths^ if
we defu-e to get fate to our Journeys end.
The Grand Inquiries we are to make are
about Truth and Error^ Good and Evil. The
Prophet here direds to inquire for the Old
Tatbs^ and the Good Way : And the Diredioii
is to the full as proper and fuitable for us
noWj as ever it was for the People of God
in former Times. This fliould be our Way
farcicularly as to the Dodrine of the Trinity^
on which I have difcours'd with fo much
freedom. We fhould ask for the Old Taths^
and inquire where is the Good Way^ and Walk
therein: And thus (ioing we fliali be moft
likely to find Reft for our Souls,
There are two Schemes particularly^ that
here are offered to us^ and I have undertaken
to compare them together, with refped to
Afitiqulty^ and as to Eafe and difficulty ^ and the
other things which are icverally oifer'd to
recommend thern^ and moft ufually alledg'd
in their favour. I have offered that upon the
Head of Antiquity^ as may I think give fa-
tisfadion^ that the Body of the Reformed
Churches is with refped to this Part of the
Chriftian Dodrine^ truly iJi Poffeffion of the
Old Taths; I. e. thofe Paths which are not
only markYl out by the infpir'd Writers of
the Nt7i> Teftamcnt^ but which were alfo taken
by thofe of the greatell note and emi-
nence^ who came aker them in the Chriftian
Churchy for the Three firfl Centuries. And
I am now to ihew^ that this i.s alio the Good
the Neiv^ on many Accounts. 557
Way^ and has a great many Things to re-
commend it^ beyond the other Wayj for
which fome are fo exceeding zealous : And
I fhall fet myfelf to compare the Two Schemes
together^ In themfel^esy and in their Confequen-
ces ; confidering them both Defenfively ^ and
Ojfenfively ^ and inquiring^ How the Abet-
tors of eachj both fupport their Principles^
and encounter their OppofiteSj and which
do it with molt Clearnefs_, Strength^ and
Solidity. And there are Six Heads ^ upon
which my Comparlfon here will run. For I
propofe to compare them together_,
I. As to the Troof which they fevcrally
produce.
II. A s to the Additional Tleasy with which
the Proof produc'd^ is on each fide,
fought xg be fupported.
III. As to the Objeciiovs which they fe-
verally make againft their Oppofites.
IV. A s to their Aim m their Management_j"
and the Method they ufe to reach their
End.
V. ni confider which Scheme is moft cal--
culated to promote true Fiety. And^
VI. Which conduces mofl to the Comfort o£
the Upright and Sincere,
And I am hot aw.ire^ that there is any
thing needful to a juft Comparifon^ but what
may be reduc'd to one or ether of thefe
Heads. And,
Z I. I
338 The Old Scheme preferaMe to
I. I begin with comparing the Old and the
New Scheme upon the Dodrine of the Trinity
together^ as to the Proof which they feverally
produce. Both of 'em plead Scrlptm-e and Anti-
qiiity for their own Support : But its an ealy
thing to obferve they do it in a different
manner. I begin with Scripture^ which is urg'd
on both fidesj in Proof of their feveral Prin-
ciples. The Patrons of the New Scheme al-
ledge the Scriptures in their own Favour^ and
are forward enough to boaft^ that by them
they carry their Point. But then at the fame
timCj they wofuUy leffen the Credit of the Sa-
cred Scripiures as the only Rule of our Faith y
* which has from the firft been a diicriminating
Principle^ between us^and thofeof the Church of
Rome, It is alfo their way to fallen upon one
or two particular Texts^ by which they are
for interpreting all the reft ^ whereas they
that Hand up for the Old Schem^ at the fame
time as they adhere to Scripture as the only
Rtde of Faith J are alfo for intently obferving
the main current of it^ and for interpreting
particular Texts that offer^ according as that
leads. Dr. Clarke indeed charges thofe that
are for th6 Old Way ^ with picking out fomefew
Jtngle Texts of Scripture^ ' i^ifiead of attending to the
whole Scope ^ and gerieral Tenour of It f. And if
this were true^ it would molt certainly be ve-
ry wrong. But I think it is evident^, that
the
* if it be fnidy (fays Mr. Pi^ljifton) That the known
Books of the New Teftament arc thefncred I{ule of Faith
and Praclife for the Church, Imvji reply that this is falfe
in Fa^. And afterwards, vo^Jlrangely mijiahs the Na-
ture ayid Defign of tbefe Sacred H-]iti?igs^ if we ejleem
them as the proper B^ile of Faith and Practice among
Chrijiians, Elfay on the Apollles Conftitudons. chap^
z. pag. i6z, 163.
jf Iiurqdudiott to Scrij^r. Dodrlne, pag. 19:
the New, on many Accounts. 359
the Zealots for the New Scheme^ are here the Serm.'
guilty Parties. For they are continually ^I
harping upon thofe Words_, Ady Father is great- i^rv">0
er than I "f- That Text with them is the
only, or at leaft the chief Standard. Where-
as It is the common_, open Declaration of all
that I have met with that are in the Old
Scheme^ that they are for carefully obferv-
ing how all along the New Teftammt^ thofe
Perfedions which are moll defcriptive of
true and proper Divinity^ are afcrib'd to the
Son as well as the Father^ without any dif-
cernable Difference made as to any real Ex-
cellence : Which is in a Meafure alfo true_,
as to the Holy Ghofi. The Adherents to the
Old Scheme are for underftanding the Scrip-
tures they produce in their natural^ con-
neded Senfe, according to their true Gram-
matical Conftrudion: Whereas the Follow-
ers of the New Scheme rack and torture the
Scriptures_, to force their own Senfe out of
'em y and criticize upon 'em in fuch a Man-
ner^ as often to extrad that from 'em, that
never was m 'em_, and could not be intend-
ed by thofe that wrote 'em, v/ithout run-
ning into manifeft Inconfiftencies. They that
are for the Old Scheme take the Scriptures as
they are tranfmitted to 'em by the Churches
of Christ that were before them, who cannot
reafonably be fuppos'd to have corrupted 'em
in any Thing that's effential ; nor could have
been able to do it, even tho' they fhould have
been that Way inclined : Whereas the Men
of the New Scheme raifefuchObjedions againft
thole Texts which they cannot anfwer, as
Z 2 tend
"t And yer Pct/ivius fhews thar rhey make riot fox;
them. Jkcol, Dogm, d^ 7iin» J-ib, 11. cap. lu
\
'34-0 The Old Schtmt prefer ahle to
tend to make the Sacred Scriptures contem-
ptible. They (like fome whom the Church
heretofore reckon'd among her worit Ene-
mies ■*"_,) at every Turn cry out of falfe Co-
pes^ and Interpolations^ and take a world of
Pains to render thofe PalTages fufficlom that
make againft them : they often put fuch In-
terpretations upon 'em^ as look as if they
intended to ridicule 'em, and are more re-
markable for nothing, than their Boldnefs
in wrefiing^ what ought to be taken juft as it
is deliver'd. Each Branch of which Charge
may be eafily made good by a variety of Par-
ticulars.
And then as to Antiquity^ the Patrons
of the New Scheme^ either palm upon us fuch
forg'd Writings as the ApofloUcalConfiitutlons for
good Authority, or they boait of having
thofe on their Side whom the Chriltian
Church generally difown'd, and caft off:
And if the Fathers drop any thing that feems
in the leaft to favour them, they make a
great Noife with it, without confidering what
their View was, or how, what they -are fo
much for applauding, can be reconciFd with
plain and exprefs Declarations of their Senfe
m other Places ^ and without making a pro-
per Allowance for the Heat of Difpmey under
the Influence of which it has in all Ages been
common, even for Writers of Worth, for
Fear of one Ey'treme^ to run into another.
And when any Thing is produced out of the
fame Writers againft them, they are no more
mov'd^
*■ Irencetii, Lib. III. cap. 2. Speaking of the Hereticks
of his time, exprefles him felf thus : Cum ex fcripturis
arguuntur, in accufntioncm ccyivertuntur ipfnrum fcriftu-
rarum^ qunfi non reBe J'd'eei7itj7icquefmt ex eiutoritfitCy
^ ^uia mrie fun dicUj &c.
the Nevy, on many Accounts.
mov'd^ than if the A-ithors cited dcfcrv'd no
Regard. Whereas they that are for the Old
SchtmCy finding their Notion of a G o d that
is One in Jhree^ and Three in OnCy generally
pafs current in the Church from one Age
to another, are thereupon juftly the more
confirnVd. However, they (as it becomes
'em) are free to allow for Slips, either before
Matters had been fully debated, or in the
Heat of Difpute. They are not for pre-
fently running Authors intirely down with
Contempt, upon finding here and there an
unwary Expreffion in 'em. And when upon
cafting up their Accounts, they perceive they
have the Stream of the Primitive Writers for
'em, they are thankful : And yet Itill admit
the infplr'd IVriters only for the Rule of their
Faith y to which they inviolably adhere, what-
ever may become of the Creiit of other Au-
thors. Let any Man then judge, which of
thefe Two is moft likely to be m the Rig-ht.
Bur, ^ ^
2. Let us alfo compare the Old Scheme
and the New together, as to the Additiond
Pleas y with which the Proof produc'd is
fought to be fupported. They that are fond
of the Neoi^ Scheme talk big, take much upon
'em, and vaunt as it they were the Feople^ a72d Johxii
Wifdom jljotdd die with them : Whereas they that
are for the Old Scheme ^ are content to believe
and acquiefce in what is reveal'd, tho' they
know they mull not exped to fathom ; and
they pretend to no more than fuch an Evi-
dence as Preponderates, with which they
think it but reafonable that they fhould be
fatisfy'd. The Zealots for the New Scheme
plead, that with them are the Men of the
brighteft Parts, and the greateft Penetration ;
But they that are for the Old^ being little
Z I affcded
342 The Old Scheme preferable to
Serm. affeded with fuch fvvelling Words of Vanity^
XI. which fliew only the Iniolence and Scorn ot
V.^..^^^ thofe that ufe thcm^ plead that their Scheme
beft f'uits and falls in with the other main
Heads of the Chriitian Dod:rine^ fuch as the
Incarnation of the Son of God^ his Satlsfa^iion^
and confequent Glory_, his Vriefily Office ^ and
the Doctrine of Santtification^ which they are
not by any means for having juftled out of
their Religion^ or cavill'd or quibbled away :
And this is a Plea of great Weighty and not
eafily to be anfwer'd.
T o me it is very evident_, That there are
feveral Things of no fmall Moment^ in which
it highly concerns us to be as clear as may
be^ which are much better accounted for by
the Old Scheme y than by the New,
T H T s is the Cafe of the Incarnation of the
Toh. 1. 16. ^^^ of G o D. St. John tells us_, Jloe Word ovas
made Fleji?^ and dwelt among m^ or tabernacled
with us. Humanity was^ in the" Cafe of our
Bleffed Savmr^ fo inhabited by the Divinity^
fe Tim. ^^^^ ^ ^ jy-r^i^a^ truly manlfefied in the Flcjl^ or
Jii. i6.' humane Nature of Christ. This the Old
Scheme is clear in^ and it afferts it in fuch a
Manner^ as to be chargeable with no Incon-
fiitency. Whereas the New Scheme^ neither
leaves Dlvi7tity to inhabit_, nor Humanity to
be inhabited by it. It does not leave Divinity
to inhabit. It makes the Son at belt but a
Creature ^ and irt that do all its fine Flou-
riikes iifue. For if He is but a fuhordlnate God^
let him have ever fo many or 16 valuable Ex-
cellencies above other created Beings^ He
' will at lait be no more than a Creature ori-
ginally. Nor does it leave Humanity to be
inhabited by the Divinity. For what is Huma-
nity without a Soul^ but a mere Clod of Clay ?
"Kow they that are thoroughly iagag'd in tnis
. " Scherr?e.
the New, on many Accounts. ^4.5
Scheme^ allow our Bleffed Saviour no humane
Soul at all. The IVord according to theirij fup-
ply'd the Place of that *. So that inftead of
God tahernacUng amongft Men^ we fhall at
beft have only a noble_, fuperfine^ fuperan-
gelick Spirit^ alTuming an humane Body.
This is the molt they can make of G o d ma-
nifefi in the Fiejh.
Nor does the Ne-oj Scheme better accord
with the Scriptural Account of the Dodrine
Z 4 of
^ Mr. li^nfion frankly owns, That this was a mam
Thing that led him into the Ariaii Scheme, and that
he look'd on the Difcovery of this, as one of the
moft certain and important of all others, as to the
Points of the Trinity and hicarnation. Hiji. Pref. ^re-
fi^id to Priyn. Chriit. re^ivd. Vol. I. p. 6.
And this was the true ancient Ariajiifm. Athnnnfiu^
affirm'd, that the y^rMw^ maintained. That the heavenly
Mind in Christ, fervid inftead of an human SouL
XecT$. Tom. I. De Incamat. Chrijli /idv. Apolin. p. 6iS.
Theodcret (ays, that the Aria7Js and Eu7iomia7is held.
That our Saviour's Godhead perform'd the Office of
the Scul. Divin. Decret. Epit. ca^. xii. p. 124. Aufttti
fays, the Ariajis held, I'hat Christ took only a human
Body without a Soul. Di? Here/ cap. Iv. p. 182.. Thus
doing, they made the Humanity of Christ imperfedt.
For had He only afTum'd a Body, and wanted a Soul,
He would have had but half the humane Nature, and
fo would have been but a partial Redeemer, faving
the Body only, while the Soul was left to perifli. Sec
Crit. Hift. of Apoftles Creed, p. 250, 251.
Dr. Clarice is not open upon this Head. For when
it was objeded to him. That he fuppos'd the Divine
Nature fupply'd the Place of the humane Soul in
Christ ; he anfwers. That on w/ch Side foever the
Queftion be determin d, it makes no Alteration in hi*
Scheme. Anfwer to the Author of fotnc Confidernttom,
^e. p. 219. Whereas this is a Point of that Moment|^
that I fliould think it aifeds any S.che7ne whatever.
344 The Old Scheme preferable to
Serm. of Redemptions than it does with that of the
XI. Incarnation. For it neither leaves Room for
^w'-^^r^^ fuch a Redemption as the Gofpel (peaks of, and
Mate. 28. fo much applauds ; Nor does it leave us fucH
18. a Redeemer as is a fit and fuitable Objed of
Bph.i.22. the Trufl and Confidence which we are re-
quir'd to put in him. It makes but a very-
poor Bufinefsj of that which the Gofpel re-
prefents p us as a Thing to be peculiarly
2, Cor. V. admir'(i_, That He ivho knew no Sln^ Jliould-l^e
^^' made Sm^ or a Sin-offering /^r 745^ t^at ive might
he made the Righteoufnefs of Go D In htm : And it
leaves us fadly at a Lofs to make it out^ Thac
'Adls xx: we are pm-chas'd Tvlth God's oivn Blood '^ and that
^\ , ... God laid down his Life for us; and that the
ijoh. 111. j^^j^ ffffer'dfor the Unjufi^ to bring us to GoV>.
1 Pet iii ■^^^ ^^^ Scheme alfo gives a much better
1^8. ' * ' Account than the t^ew^ of Christ as Media-
tor ^ and of his Advancement in that Capa-
city. According to this^ all Rower was truly
given to ChrisTj, notwithftanding what lie
was and had before : And all Things were put
under his Fcev^ notwithftanding that He really
was God over All Blefj'edfor ever, . He had 0-
riginally an univerfal Lordfhip belonging to
him : But at his RefHrre^lon^ He received that
full Power in both his Natures^ which He
had before poiTefs'd in one only. But here^
they that are in the New Scheme appear to be
in great Confufion. They conferr a Divinity
to which there was no Original Right : And
bring in 3. Mediator of a quite different Nature
from him that is to be mediated with. In
tlie mean time they pretend^ that the 6'o^zs
aciing by Delegation m his Office^ argues his
Inferiority of Nature. But in this they are ma-
riifeftly unreafonable. For why may not one
be Delegate to another^ without being of an
iyfcrlor Nature ? And how can the Sons be-
' ' ' ' ^ " "^
the New, on many Accounts. 34.5
ing delegated by the Father to adl: the Part of Shrm,
our Redeemer y argue his being of an inferiour XL
nature to the father^ when the very Office v^/->yrC^
which he is delegated to^ is fuch^ as no inferi-
our nature could be able to fultain ; and the
honour confequent upon it too great^ for an
inferiour nature tO receive.
Nor does the New Scheme give us any to-
lerable Account^ how the Holy Ghofi comes to
be joyn'd and fet upon a Level with the
Father and the Son in the Commiffion for Ba-
ptifm : Nor how that work of Sanctificatlon
which is peculiarly afcrib'd to him^ and in
which he is the proper Agent^ comes to be
as necefTary as the Work of Redemption^ of
which the Son is the Undertaker.
'Tis pleaded however in Favour of itj that
it faves the Unity of God, and keeps that in-
tire. But fuppofmg (without granting) ic
fhould in that llefped have fome Advantage^
what Amends can that make us for its obfcu-
ring and overthrowing the main and mod
Capital Parts of the Lhrlfiian DoElrlm^ with
which it is not to be reconcil'd ? And what
fhall wc at laft do with our one God^ without a
Sa'viour and a SanElifier^ capable of anfwering
the Ends of their refpedive Offices in Order
to our Salvation? I cannot lee_, how either that
or any otherPlea that can be urg'd^ can yield
folid batisfadion under fuch a Defed ^ or
how that Scheme can be right_, that fhuts out
any Parts or Branches of thatDodrine^ which
the Scriptures reprefent as necefTary to be
entertain d and taken in. I go on^
3. To compare the two Schemes together
as to the Objcdlons which they feverally make
againft their Oppofites. Thefe are many
on each fide : And I think it may be well
worth Qur while to conlider ^ which of
the
^^6 The Old Scheme prefer ahle to
Serm, ^^"^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ jufter^ and the better prov'd.
^j Each fide complains that the other has its
^^^^.^YVJ ^'^ffi^^^^^'^^^ ? ^^^ ^^^h ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^"^^ Difficulties
of their Oppofites to be infuperable. Where-
as it being very evident that there are Diffi-
culties on each Side^ the fairelt Way and the
moft rational^ would be to weigh them in
the Ballance together^ and fee which out-
weighs. For a Dodrine to be attended
with Difficulties^ is not an Evidence that it
wants a folid Foundation ^ and we fhould be
much in the wrong prefcntly to conclude it
iralfe. For perhaps the oppolite Notion may
upon fearch be found to be liable to yet more
weighty Objections. And I mult own I am
much miitaken if this upon Search be not
found the Cafe as to the Old Scheme and New
with refped: to the Trinity.
As to the Old Scheme^ I freely own it has
its Dijficultles ^ and they are great ones toOj,
and fuch as 1 don't fee how we can exped: to
get over. But then if the Nai/ Scheme has
yet more and greater Difficulties attending it^
1 think v/e fhould ad unreafonably^ if upon
that account we thought of an Exchange.
The Patrons of the Nav Scheme are ready e-
nough to magnify our Difficulties^ who are for
adhering to the Old : But in the mean time
they overlook their own.
When we urge upon 'em thofe remarka-
ble Words of the Beloved Difciple^ who
wrote his Gofpel on purpofe to filence Cavils
againft his Mailer's proper Divinity^ in the
John i. I. Beginning was the Wordy and the Word was with
Gody and the Word v^as God ; they reprefent it
as a Difficulty that is neither to be born with_,
nor got over_, that the Word fhould be the fame
Cody that it is faid he was with. But why not
the fame God^ when it is fo evident from the
whole
the New, on many Accounts. ^47
^^/>/
whole ftrain of the New Teftament Writings^ Serm.
that He has the very fame Perfedlions with ^j
him whom He -was -with : and whom he was
0L>itb in a particular Manner ^ and that before
any Thing elfe was ? But in the mean time,
they overlook a yet greater Difficulty which
that Text expofes their New Scheme to. For
how odd mull it needs appear for the Apoltie
to alTert^, that the IVord was not only in
the Begin7iivgy but ivas with the Supreme God^
and in the very next Claufe to add that he
was himfelf an mferiour God ! And how much
worfe a Sound has it^ for him to declare him^
tho' a Creature^ to have been m the Begifmlng
with God ^ and then in the very fame lireath
to declare him Creator of all Ttomgs • for that
all Ihlngs were made by hlm^ and without him was
7iot ajiy' Thing made that was made ! This is a
Difficulty with a Witnefs ! 'Tis big with Ab-
furdity^ and draws after it the utmoft Con-
fufion !
The Admirers of the New Scheme make
Difficulties J where there are none but what
are eafily got over : Thus they boggle at
owning the Son to have been properly Eter^
nal^ and necelTarily exiftent^ and yet at the
fame time to have a Name gl^'cn him ahoue e-ve-
ry Name^ in Confequence of his Sulferings
«nd Death , tho' thefe are Things that may
be eafily reconcil'd : But then in the mean
time^ they make light of Difficulties that really
are infuperable. Thus they will have an high-
er and a lower GoD^ the one Supreme ^ and the
other Subordinate^ and to thefe they (fome of
'em) add a third that is fubordlr/ate to the
other two ; tho' by the fame Reafon^ and in
the fame Way^ there might be Three hun-
dred as well as Three partaking of the Divi-
nity ; Nor have they any Thing fohd to
offer
348 The Old Scheme preferaMe to
offer to prevent it^ under Chrifilanitj^ any
more than under Vaganlfm.
They that are tor the New Scheme ^ bring
fever al Charges again ft thofe that adhere to
the Old^ vi^hich they cani?jot prove^ and to
which they themfelves are much more liable.
Thus they accufe them of contradicting them-
felves m holding Three^ of each of whom it
may be faid^ (and that in the fame Senfe)
that He is God^ while yet they declare there
is but One GoD^ and not three. But this is
manifeftly unjult. For when we fay in the cafe
of /^/jr^fj that each is GoDj, and that altogether
they are but One God j whatever the Ideas may
feem^ they are not really repugnant. We
there mean no more than this^ That each has
fuch and fuch eifential Perfedions belonging
to him. We own indeed^ That we cannot fee
how this can be reconcifd with the Belief of
One GoD^ any rnorje than how certain and
infallible Prefclence can be reconcil'd with the
Cdnthigency of future Events foreknown. In
one Cafe and \n the other^ we believe upon
good Evidence^, not doubting but that the
Ideas are conneded^ tho' we can't fee how.
To fay this is a Ccmradl^tlon^ is to charge the
BleiTed God with contradicting himfelf. In
the mean time the New Scheme has real Con-
zradicilons attending it : For \t hrft makes a
Creature the Creator of all Things^ and then
fuppofes this Creature to be chang'd into a
God ^ than which I don't fee how any Thing
could be Itarted that was more monftrous.
Again ^ the Patrons of the New Scheme
charge thofe who ftand up for the Old^ with
being either Jrlthelfts or SabeUlans : But very
unjullly. They are not Trltheifts -^ for they
hold but 0^;e God^ and aifert_, that they are
the very fame Perfcdions that are confpicu-
^ oiis
the NeW; on many Accounts, ^^^.p
ous in Father J Sorty and Holy Ghofi. Nor are Serm*
they Sabellia?iSy becaufc they hold Father ^ Son^ XL
ia^id Holy Ghofi y to be really dlfiinBy and are s^v^
zealous for fuch a Dlfilnctlon in the Dt-///^ as
is a fufficient Foundation of thofe fever al
Relations and Operations that are afcrib'd to the
Sacred Three in Scripture. In the mean
time they give us too good Ground to charge
them both with Folythelfim and Idolatry. For
by owning a Supreme and Suhordhiate God^
(which Diflindion runs quite through their
HypothefiSj and is the Bafis of it) they un-
avoidably bring in more Gods than One^
which is intirely contrary to the Tenour both
of the Old Ttfiamtnt and l^ew. And making
Christ but a Creature^ and yet workup fmg
hinij when the Scripture charges us to ivor-
fij/p GoD onel/y they run into Idolatry. And
tho' they plead the Command for giving hini
Worjlnp in. their own Vindication^ yet will
not that excufe 'em^ if it be contrary to the
Fundamental Rule of religious IVorjlnp^ that
confines it to God alone. And the belt Saho
that the molt extenfive Charity can devife
for 'em^ is only this^ That 'tis to be hop'd
they are not aware of the Tendency of their
own Principles ; which yet is no Reafon
againlt our urging it upon them^ in. order to
their Conviction^ whatever it may be againll
proceeding to an abfolute Condemnation of
'em^ upon Suppoiition that their Hearts may
be better than their Heads.
Again 5* the Abettors of the ISlew Scheme
charge thole that are for abiding by the Old
one^ with adding in fome Cafes to the Text
of Scripture^ and pretending to Ipeak plain-
er than the Holy Spirit has didatedj which
would be very blameable if true : But in the
mean time^ they themfelves are grofsly guil-
ty.
35o The Old Schtmt preferaMe to
ty. Our Lord Jesus not long before his
Crucifixion^ offered up a Requeft in thefe
Words : yind now O Father ^ S^^^'^fj ^hou me w'lth
Toh. xvii. the Glory which I had with thee before the World
was. They will have the meaning of this to
be^ ^vhich thou decreedfi we^ or defignedfi for me^
before the World was : tho' there is not the
leafl: hint of a Decree or Defgn^ but our Lord
plainly fpeaks of his athial Tofjejfion. And
when the Scripture often fays abfolutelyj that
there is but077cGoD^ they are mightily for
addinj^ the Word Supreme^ and that without
any Warrant or Foundation for it ; there
being no reafon to apprehend that the Sacred
Writers had any Intention to limit the Senfe
of fuch Declarations by Supreme^ they not
having given the leaft Intimation of it. And
m like Manner^ when in a great variety of
TextSj the moft glorious Divine Attributes
are afcrib'd to our Lord Jesus Christ^ they
without any Warrant will add Reltri cations and
Limitations^ when yet they won't allow of
any fuch Limitations in the Text wherein
the very fame Divine Attributes are afcrib'd
to the 0?2e GoD^ notwithltanding the Ex-
preffions us'd are equally general^ and ap-
pear to be equally extenlive.
One of the Advocates for the New Scheme
charges thofe that are for the Old^ with fub-
verting Christ's Mediation^ which would
moft certainly be very Criminal^ were but
the Charge well grouncled. If^ fays he^ Chrifi
is Supreme God^ when we addrefs him as fuchy It
muft he without a Medlatour ^ or he mufi Mediate
7vlth himfelf The Divine Nature Is precluded from
wedlatl'/?gy becaufe that Is to he fought to as the ul-
timate ObjeB through a Mediatour : And the hu-
mane nature way know nothing of our Cafe^ nor
bow to re^refm^ or recommend Us to God^ And fo
the New^ on many Accounts. 3^1
there Is no Mediator left to interpofe 7vith the Su-
^reme God i and the Lord Jesus /'/ turnd out of
his Office y under pretence of ghjtvg him higher Ho-
nour ^. I anfwer : It being God-Man ^ that is
the Mediator J we may and ought to difcover
our Senfe of his being fb^ in all our Addref-
les to the Deity in general : And yet we are
not deny'd a Liberty of particularly applying
to him as Mediator^ in any Part of his Of-
fice ,• in which Cafe^ we cannot be faid to
need any one to interpofe with him for us^
becaufe of his Itill retaining that Nature of
ours^ which he alTum'd in order to our Re-
demption. And I take this to be very a-
greeable to the Scripture Reprefentation of
this Matter. For we are told^ that In that he pjeb. li;
hlmfelf hath fuffcred^ being tempted ^ he Is able to 18.
fuccottr them that are tempted. Having in our af-
fum'd Nature been varioufly tempted and tried_,
he is therefore the more meet to be a com-
paffionate Helper^ to fuch as are at prefent
under Temptations : And by Confequence^ he
is the more fit to be apply'd to by 'em for Re-
lief. And He was accordingly diredly ap-
ply'd to by St. Paul^ and that with Succefs. ^ Cor.xil.'
But the whole of this^ I fhould think would 2-
appear a vain and empty Flourifh^ to one that
confidersj that the Neji^ Scheie overthrows
the Dodrine of Christ's Mediation intirely,
by taking away the SatlsfaBmij which accord-
ing to the Scriptures is its only Foundation ,•
and by degrading him that fliauld execute
that Office fo low^ as to leave him incapable
of difcharging it^ for want oi Merit to fup-
port him. ^ But who can wonder at any thing
of this kind^ from thofe^ who by alcribing
fucti
* Ernl)n\ Trads, p, 37, 39i
3^2 The Old Scheme prefer ahle to
\y\^^
Serm. fi^ch Characters as the Scripture gives to
Xl/ Christ^ to a meer dignjfy'd Creature^ and
exalted Man ^ confound the Creator with
the Creature^ God and Man^ finite and infi-
nite. This moft certainly is a much groffer
Abfurdity3 than either to fuppofe fuch a D;-
filnBlon in the Infinite but Undivided Nature
of G0D3 as the Dodrine of the Trlmtj im-
plies 3 or to allow a Concern of both Na-
tures in the Difcharge of the Mediators Of-
jfice^ and a Liberty upon Occalion^ of a di-
rect Application to him_, tho' there be none
to interpofe.
It has farther been fometimes objeded by
the Friends of the New Scheme^ That the Fol-
lowers of the Old are Itrangely divided ^ fome
taking one Way to explain themfelves^ and
others a quite contrary : But if this be any
thing of an Argument that Perfons have not
the Truth on their Side^ the Friends of the
New Scheme had need look about them ^ it
not being an eafy Thing to find Two of 'em
intirely of a Mind. And for this Reafon I
fhould think this Objection might very well
be wav'd.
But we have a great many Charges againii
thofe that are in the New Scheme^ after all
their mighty Boafts^ and alTuming Airs^
which they won't fo eafily be able to clear
themfelves from. They often confound
Things needlefsly. They will have it^ That
if the So7% be of the fame Nature y he mufl be
the ^tiy [ame Perfon v/ith the Father : And that
a Dljiindmi of Perfo^^s^ h the very fame with a
Difference of Nature ; and that a Priority of
the Father to the Son in the Order of the Tri-
nity ^ implies an ejjentlal Dlfparliy and he^uallty
between Them, tho' there is no fuitable
Proof produc'd* Nay^ they confound the
Creator
the New, on many Accounts. 3 5 g
Creator and the Creature^ and are for Wor- Serm.
fliipping a made Beings tho' there is no one ^I.
Thing which the Revelation of the Old and ,^xv^
Nev^ Ttfiament more freely declares againft.
In Reality^ nothing could have an odder
Afped^ than for Christ to come into the
World to deliver Men from the Worfhip of
Creatures^ and at the fame time fet up him-
felf^ if but a Creature^ to be wormipp'd
as God. They reprefent the Apoltles as in-
couraging Creaturt-lVorJhlp^ tho' it v^as their
grand avovv'd Dellgn^ to root out the Wor-
fhip of all fuch as by Nature were not Gods. They
directly break thQjirfi Commandment y by bring-
ing in Two Gods y if not Three : And
when they have done that^ I fee not what
Reafon there is to expcd they ihould much
regard the reft. They do and undo. They
pretend to affert Christ's Divinity^ and o-
verthrow it when they have done ^. They
agree to the Name_, and afterwards give up
the Thing. They are at the lame time ma-
nifellly unreafonable ; and will not be con-
tent vvith the fame Meafure they mete to o-
thers. On^ of 'em makes it an Objection
againft Christ's Infinite Z)e/r;'_, That St.Pff^rAdis H
did noty when he was dealing with his Mur- ii, 13.'
dererSj tell 'em plainly. That they /jad fljed 36-
the Blood of God himjelfy in order to the
heightning their Convidion f : And yet
when a Confideration of the very fame Na-
ture was by St. PW urg'd upon the 0^'fr/^^rJ X^, xx.iS;
of the Flock at Ephcfm^ and they, in order to
rhe heightning their Care in Feeding the Flock^.
A a were
* This Charge was often brought againft the ArUrJ
l^ythe Fathers; as is file wn by Pcf^rw. Thiol. Do^m,
aV Tmi. Lib. II. cap. ix. Se^ft. VI,
354 The Old Scheme preferaMe to
Sbrm. were told_, That God had purchafed it vnth his
XI, ozvn^ Bloody they that are in the fame Scheme
v^/-»y-s^ cavil and quibble^ and rack their Brains to
find out Evallons^ till they make it amount
to juft nothing.
The Neiv Scheme pretends one Thing_, and
means another. It pretends that Christ is
God 5 and yet in the IfTue makes a mere
Creature of him :^ For it alTertSj That He re-
ceiv'd his very Being from the Father. Now if
He really receiv'd a Beings he could net have
k before : He did but begin to be : Whereas
the Scripture ufes quite different Language.
For we are there told^ That He ivas ;>; the Be^
.John i. 2, ginning with GoD. Which is a plain Intima-
tion that the Son no more had a Beginning of
Being than the Father himfelf ; and that He
is as truly necejjarlly €xifte7it as the Father;
which is what the Old Scheme lays great Strefs
upon.
In fliort^ The J^ew Scheme is neither con-
fiftent with Scripture^ nor with itfelf. And
there is one Thing that makes both plain ;
and that is_, That it firft turns God into a
Creature^ and then gives the Creature the TVor-
Jbip that belongs only to God. And whe-
ther the doing thus,, is to be preferred to the
giving to Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ to whom
we were joyntly devoted^ the fame Love and
Honour^ Worjlnp and Obedience^ judge you. And
now^
4. Let us compare the Two Schemes to-
gether^ as to their Aim in their Management,
and, the Method they ufe to reach their End.
They that are for the Ne-w Scheme^ are zea-
lous not to diminifh^ but rather to their ut-
moit to advance^ the Glory of God the Father ^
from whofe Mercy and Grace the Scripture
reprcfents the Son as given for our Redemption^
and
the New, on many Accounts ^t^ty
and the Spirit for our SarjEilfication. And they Serm^
that are for the Old Scheme^ on the other XL
handj are zealous^ not to diminifli the Ho- k.^^s^^^
nour of x\\^Son of God^ and the Holy Spirit,
And in order to the reaching this End^ the
Priends of the New Scheme ^ extol the Father y
make him Lord Paramount^ infift much and of-
ten upon his Supremacy ^QOniin^neceJJary Exifience
and Independence to him^ and advance his Pre-
rogative to the utmoft height : And when
they are charg'd with overdoing, and lef-
fening the Son^ they tell us_, That they ha^c
not a7iy Inclination to leJJ'en the Honour of the
Lord of Glory, They rather congratulate than envy
his high efi Glory y were it ever fo great ^ if real and
jtifi 5 but they dare not accept his Fcrfin^ nor talk
wickedly even for God, They are jealous for the
peerlefs Majefiy of the Lord ^ Hofis^ the God of
all Gods *. And they add. That fuppofmg the
Matter of Difpute were equally evident on both
Sides ; yet they think there is much more Safety
on their Side than en the other : Which is an Ar-
gument they are very well fatisfy'd in their
Proceedings. And they illullrate it thus:
Suppofing that J Es US ChRIST were the fame Be-*
ing vAth the Father j yet In fforJJjjpping One Goo
ths Father, they of the NejiJ Scheme would give
Worjloip to the Divine Being : And he who wpr^
flj/ps one Infinite GoD, worfijips (they {ay) all
that Is adorable with Dlvlfie PTorJJnp. Whereas
fuppofing Christ to be another Beings next^ but
inferior to the Father, the Trinitarians ivho wor*
jhip no ether Beings but what is the Father, or the
Supreme Beings mufi 7ieeds be found to give no JVor^
fljip at all to Jesus Christ f. Whereas the
A a 2 Followers
=* Emlyns Trads, p/tg, 139, (yi,
t lb, pag. 142, 143.
35^ The Old Scheme preferaMe to
Followers of the Old Seheme^ without either
detrading from what the Scripture afcribes
to Father or Son^ or adding to it^ are for be-
ing guided by thofe Maxims^ He that honour-
eth not the Son_, honour eth not the Father which
1 John ii- J}jft Jjl^ : And^ JVhofie-ver deny eth the Son^ the
^3- J^ame hath^jot the Father. And fince t\iQ Father y
Sony and Holy Spirit^ are in the Baptifmal
Charge and Commiffion reprefented as ha-
ving an equal Right to our Riithy Worflolpy
and Ohediencey they accordingly fet Them up-
on a Level in their Refped^ without any
Fear of offending either. And it is left to
unprejudic'd Perions to judge^ which is the
molt reafonable. And then^
f. We may alfo do well to confider which
of thefe two Schemes is belt calculated to pro-
mote and increafe ferious Vlety. I take that
to be a thing by which we may be help'd in
paffing a Judgment. Chriftianity as it is de-
\ Tim. liver'd in the Sacred Scriptures^ is a Myfiery
ill. i6. ^yr Qodlinefsy not Pubhfti'd with a defign to
puzzle and amufe^ but advance real Fiety and
Goodnefs among Mankind^ in order to make
them happy. It is its molt diltinguifhing Cha-
i Tlm.vi. racier J that it is a Docirlnc -which Is according to
3. Godlinejs, All its Fundamentals tend to make
Men truly Godly. 'Tis according to Godllnefsy
above any other Dod:rine that ever was
Publilh'd. 'Tis fo in all the Parts of it. It is
a Dodrine that wholly referrs to the true
and right Service of Go d ,• and all its Alyfte-
ties have no other Defign or View, but that
of forming us into the Love and Fear of him.
And this is a Te(t by which Dodrines that are
proposed to us fhould be try'd, in order to our
paUing a Judgment upon 'em. Now the
Queftion is. Whether the Old Scheme or the
l^^ai\ upon the Head of the Trinity^ is the
molt
the New, on many Accounts. 357
molt adapted to fcrve this End ? And for my
own Partj I muft declare^ That I think the
Old Scheme will carry it upon a fair Compari-
fon. For the grand Motive to Tiety^ that is
molt frequently touched upon in tjie New Te-
fiament^ is the Love o/Gqd. His Love in
giving hi$ Son^ and (Jelivering him up to
Death for our Sakes_, is often there dilated on^
in order to the ingaging us to the utmolt Re-
turns of which we are capable^ in a Way of
Love^ Service and Obedience. Such a Gift
may well inflame us with Lo-ve^ and ingage
\}s to a cheerful Obedience. The Greatneis of
the Perfon given, heightens the Love that ap-
pears in the Gift_, and inforccs the Argument.
Let the Perfon that is given beCoD^^W
Di^itb the Father y and the Love fhewn is truly
amazing. We muft be Itupid if it does not
yvarmly aifed: us. But if we llippofe him to
be no more than a Creature^ the Love fhewn
is ftrangely diminifh'd_, and the Argument
falls flat, and lofes its Force. It had been
no mighty Thing in Reality, for the Blefled
God to have given the temporal Life of a
bare Creature, a mere Man, for the Salvation
of Sinners : But when the Perfon whom He
gave for a Saviour^ was his own Dear and
Eternal Spn^ his Equal in Glory and Majelty,
this much aggrandizes the Gifty and ftrength-
pns the Motive. Upon this Bottom we may
very well cry out with the Apoftle, In this was ^ r^^j^n iv
manlfelied the Love of GoD toward Wy hecaufs ^^
that Go D fent his only Begotten Son into the IVorld^
that we might live through him. If Christ was
originally but a Creature, the Father's Love
to him, who is peculiarly ftyl'd his Son^ would
be more to be admir'd, than his Love to us.
He would then be abundantly rewarded for
all his Sufferings, as bitter as they were, in
A a 3 being
3 $8 The Old Scheme preferahJe to
Serm. being made the general Ruler of the Worlds
yj the Head of Angels^ and the Lord and Judge
^_^^>1^^ of all Mankind^ and having a Name giuen
him abo^je every Name^ at which every Knee is
tohoiv. God would then - do much more for
CHRIST3 than He could be faid to have done
for US3 even tho' we were eventually fav'd.
And fo the grand Argument by which
we fhould be ingagd to love GoD^ or our
Bleffed Saviour m Return,, with all our Hearty
and Stren^th^ and Mind^ and Mighty would be
Iplt^ and of no Force^ to ingage us to that
height of Love^ which it is the great Defign of
Chriltiaaity to raife Men to.
John ili. We are told^ That God j^ /ox^e-^ the World ^
16. that He gave his onely begotten Son ; and find
the Apoftles arc wonderful free in magnify-
Egh. ii. 7. ingj the exceeding Riches of his Grace ^ In his Kind-
nejs towards us^ through ChriST JesTJS. This
is reprefented as the moft inflaming Motive
to a Return of Love ; and the ftrongeft In-
gagement to a conftant^ chearful^ univerfal
Rom. V. Obedience. Herein was Love^ That -when we
10. were Enemies J we jvere reconciled to GoT> by th^
1 Johniv. Death of his Son : And^ That Hefent his Son to
■50. be a Troptiatlon for our Sins. Ncw this has its
full Force and Scope upon our Principles ;
but flgnifies little or nothing according to the
Arian Scheme.
Nor have we any fuch powerful Motive
to Tatlence and Rcfignation^ and to Love^ Cha-
rity ^ and Benignity^ in which much of real Re-
ligion lies J as the Meeknefs and Humility^j
the Tendernefs and Compallion of our Jesus
affords : Which yet upon the ^rlan Foot i$
confiderably weaken'd.
Nor hdi^xht New Sche?ne^ as far as I am
able to perceive^ any thing near fo great 4
Tendency^ as the Old one^ to raife our Ad-
miration
tide New, on many Accounts.
Jliiration and Thank fulnefs for the Divine
Perfe(5tions difplay^d in our Dear Redeem-
er's Undertaking, and the Benefits which
He conferrs ^ or to make us fo fenfible of the
Odioufnefsof Sin^ as in the molt effedual
Way to deter us from it ; or of the Force of
the Chriftian Revel ation^ as cffe dually to ex-
cite us to comply with it_, and live anfwera-
bly to it. Theie are Things of that Weighty
that they ought not to be over-look'd^ but
deferve to have a confiderable Strel's laid on
them. And then^
6. We may alfo confider^ which of thefe
Two Schemes conduces molt to the Comfort of
the Sincere and Upright. And this methinks
is very obvious. For need I ask you^ Which
tends moft to relieve under an afFecling
Senfe of Guilt_, and raife Hope under the nu-
merous Affaults of our AdverfarieSj for us to
have a Redeemer to trufl in^ that is Eternal
GoD^ or a dignify 'd Creature ? a San^iifier to
depend upon^ that is an infinitely Perfed
and Eternalj or only a created Spirit ? The
Thing fpeaks for itfeif. While they that hold
a Trinity of Gods^ One Supreme^ and Two Suh--
ordinate^ or One Go D ^ and Two Creatures^ arc
moft wretchedly diftraded and confounded^
and full of Jealoufies and Fears^, if they are
clofely thoughtful : They that according to
the Scripture hold Three Per fons and 077e Gq-d^
to whom they were devoted^ and endeavour
to give to each the Love and Hmour^ IVorJJnp
and Obedience^ that is refpedively due^ have
foUd Comfort afforded 'em by that Chriftian
Covenant on which theirHopes are bottom'd^
and may therefore rejoyce with a J^y that is i Pet
Hnfpeakable^ and full of Glory. 8.
The Confideration of Christ's proper
^irnal Godhead ^ may wonderfully encourage
A a 4 an4
360 The Old Scheme prefer aUe to
Serm. a^^ fuppbrt us, under all the Evils and Dan-
XI. S^^^ ^^ which we are exposM, and fill us
^^ypyg^l; with raised Hopes of compleat Deliverance in
a State of eternal Refi. This may animate us
in all our Addreffes to Heaven tor whatever
Grace we need_, hearten us in all our Co7jfliclsy
and fill us with firong Co7tfi)lauon^ even under
the greatelt Pifcouragements, either in the
Courfe of humane Ltfe^ or in a dying Hour.
While the looking to an Arian SaTjwur^ n^%ht
well enough create a chiUing Damp, difpirit
us with Teiar leaft fbme one Ihould fluck usr
out of his flandsj fill us with jealoufy leaft
we might mifcarry and be difappointed^
and wofully cramp us in confiding in him.
Nor can I, I confefs, be able to difcern how
the Apoflle could upon the New Scheme^ have
cry'd out fo freely at one Time, J know -whom
a Tim. 1. J Ij^^i^q believed: And I am per funded that He is
^^' Me to keep that which I haue committed unto
^ ,.. htm againfi that Day : And at another Time, I
o *Q 'am perfuadedy that neither Death ^ nor Life ^ nor
Angels^ nor FrincipaUtksy nor Towers^ nor Thhgs
prejent^ nor Things to come^ nor Height y nor Depth y
nor any other Creature ^ Jliall be able to feparate us
from the Love of Got>^ which is In Christ Je-
SDS our Lqrdy 2LS he might, and could, and
^id, upon the Old Scheme,
These are but broken Hints, and yet they
are very improvable. I from hence nicvej
I- That you would take Occafion deli-
berately to purfue the Comparifon between
the Two Schemes^ with refpect to the Do-
<5trine of the TiiiNiTY, upon luch Heads
as thefe prcpos'd, as ever you would ap-
prove yourfelves to God, as a<5^ing with 5/w-
cerity jn your Search about thjs Matter.
Much has been lately faid and written about
Sfncerlty^ which is Dioit certainly a very valua-
"■ ' ble
the New, on many Accounts. 361
Vit Thing;,and highly becoming the Searchers
after Truth. They that fearch mo^fincerelj,
bid the faireft for hxing at length in the Truths
and fo findwg Refifor their Souls. All pretend
to this Swcerhy : More I doubt by tar than
reach it. But leaving particular Perfons and
their Condu(5l to him thsLt fenrches Hearts^ and
trieth Reins, I move^ That you fiiould fhevv
you are Jincere and impartial in your Search
tor Truth upon the Head of the Trlnitj, by
tracing the Cowparifon of the two oppofite
Schemes through fuch Heads as thefe 1 have
propos'd. Thus doings I think you may ea-
iily difcern on which Side the Scale turns_,
and fo inftead of being Children tojjtd to and
fro, and carried about ivith every Wind of Docirine^
you may come tp a fix'd Settlement. If up-
on Search you can difcern^ that one Scheme
has better and fairer Froof, and llronger addi-
tional Fleas to back it^ and is liable to fewer
and lefs weighty Objections, and has a righter
^iw, and is more calculated to promote fe-
rious Piety, as well as folid Peace and Comfort
than the other^ I think you need not hefitate^
notwithftanding there may be feveral Things
remaining^ in which you may be far from be-
ing clear. For my own Part_, upon the moft
deliberate Judgment I can form^ I mult own^
That I think upon all thefe Accounts^ the
Old Scheme deferves to be preferr'd before the
Neu\ But 'tis your Bufinefs to inquire^ and
Icarch, and judge for yourfclves. An4 while
you are purjiiing your Search, I make it my
kequeft to you^ Not to forget that Saying
ot our Saviour, If any Man will do his Will, /j^ Johnvil.
jhall knoTi/ of the Doctrine , whither it he ofi']*
God : Which is a Palfage on which I think
>ve may be allow'd to lay a confiderable
ii.crefs, ^\nd then.
3^2 The Old Scheme, d'c.
Serm. 2- I farther move. That when you are
XL ^bus fairly pointed, not only to the OU
y,yyJ^^ Tatbs^ but the Good JVay^ in which you may
fnd Refi for your Souls , in a Matter of
fuch Moment as this is, you would dread the
Thoughts of faying, with thofe whom the
Prophet fpeaks of and to in my Text, IVe will
not walk therein. For this would argue fuch
felf-wiird Obitinacy, as could not fail of ex-
pofmg to the Severity of the Divine Dil-
pleafure. It did fo in the Cafe of thofe to
whom the Prophet particularly here referrs ;
and it would do the like in your Cafe alfo.
And this is no more to be wonder'd at, than
that the more Light and Helps are given^^
the more ready Compliance Ihould be ex-
peded. 'Tis very unhappy to miftake ia
a Matter of great Moment for want of
Light : But to refufc Light when ofFer'd, is
doubly criminal. To continue in a pernici-
ous Error through Wilfulnefs, is doubly and
Hebi vl. trebly faulty. But I hope better Things of you^
9. tho I thus ffeaL
Tude v; Now unto Him that is able to keep you from
^4, 15.' f^^^^^gy and to frefent you Fault lefs before the Fre-r
fence of his Glory with exceeding yoy ,• To the one^
ly iVife Go TJ^our Saviour ^ ke Glory and Majefty^
Dommion and Tower ^ both now and for ever.
Amen.
SERM.
36j
SERMON XII.
John III. 9.
Nicodemus anfwer'd and
faid unto him^ How can
thefe Things he ?
U R Bleffed Lord Jesus holds a Dif- Salrfrsw-
courfe in the beginning of this Chap- HallTw?^
§^^ ter_, with one that was a Mafler In If- ^<^y Lee-'
rad^ a Dodor of the Law^ that pre- ^"^^^ ^'^^*
tended to a great deal more Knowledge in^^-^Tf^-
Sacred Matters than the common People.
The Subje(5t on which he difcours'd was Re-
generations which was not only a thing to be
kno-wn by fuch as were taught of God^ but
there was an abfolute neceflity it Ihould be
exferlenc'dy by all that fliould reach the Salva-
tion which the Gofpel propos'dr Kicodemns
was fo lamentably to feek as to this Mat-
ter 3 that he at firit imagin'd our Lord
jTpake of repeating his natural flefhly Birth,
which he declares to be impoflibie. But
afterward? _, when from the Ccmparifon
jnade
364 Curiosity to he avoided.
Serm. made ufe of, of being horn of Watery ani
XII. ^f ^^^ Spirit_, he found the Thing fpoken
\/^>^f>^ of was quite of another Nature_, he was
perfectly amaz'd^ and could not take it in y
and cries out like one aftonilh'cJ:, ^^^ ^^^
thefe Things be ? He was no more able to
difcern now he could ha^e ^ than how he
could needy any other Birth than that which
he ha<^ already. He w^s wholly to feek
about this New Birthy becaufe he was un-
able to conceive the Way and Manner of
it.
In hirq^ and his Carriage upon this Oc-
cafion^ may we fee our own great Weak-
nefs livelily exemplify 'd. For hardly any
Thing is more natural to us^ than to re-
)ec5fc and difown thofe Things^ the Manner
whereof is unaccountable to us ; although
nothing can be more unreafonable. For
how abfurd is it to pretend to (:onfine the
Wifdom and Power of Go d to our fcanty
Model ? Not that we are forbidden to en-
quire even into the Way and Manner of the
f Works of G o D^ provided we do it with
' ^ Sobriety and Reverence. Nay we are told^
Pf. CXI. 1. That as His Works are great y fo they are
■> > fi^Z^^ ^^^ ^f ^^ them that have fleafure therein.
But Nicodemtis feems to have rejeded th^t
as having nothing in it_, as to which he
could not difcern how or which way it
could be. And this Carriage of his^ the E-
vangehft reprefents as very weak and foo-
li(h. And yet it defer ves our Obfervation^
that the Truth of our Lord^s Declaration
was this Way confirmed j and this very Car-
riage of his was an Evidence that no Man
that was not bom again could fee the King-
dom of God, It was the want of the New
Blrtb that led him in thjs manner to cry
'' ' ' out*3
Curiosity to he avoided. ^6iy
OUty How can thcfc Things he ? And v/hen SeRM*
fach an one as he^ beiiav'd in this man- xil.
ner_, under our Lord's own Inftrudrion^
how can we be furpriz'd to find Gofpei
Minifters oppos'd and (lighted^ when they
reprefent Divine Truths with the greatelt
Faithfulnefs out of the Word of God ? For
Mankind are the fame in all Ages. When
Christ himfelf was the Teacher^ we may
be alTur'd the Fault could not be in him 3
that Nicodenms the Scholar did not take in
the Inftrudion given. The Fault lay in
him that fhould have been the Learner.
There was fomething in his Temper that
hindered him from receiving Inltrudion.
And the fame Temper prevailing^ will at
any Time hinder the hearty Reception of
the Gofpei Dodrine. Our Lord tells Nlco^
demus that apply'd to him for Light^ very
plainly^ how Things were. He alfures him
that a New Birth was abfolutely neceffary
to his reaching Happinefs. He Ihews him
fomething of the Nature of it_, and illu-
Urates that to him by a Comparifon. But
he inftead of fubmitting^ and yielding to
Convidion^ cries out_, How can thefe Things
he ? How (fays he) can fuch Things con-
fift and hang together ? How are they pof^
fible ? Who IS able to conceive them ? How
can any Man believe them ? Are they not
altogether incredible ? And who can get
over the Difficulties which they have at-
tending them ? And tho' as to him ^ we
have Reafbn to believe that he afterwards
alter'd much_, laid afide this caviUing Spi-
fit, ^ and became a thorough Convert to
Chriftianity, yet are there many that per-
filt in this Temper all their Days^ and fo
remain unconvinc'd even of the Things in
whi<;h
Curiosity to he avoided.
which the Scripture is moll plain and po-
fitive^ becaufe they are not able diliindly
to account for them.
I dont know any one Thing in which
this unhappy Temper difcovers itfelf more,
than with Reference to the Dodrine of
the Trinity^ On which I have taken fo much
Pains. Confulting the Sacred Scriptures, we
find that Dodrine there reveal'd to us, as
far as is neceffary. For we learn from
thence, that there are Three that partake
of the Dh'ine Nature which is but one ; that
thefe Three are diftind: from each other,
fo that the one is not the other ; that they
are more difilncl from each other, than from
the Dl'vine Ejjence that is common to them
all ^ that every one of them is the Moft
Hio-k God ; that the firft is the Father^ the
Second the Son^ and the Third the Holy
Ghofi ; and that each of thefe has a dlftinti
Concern in the Recovery and Salvation of
fallen Man : And when we fet ourfelves
to fpread and publifh this Dodrine, inftead
of receiving it upon the Authority of the
Revealer, which would be but a very be-
coming Thing, many fall to cavilling, cry.
How can thefe Things be ? And refufe to ac-
quiefce and fubmit, becaufe they cannot
fee in what Way and Manner theie Three
can be om^ or how clearly and diftindly
to folve feveral Dijficdtks which fuch a Do-
d:rine as this may have objed:ed againlt it.
It is upon this Tcwper that I propofe to
make Ibme free Reflexions : And= that my
Difcourfe may be the more orderly, I pro-
pofe,
I. To give fome Account of the Cowmen*
nejs of this Tcrnpcr.
■ ». To
Curiosity to he avoided. ^6j
II. To (hew the Unrcafo72dhlenefs of it. ^jj
III. T o argue with fuch as are guilty^ in
order to their Comn^lon. And^
IV. T o offer fome Confide? atlons in order
to the checking fuch a Temper as this,
the Prevalence of which could not fail
of being attended with molt unhappy
Confequences.
I. I begin with confidering the great Com"
monnefs of. this Cavilling Tewpir. Nicodemus
tho' he pafs'd a Compliment upon our Sa-
viour^ as ^Teacher come from God^ yet queltion'd
the Truth of what he aflerted ; and he there-
fore queltion'd it^ becaufe he knew not how
to form a Conception of it. So have we many
that queltion the Truth of what is declared
in Scripture^ or may be fairly gather'd from
thence^ becaufe it is to them inconceiva-
ble ho-ii^ it Ihould be. And this is a Tern-
fer not at all peculiar to one Sort of Men
only^ or to any particular Age^ but it is
common to all. Something ot this Temper
has been alway working,* tho' it has not
at all times been alike prevalent^, nor is it
in all Cafes ahke Criminal.
The Jeii^JjJ) Church Was not without its
Cavillers. Jfap'h tells us of fome that fp^.ke ^Cal 78.'
agamfi GoD^ and fald^ Can GoB furnijh a'Table 19.
in the TVildernefs ? They were unwilling to be-
lieve it^ becaufe they could not fee hoii^ it
could be. Mofes in his fliltory gives us a parti- Num. xk
cular Account of the Matter referred to.
The People of Ifrael in their Journeyings
murmur'd and wanted Flefli^ and God de-
clar'd that they Ihould have it j but they
were
368
GtfRiGSiTY to he avoided.
Serm. were backward of Belief. They could not
XII * ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ think that in fuch a barren
^^^^.^^^ Wildernefs as that where they now werey
they could be furnifh'd with Flefli^ though
God himfelf had cold them they fhould have
their fill of it -^ and that not for One or
Two^ or f ive^ or even Ten^ or Twenty
Days only, but for an whole Month to-
gether. Tho' God aflur'd 'em by his Ser-
vant Mofes^ (whofe Word they had never
found to fail) that they fhould be furnifh-
ed to the full, they yet were difcourag'd,
becaufe they could not fee 'twas a poflible
Thing in the Cafe and Circumftances they
were in. The Unlikelihood was fo great,
that Mofes himfelf was ftagger'd. We are
Ver. la. told he cried out. Shall the Flocks and the
Herds he Jla'tn f&r them to fuffice them ? Or
fi)all aU the Fifi) of the Sea be gathered together
for them to fuffice them ? He could not think
whence there could come Flefti enough to
fatisfy above Six Hundred Thoufand Men,
in a Place fo barren and wild as that was,
tho' God himfelf had declar'd he would
take Care about it.
We find alfo a like Spirit at work in our
Saviour's Time. For when He told his
John vl. Hearers, That He came down from Hea'vetjy
38. they cry'd out. Is ?wt this ]esvs the Son of Jo-*
Ver. 4.1. feph, ^i^hofe Father an^ Mother Ti'e knoTv ? How h
h then that he faith ^ I came down frojn Hea'ven ?
And when He again told them. That He
was the Bread of Life^ and that the Bread iMch
\CY. 4^ He would give wa.^ his Fie jh^ which He would give
^ ^'* for dcLlfeofthcIVorld, they cavifd, and laid.
How can this Man gl^jc us his Flcfl) to eat ? They
knew not hov^ this could be^ and therefore
neither minded the Speaker, nor the Thing
fpoken.
Wicked
Curiosity to he avoided. 369
Wicked Men are at all Times remarkable Serm.
for this Tewpcr. 'Tis their common Language^ y^H,
Hooif doth Go D kvov'y Can He judge through the \^^^^>^
dark Clouds ? 'Tis hard to convince them Go d Job. xxii*
knows every Things when they are not able to 13.
perceive how He can do it : or to perfaade
^em He is every-where prefent^ when they
can't conceive in v/hat ALw?jer He is ^o, 'Tis
common with them to fay^ How ^o^j Go d Pf. Ixxili.
know 'i And^ Is th:re K?iowlsdge in the Mofi H'
High ? How can He have a diluind Know-
ledge of Things at fuch a Biitance ? Or how
(fay they) can we fuppofe him to concern
himfelf in our Affairs 1 'Tis natural to them
to ftart a variety of Doubting^ Heiltating^
incredulous Qiieitions^ when any Thing of-
fers that tends to check them in their hnful
Courfe^ or excite them to their Duty.
Somewhat alfo of a like Temper ever and
anon appears in truly Pious Perfons. Tho'
Alofes was honour'd with fpecial Familiarity
with Gou^ and was at the Head of Affairs
among the Ifraelites both in Church and State_,
and had a great many excellent Indowments j
yet he did not keep free from this Infedion.
Neither were our Lord's Difciples_, who were
to be the Founders of the Chnitian Church_,
wholly free from the Workings of fuch a
Spirit. When He was for Feeding a great
Multitude^ ^vithout making any antecedcnr
Provifion for it_, they cry'd out^ From whence ^ury^
can a Aian fatisfy theje Men with Bread here ins\.X, 4.
the Wilderne]s i They could not tell how 'twas
poffible for fo many to be fed in fuch a
Place as that was^ notwithftanding tliac He
that difcover'd his Compallion to the half-
ilarv'd People^ had a Power of working Mi^
racles. And we find in St. Tuomas^ this*" Tcm-
pr had rilcn to a very great Height. For
13 b wh-a
ego Curiosity to he avoided.
when Christ was rifen^ and the other Dif-
ciples told him He had appear'd to them,,
and they had convers'd with him^ he de-
clar'd^ He would not believe but upon his
Tohii XX ^^^^ Terms. He [aid to them ^ Except I pall fee
15. in his Hands the Vrlnt of the Nails ^ and -put my
Finger into the Print of the Nails ^ and thruj} my
Hand into his Side, I will not belieue. And we
are all of us apt enough^ elpecially when Dif-
ficulties are great^ to fay, with him^ Except
we fee, we will not bellve j quite forgetting
the Bleffing our Saviour has pronounc'd
on thofe of the oppofite Temper3 when He
Ver. :i9. faid^ BleJ/cd are they that haz'C not leen^ and jcf
ha've believed.
However^ I think thefe Hints may be
fuificient to ihew, That the Temper which Nl-
coder/ius here difcovers-, was far from being
peculiar to himfelf. 'Tis common to many
others with him3 'tis to be met with in all
Ages ^ and we have all of us no fmall In-
clmation that Way ourfelves^ and mult be
great Strangers at Home if we don't dii^
eern it. Let us then^
2. Spend a few Thoughts upon the Unrea-
fenablencfs pf this Temper. The Commofmefs ct it
is far from juitifying it^ or making h the lefs
Faulty. Nlcodemus was moft certainly much to
blame to be fo backward to believe^ when
he had One to teach and inltrud him^ that
neither could deceivCj nor be deceived. Safe-
ly might he have depended on his Account
of Things without any Hefitation : But he
was for hrft knowing hew they could be. This
IS a Sort of Condud that is very Unreafon-*
Me upon feveral Accounts.
I. Such a Temper carries in it a foolifli
Curlo/ityy which GoD never was difpos'd to
"-ratify. Curhflty is in it<^ own Nature, the
"" ' ' Lull
CuRiosiTr to he avoided. ^yi
Luft and Concupifcence of the Mind afrer
Things conceard. This was an Indination
that God thought fit to curb even in Para -^
di/e kklt\ by forbidding the Tree of Kmwkch^e i
And tho' in other Reipeds He has made a
moft merciful Provillon for Man's Reh'ef fmcc
his Fall, yet has He made no Provifion for
the gratifying of this corrupt Diipolition.
Phtlojop/jy indeed provides for the gratification
of Cwlofity m fome Degree : But Religion ra-
ther aims at mortifying it^ that it may not
expofe and indanger us. When therefore
God in any Cafe tells us^ That thus and thus
Things are^ if inftead of believing^ we cry
out^ Hoji' can tJjefe Things he ^ we are rather
Curious than wile ; and inftead of acquief-
cing in^ and making the beftofwhatGoD
has thought fit to dilcover^ we pry into what
He has thought fit to conceal,- which is a Car-
riage that Reafon can never juftify. It is our
doing that to the Great God^, who. is infinite-
ly above us^ which no Superior amongit mortal
Men could or would bear from an Inferlm-^
which is moft certainly highly blameable.
2. This Temper ca.n'ies in h gvcsit Per^jcrfe
nefs. It manifefts a plain Diicontentednefs
with God's Methods^ and a being bent up-
on our own. It is a 13eginning at the wrong
End, and an inverting God's Order^ whicii
is molt natural^ and the following which is
moft advantageous. From him are we to
have all our Light in Things Divine. But
if when he affures us^ That thus or thus
Things are^ we won't be fatisfy'd ; If when
he in lifts upon our being devoted to him as
Father, Son, and Spirit, and yet One Go u ;; and
declares to us^ that tho' there are Di'verfitks of
Operations, Admlniftratlons, and Gifts, yet there IS
the lame God^ andl.ovd, andi^vdts we inftead
B b :i ' of
372 Curiosity to he avoided,
'Serm. of Believing^ will cry out^ How can thefe T^jhgs
XII. ^^ ^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^ pcrfuaded that they
^j,r-y-^ are^ foj till we can know and perceive boii^
they can be fo 3* I don't fee but we may be
ever learnings without comifjg to the Kfjowledge of
the Truth. Common Reafon tells us^ that the
firll Step is for us to know^ IVhethtr or no
Things are thus and thus^ before we offer
to think how they can be thus ; But if we will
be at this firfl:^ and make our being clear
there^ necefiary to our being fatisfy'd and
alTur'd thst Things really are as God has
reprcfented them^ we this Way fhew fuch
Tev-jerfcnefs^ as if it IS once given way tOj will
hinder us from ever being latisfy'd. We thus
choofing for ourfelves^, Ihall have Reafon to
'count it a wonderful Mercy if VvC are not
left to ourfelves^ and fo endleily perplexed and
bewilder'd.
3. This Tewpr Carries in it flrange ^rr^-
game and Haughtbiefs. 'Tis in Effed a calling
i:he Great God to Account^ and inquiring
into his Reafons^ and the Grounds He goes
iipon^ before we'll credit his Reprefentations.
'Tis a queftioning^ Whether He has not mif-
reprefented Things_, either through Weak-
nefs or Defign : And an a^f ing as it we were
'able and ht to judge of his Methods, to the
Rom xl "^^^^^ forgetting^ tliat as h:s Jndg7ncnts are un-
33» * " y^^^'^'^^^^^j io his IVays are j)afl jind'wgottt. And
is,Ji"ot this' very tmrec.jonahle and unbecom-
^ing ? And does it not fhew Urange Forget-,
■fulnefs of God and ourfelves too r
* 4. This Temper among fuch as are calFd
' Cbrift:r^?Ts ^ is a downright Contempt ^/Christ.
For every Chrillian profeiTes to take Christ
for his Prophet and Teacher^ and to be rea-
dy to receive Light from him both as to
1 ruth and Duty. Now when He has com-
mitted
Curiosity to he avoided. 373
mitted our LeiTon to Writings if inflead of Sfrm.
I.earnino;, we will Difpute and Cavils and xyj
lay^ How can thefe Things- be ? We in cfFecfl ^^^-^-^s^
take upon us toh^irJfer than our Master^
and make him incapable of conveying Inftru-
d:ion to us ,• and fo no other can be expeded
than that we fliould remain in the Dark. If
we mult fee a Reafon for every Things we
itrangely difparage our Teacher and Inftru^
d:or^ and reprelent him as one not fit to
be confided in^ or depended on. I cannot
therefore^ I confefs^ lee any Occafion we
have to wonder^ that Nlcodcfnus met with a
fevere Reproof^ when he very well deierv'd
it upon this Account^ if there were no more
to be faid in the Cale. But then^
5*. Such a Temper cannot be given way to, ^
without afFeding to be wife_, ahQi;e that which ^ ^^^' '^'*
is irrittevy which is what St. Taul exprefsiy
warns againlt. Nothing becomes \\s more
than to think foberlyy or be wife to Sobriety : Rom. xii.
And there is not any one Thing about which -^
this Caution is more neceffary^ than with Re-
fped to the Doctrine of the Trinity. We
are out of our Place^ when we take the Li-
berty which the Schoolmen have given them-
felves upon this Article, God having gra-
cioufly vifited us with the Light of Life, we
ought not only contentedly^ but thankfully
to take Things as He has fet them before
us in his Word : But if out of Diflatisfadioii
with what is reveaTd^ and may be fairly
gathered from thence_, we will be for break-
ing into God's Incloiure^ and prying into
his Secrets, we fet ourfeives adritt^ we go
out of our Bounds^ and it is not at all fur-
prizing if God fo deals with us as to ma4^e
us fenlible^ how much He refents our Car-
riage.
B b :^ ^. Such
Curiosity to he avoided.
6. Such a Temper as this is therefore al-
io very blaimeable^ becaufe it is encouraged by
and bottomed on. >Jotions and Suppolitions
that have no Foundation. The Frhciples it
Hands upon^ and which alone could vindi?
cate ity are thefe Two : That 7i'e mttft he able
to comprehend what we bcUe'vej or clfe we are in
the IVrong to believe it ; and that it is Jijljoncura-
hie to GoD_, and mihecomlng fiich Creaturei as we
are^ to own that Divine Revelations have any fuch
Difficulties attending them^ as 7re are tncapahle of
folvlng. Now thefe are both of 'em Irrational
Principles : And therefore the Cavilling lem-
fer .which could from thence only be jufti-
fiedj cannot be reafonable.
I. I lay^ for us to cry out^ Hooi^ can thefe
Things hei when God has hgnily'd^ thac
thus they are^ is therefore tmreafonahle^ be-
caufe it is manifeftly tmreafonahle to pretend^
that we mufr be able to coinprehend what we be-
lieve^ or elfe we are in the Wrong to believe it.
To lay^ We are oblig'd to believe nothing but
what we can Comprehend^ is in efFecfl to fay,
v/e are not oblig'd to believe any Thing. For
what is it that we c^n comprehend ^ even of the
Things that are vaifly beneath the Great and
Blellcd God ? And if we are unable to com-
prehend much lower Things^ how can we ex-
ped it as to thofe that are vaftly higher?
AthanafiMs '^ fays of the Arians^ That they
hearing; that the Word is Son of the Father,
according to Cufiom fay^ How can this be i As if
that could not bc^ which they cannot underfiand.
And he adds:, It Is but natural for them in like
manner to dljTAite about the JJnlverje : liow can
therQ
*^ Athan. E^iji. ad ^e.itp. Oo. Tom. I. pag. iC6y
^•p, 192, ' ' "
J
Curiosity to he avoided, 375
■there he a Creatioji of Tljlngs that were 7iot before ?
Or^ How ca,n the Dufl of the Earth be turned into a
reafonable Man ? Or^ How can that which is Cor-
ruptibky become Incorrupiible ? Or_, Hovj :s the
Earth founded upon the Sea ? &C. If this is not
foolifli^ 'twould be hard in any Gale to fup-
port a Charge of Folly.
2. For us to offer to cry out^ How can thefe
Things be ? when God has (ignify'd that thus
tliey are_, is grofsly unreafonable^ becaufe it e-
vidently is fo^ to reprefent it either as a,
Thifjg difldonourable to the Blefjed Go D_, or at all
unbecoming fuch Creatures as we are^ to own that:
Divine Revelations have fuch Difficulties attendhig
thcm^ as are to us infolvable. It indeed either
of thefe could be maintained upon good and
folid Grounds^ it mult then be own'd that
our cavilling for want of having the \\''ay and
Manner difcover'd to us in Things Divine,
might be excused and juilify'd. But this can-
not be. For^
I. No good Proof can be given^ that it
is at all dijhonourable to the Blefj'cd GoD^ to give
forth fuch Re-velatmtSj ifz fome Cafes ^ concernmg
hlwfetfy and Things divine^ as fmdd he attcjjded
with Difficulties y that are to i:s ififol'uable. Thus
to do_, is not inconfiftent^ either with the
Ulfdoifiy or the Goodnefs^ or the HoUnefs of God 3
or any other eifential Perfedlion of the Di-
vine Nature^ as far as I can perceive.
This is not a Thing that appears at all in-
confiftent with the Divine V/iJdor/7. For why-
may not God this Way convince Man of his
Weaknefs ? Why may He not try him how
far he'l be govern'd by Hints^ and brought
to lay Strefs on God's own Reprefentations ?
As tar as I can judge, this would difcover
more Wifdom on Gqd's Part, and tend to
U]ake and keep Man more governable, than
Bb 4 if
^^6 Curiosity to he avoided.
if he could fee farther into the Bottom of
Things^ than he can do as Matters are now
fettled. Neither is it at all inconfiltent with
the Qocdvefs of GoDj, to give forth fuch Reve-
lations as fliould be attended with Difficul-
ties that are to us infolvable. For fince all
Light in Things Divine is from him^ He may
give or with-hold it^ and afford it in greater
or fmaller Meafure^" as He thinks beilj with-
out being liable to have his Goodnefs at all im-
peached. How^ in particular^ can the Good-
pefs of Go Dp be fuppos'd to lay him under
^ny Obligation to enable us to folve all Dif-
ficulties relating to the Dodrine of the Trlmtyl
Can we offer to think that He is ever the lefs
Goody for leaying us to feek as to many Things
that relate to this Dodrine^ which it con-
cerns us not to knowj when He has already
diicoyer'd to us a$ much as is Necelfary ?
And how can his Holinej} be herein concerned ?
How can it be the leall Abatement to the
Huftre of that Perfedion^, for God to keep us
~yn. the Dark as to the Way and Manner of fun-
dry Things^ the Subflance of which He has
diicover'd to us^ v/hen He is abundantly rea-
d^ to accompany the Knov/ledge given^
\Vith his fandifying Influence ? And if thefe
Pivine Perfedions remain unilurr'dj I don't
fee what Reafon we have' to imagine that
any others are concerned : Or why Man may
pot be unable to account for feveral Things^
ho7u they can be^ after God has done all that
it became film to do^ in order to inflrud and
give him Lights even in as momentous a Mat-
ter as the 7"r/»;r;'is ovvn'd to be." And then^
2. Neither can any good Proof be ^i-
yen^ that it is' a Thing at ^^I'unbecomhfg jucb
Creatures as we arc^ to own that fome Divine Re-
"velaticns ha've fuch Dlfficulihs attending tkm^ as
Curiosity to he avoided. 377
m-e to us Infol'vable. 'Tis not the Icaft Difho-
nour to us^ fo far to fubmit to the Moft High^
as to acquiefce in his Difcoveries^ notwirh-
Itanding we are not able to pry into the Rea-
fons of the Things difcover'd. 'Tis not the
leail Degrading of us^ for him to require us
upon his Reportj to believe Things are^ tho'
we are unable to fee how they can be. Nor
can it be any real Damage to us^ to have
leveral Things reveaPd to us as to the Sub-
fiance^ without being acquainted with the
Manner of them. For neither is the Truth and
Reafonablenefs of Fahh concern'd in our
knowing the Manner of Things reveafd ; nor
does our Iquaring our Tra^ife accordingly de-
pend upon it. And by Confequence^, nei-
ther our Hapfhefs nor our Comfort is here at
Stake. And as long as it pleafes God to
give us all the Light that we can truly fay is
mcejfarjy if we cavil and are uneafy^ we are
manifeftly unreafojiabk. Again,,
7. The Cavilling Temper which my Text
exempli fies^ is therefore plainly unreasonable^
becaufe it is diredly oppolite to certain
Maxims of evident Truth_, and great Im-
portance, ril mention but Two of
thefe : And the One of them is^ That what
God has reveal' d^ is 7nofi certa'mly triiey and
would be in fain opposed : And the Other
this_, That it is 7tot for m to pretend to pry into
his Secrets.
I. I fay_, What God has revealed y is mofi cer-
tainly trite ^ and would he in vain opposed. This
is a molt reafonable Maxim ^ by which our
Condud: fhould be regulated. If we are once
fatisfy'd God has reveaPd any Things
we are bound to adhere to it^ whatever the
Pifficulties may be it is attTended with • and
we fail in our Duty^ in doing otherwifc.
We
378 Curiosity to he avoided.
We take too much upon us^ if we withhold
our AlTent^ till we can get clear of, and are
able to fblve them. The dired contrary to
which would be truc^ were it m any Gale al-
lowable or julHliable/or us to [ay^How can theft
things be ^ after that God has fignify'd to us
that thus they are. 'Tis faid indeed^ 'tis a
'vahi thing for us to pretejul to helie-ve what we
dont tmderjiand : And that this is but an
ading like Parrots, who pour forth Words,
without any Notion of the Things utter 'd ;
but I hope this may be carried too farr, or
elfe tho' we find our Bleffed Saviour exprefsly
•• . faying, I am In the Father ^ ajid the Father in me^
Join XIV. ^^ ^^^^ ^Qj. pj^^^g^^ |.Q beheve it, till we can
conceive how it is : And then it will, I ap-
prehend, be long enough before we give
our Aifent.
2. Another Maxim ^ that I think there's
all the Reafon in the World for us to embrace
and ad upon, is this ^ That it Is not forfuch as
Ads i. 7. "J^- ^^^ ^^ prete?td to pry into the Secrets of the Mofi
High. And I cannot fee how this can be
^ontefted, by any that are fenfible of the in-
finite Diftance there is between God and us.'
Our Lord plainly told his Difciples, It Is not
for you to know the Times or the Seafons which the
Father hath pit In his own Tower. And it it was
not for them, much lefs is it for us. And if
we are not to pry into Times and Seafons ^ 1
think it is yet much lefs for us to pretend
to inquire how thofe Things can be, the
Way and Manner of which Go d hath faid
nothing about , and thought fit to con-
ceal from us. And for us to ad contrary to
iuch Maxims as thef.', is to do violence to
bur own Reafon, as well as to fly in God's
Facej And therefore to be fure aiufl; be ve-
ry blameable and faulty.
An I?
Curiosity to he avoided.
And thus having offered what I think
cannot but appear to Conliderate Perfons
fufficicnt Proot of the unreafonablenejs ot fuch
a Cavilling Temper as that of J^^lcodemus in
thi^ Text^ I proceed^
5. To argue a little with fuch as are gulhy
of this Fact^ in order to their Conviction,
I'm fenfible there moil commonly is a great
ItifFnefs prevailing among thofe of this Tem-
per^ fo as that 'tis one of the hardclt Things
in the World to convince Them : And yet if
they would but fedately put Four ^cftlons
to themfelves^ and clolely purfue them _, I
ihould think they would be gravel'd^ and fee
caufe to be humbled^, and alham'd of thdr
Condud.
4V/. T. Why fhould any wonder that Go n
is mcompreJx77fiblc ? 'Twas a wife Quellion of
Zophar^ tho' he was captious enough, C^^{//^ Job xi. 7.'
thoH by fearch'mg find out God ? Caitjir thou find out
the Alnnghty unto perfecUon ? And does not Job
alfo concurr_, when he crys out_, Lo thefe are Job xxvi.
fart of his IVays ^ hut how little a portion is heard 14,
of him ? And he adds elfewhere^ Touching
the yilmighty^ zi^e cannot find him out. As eafy ^ .,
as it is hy feeling after him^ toijnd God out ^^'^^^^'
as to his Beings and as vjfible a3 his Eternal ''^'
Tower and Godhead are^, in the things that are Adls xvlL
tnade^ yet can we not by all our Studies and 2-7-
Endeavours^ find out the manner of his Being.
And why fiiould we wonder at it^ confider-
ing the Infinltenefs of his Excellency ? Since
he is Incomprehen/ibley why may he not have
Properties and Perfedions which we cannot
fathom^ tho' we may have fome Hints given
us concerning 'em ? Since there is much of
God that could not have been-known without
ilevelacion^ (as in particular that the One
380 Curiosity to he avoided.
God is Father y Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ and to be
ador'd as fuch) how can it feem flrange to
us to be unable to account for the How^ and
the Manner of it-, if Revelation is filent ! For us
to cavil and fay, How can tbefe things be ? is to
quarrel and be difcontented^ becaufe we
cannot comprehend what is ijicowprehenji/jle.
Our Lo R D had here plainly told Nkodemm^ that
the manner of the Spirits workings was like the
blowing of the IVmd^ the Sound whereof might be
heard^ but there was no knowing whence it came^
nor whither h went : And yet he was bent upon
com'^rehending it, when he faid,, How can thefe
things be ? And on this Account_, he was defer-
vediy upbraided for his Folly. And mull it
not then be moft egregious Folly for us to run
into the fame Fault ?
c%. 2. How can we pretend diftindly to
explain and clear up what we cannot compre-
hend ? 1 fliould think we might very fafely
be excused from that^ whether our inability
to comprehend a thing arifes from the PFeak-^
nefs of our Realbn^ or from the Difficulty of the
SubjeB : and much more when it arifes from
both at once ; and is both caused by the
weaknefs of our Minds^ and the incompre-
iienlible infinity of the Subje<5t which our
Thoughts are exercised upon ; which is our
very Cafe with Refped; to the Trinity. Why
ilioijld we fay^ How can thefe things- be ? as if It
lay upon us to explain them^ when they are
fo manifeftly beyond our Fathom.
^/■. 5. Have we not abundant Evidence of
the narrow Limits to which the Capacities of
our Minds are ccnfm'd ? Have we not Hun-
dreds an.d Thoufands of Things in the gene-
ral Courfe of. Nature^ and with Relpect to
pur-
Curiosity, to he avoided. 381
ourfelves in particular^ of which we can give Serx^
no account ? When a Man that is favoured
with a wcll-atteiled Divine Revelation^ is at
every Turn crying out^ Hoiij can thefe Tb'mgs
be^ i think it may ihame him to put to him
fuch Queftions as God put to Jc/h in his Pa-
roxyfm : V/bereupon are the Fomtdations of the Job
f^arrljfafiened^ Ha fi thou entered mto the Depth of K-K.%\m.
the Sea ^ Hafi thou prcelvd the Breadth of the ^ xxxix'.
Earth ? or hwii'n the Way v^here Light dwelleth ?
Hajl thou enter d Into the Xreajures of the Snow ^
Knoweft thou the Ordinances of Heaven ? Canft
thou lift lip thy Voice unto the Clouds ? Haf^ thou,
given the Horfe Strength ^ and the hke. And it
a Man finds himfelt miferably puzzled in llich
interior Things as thefe^ may it not well be
expeded he iliould be much more confound-
ed^ if he pretends to inquire^ Why the fame
God fhould be Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ and
how being fo^ He lliould yet be but One
God?
And are there not a great many Things
as to ourfelves alfo^ of which we are able
to give no tolerable Account ? None ever
equaFd Solomon in Wifdom, and yet he lays^
Thou knovjcfi not how the Hones do grow hi the Bccl. xi,
TVomb of her that is with Child. And it may be 5.
very iafely added to it^ That we know not
how our Spirits are united to our Bodies,
nor how Senfation js perfornvd. nor how we
are nourilh'd and grow, nor how we expire
and die. And can we then think it at all
ftrange that there iliould be much in the
Great and Blefied God, and relating to him,
that we cannot account for ?
What can we fay to God's Eternity ? What
can we make of a Duration that had no Be-
ginning ? How can we difliiK^Iy conceive an
JLternhy pafi. bounded as it were by the pre-
fent
582 CuRiosiTr to he avoided.
fent Inftant ? A Duration continu'd^ without
increaling, by the Addition of more Ages to
thofe already pafs'd ? And if we are puzzled
here^ how can it appear itrange that the Do-
d:rine of the Trinity lliould be attended with
fuch Difficulties as we cannot account for ? I
don't fee that any other could reafonably be
expected. And therefore to make ftrange of
thisj or run into'Complaints^ or reckon we
can from hence have an Excufe in the Negled
of Duty_, is a manifefl and egregious Weak-
nefs.
^/. IV. Can any Thing be more abfurd
and foolifli^ than to pretend to meafure what
is Infinite by what \s finite ^ Gan the vaft Ocean
be pour'd into an Egg-fhell ? The Emblem
feems to be very natural^ and apt to convey
Inltruclion. Were we able to give an Ac-
count how the Father generated the Son^ and
how the Holy Spirit proceeded from Father and
Son^, and how thefe Three are One m all elTen-
tiai Perfections^ and yet dlfilnci in their Rela-
tions^ and confequent Operations^ either He
mufl; be brought down to us, or we muft be
rais'd up to him : Either we muft become In-
finite^ or He muft become finite. Without ei-
ther the one, or the other, there would be
no Proportion between the Faculty contem-
plating, and the Objed contemplated. Why
fhould we then upon an Account given of the
Trinity from Scripture, pretend to fay, Hoiv
can thefe Tolngs be '< If we well and clofcjy con-
fider it, we fliall find that this is what wx can
no more give an Account of to ourfelves, and
our own" Mmds, than we can to the Bleiled
God. Let us not tlierefore hold on and per-
fift, as we would not expofe ourfelves to un-
avoidable Sl'same and Confuriou.
And
Curiosity to he avoided.
And now I come in the lafl Place^ accord-
ing to Promife, to oifer a few Co?i(UeYations^
which if they are gi\ren way ro^ it might be
hoped would help to check fuch a Cavilling
Temper y as that which I have hitherto been
endeavouring to difcourage.
1. Consider J, That to rejecfl whatever
we cannot comprehend^ is to make Revela-
tion ufelefs. That tells us^ That in the Be-
ginning Go D created rhe Heavens and the Earth :
And we no more know the Mmner of the
Creation^ or how the Things that are^ were
brought out of Nothings than we do the
Manner how Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ are
0?ie in Godhead. And if we may be allow'd to re-
jec^t what we cannot comprehend^then would
our Light fet Bounds to that of God's Reve-
lation^ which moft affuredly is as IrrationaI_,
as to make our Light the Meafure of his
Light. And upon this Foot^ a Revelation
ever fo well evidenc'd to be from G o d^
would anfwer no End at all. Let this then
be a fix'd Principle with us^ That whatever
God reveals^ is to be admitted and receiv'd^
whether we can comprehend it or no : And
then we fhall have nothing to inquire after,
when any Thing is propos d^ but. Whether
God really has reveal'd it? We ihall then,
as we have good Realbn, cry out, with the
Apoftle, Let Go d be true^ but every Alan a Rom; ili
{.yar. 4-
2. Consider, that the reprefenting it as
necelfary for us to have clear and difilntl Ideas
of whatever we believe, is to open a wide
Door to moft wretched Confufion. 'Tis often
laid by the Oppoleis of a Scriptural Trinity,
til at fuch a Tri?}ity in the Godhead is not poj/ibie.
But
Q^S^ Curiosity to he avoided.
But how do the}^ know It is 7iot foJJiMe ? The
Reafon given is^ they cannot conceive or
comprehend it. Comprehend it I I know not
how they fhould I But tho' they don't^ they
yet may believe it^ if God has difcover'd it.
13ut (lay they) if we fioould believe what we
dont comdrehend^ we Jhould either heliez'e a meer
Nothings or gi've our ajjcnt to a fimple Wordy or
JSlame^ or Sound ^ without any Idea affixt to it. But
turn this about in your Thoughts^ and you'll
find it will not hold. For in believing a 3"r/-
vlty in the Godhead^ we believe fomewhat of
which we have a Knowledge that is fufficient.
We believe that there are three in the God-
head ^ the Father y the JVord^ and the HoljGhoft:
We believe that the Father created the World
by the Son and Sfirit : And that the Son took
our Nature upon him^, and redeem'd Man-
kind : and that the Spirit fandifies us^ fo as
to fit us for all divine Purpofes : We believe
that Each of thefe is the Moft High God^ and
to be ador'd as fuch^ tho' itill they are di-
jlMi from each other^ in a Way that we can-
not underftand- or explain. And is all this
nothing ? We believe the Truth and the Re-
velation of all this. We believe all this up-
on God's own Teflimonyj notwithltanding
we cannot fay we know_, how thefe Things can be.
And to pretend to clear and dlfimcl Ideas as to
the Manner of them_, would be to aifed to be
wife abo've what is written. But to fuppofe clear
and dlftlnci Ideas of the Things believ'd to be
neceffary to a true and real Faith^ is quite
to (hut out the Credit of the Divine Teitifier^
and bring Things to ifand upon their own
Evidence : And lo the Dijllnttion between 'Na-
tural and Ke^jeaVd Religion would become need-
Icfs and ulelels^ and be turned out of Doors;
which is the very Thing fome People feem
to
Curiosity to he avoided. 385
to be aiming at^ but I hope they will never Serm.
have our Confent or Concurrence. XII.
3. Consider^ God has wife Ends to
ferve^ by keeping us in Ignorance as to the
Waj and Manner of feveral Things^ which He
has thought fit in the general to difcover
to us. In doing thus^ He has not exer-
cised a mere arbitrary Authority ; tho' if
He had_, it would have become us to have
fubmitted : But He has this Way done what
is worthy of himfelf^ and at the fame Time
confulted our Benefit. He has this Way ta-
ken an efFedual Method to make us fenfible
of our Diftance_, and keep us humble ; which
is a Thing we very much need. He this
Way tries us^ how far our Regard to hint
and his Authority will carry us. Our Faith
this Way becomes more rewardable than it
would be in any other Method ^ in as much
as we depend upon the Teitifier^ where we
cannot fee intrinfick Evidence : And He this
Way alfo keeps up a decent Diftindion be-
tween this prefent and a future State. Thefe
are Things of Weight ; and the more ma*
turely we confider them^ the more Rea-
fon we fhall find to be eafy under the Me-
thod God has taken with us^ and to ftrive
againft^ inftead of cherifhing a Cavilling^
Spirit.
And laftly,, let it be confider'd^ That our
Salvation depends much more upon our jpr^-
£H/ing according to our Principles^, than upon
our Speculations about thofe Principles. And
fo long as we have but Knowledge enough
of Father y Son^ and Holy Ghofi^ to hare vital
Intercourfe with^ and Communications from
Each^ and do but reach at laft the Hea*
venly Felicity, we fhall have no need to
C c matter
Curiosity to he avoided.
matter it^ tho' there are fundry Things re»
lating to Each, of which we are at prefent
unable to give any diftindl Account. And
the Darknefs we are left in by Revelation
need not in this Refped be any Hin-
drance to us ; for which we ought to be
very thankful.
Upo n the Whole^ the Premifes being con-
fider'd, I think, while we readily admit
what the Scripture reveals concerning the
Jrlnhjy we may well be difcourag'd from be-
ing peremptory in determining any Thing as
to the Mannev of it. There have both among
Ancients and Moderns^ been feveral Emblems
made ufe of as Illuftrations, when the Do-
drine of the Trinity has been under Confide-
ration, and Arguments have been drawn
from them. The Soul of Man, and its Fa-
culties *, the Sun and its Rays, the Water
and its Vapours, and Extension with its
Dimenfions, have all been made ufe of as
Emblems in this Cafe. The Schoolmen ge-
nerally (after the Mafter of the Sentences,
and St. Auftln) made the Soul of Man an
Image of the Trinity:^ faying. That as God
underftood and lov'd himfelf, fo did the Soul
nnderltand and love itfeif. But in the mean
time they are unable to tell us either how
the Blelied God ads upon himfelf, or how
the Soul of Man as underftanding and
"loving itfeif, differs from itfeif as underftood
^wck icv'd. And I muft fay. That m my Ap-
prehenfion, Comparifons of this JSlature
give
'^ Mens rneminip fc^ intelligit fe^ cliligit fe : Hoc
ft cernimus^ cernimus Trinitntem ; non quidem Dcum, fetL
i?7i<i7in€m Dei. Auguft. de Trin. Lib. XIV. c viii.
Curiosity to he avoided.
give no Clearnefs to the Aljfiery of the Tri-
nity, or they give only a falfe Light., adding
fuch Imperfedions, as tend to overthrow
and deitroy the Dodrine they are brought
to fupport and defend. I move therefore^
That we fliould be cautious in the ufe of any
fuch emblematical Comparifons^ and not lay
much Str efs upon 'em ^ or think theyl,
help us to conceive ho-w thefe Things can be^
that God has fignify'd to us ad:ually are.
Let us remember _, that at belt ire know
but hi part , and that Part we know is
but fmall and inconfiderable^ if it be com-
pared with the Part that is conceal'd from us.
Let us remember^ That [ccret Tolngs belong ^^yx-
unto the LoRD ^wrGoDj and not be fo Pre- ^^^^- ^9'
fumptuous as to offer to pry into any of
his Secrets_, left we meet with fuch a Re-
buke as our Lord Jesus himfelf gave to
St. Vcter^ when not content with knowing
what he himfelf was like to meet wich^ he
was for enquiring what would be the Treat-
ment of his Fellow-Difciple St. John, Says
our Lord then to him^ What is that to thee ? i^y^^ ^^j;
What^ indeed J u it to zfSy how thofe Things 21.
are^ as to the Circumftances of which God'
has not thought fit to make us any Difco-
veries ; and in which (let the Way and Mu7j-
ner of 'em be of one Sort or another) our
Duty has no concern ? Let us be thankful
for what Knowledge we have^ and rrmke the
beft Ufe of it we can : And in the mean
time humbly own our Ignorance and Dark-
nefs as to the Way and Manner^ of what God
has been pleas'd to r^eyeal to us with Refe-
rence to the Si4bfiance of this Dodrine. And
whatever we are ignorant of^ or in the dark
about^ let us conclude (as we have good
Reafon) That if we have but the Grace of our 2 Cor"
C C Z Lord^ xiii. 14."
388 Curiosity to he avoided.
Serm. Lord Jesus Christ,, and the Love of G0D3
^Y, ^^^ ^h^ Communion of the HoLY Ghost with
^^^..^Y^ 7iSy we have not only as much Knowledge of
the Bleffed Trinity as is neceffary to our
being Scripturally Orthodox in that I)od:rine_,
but as much Knowledge of it as is neceffary
to fecure us of Happinefs^ Peace and Com-
fort, both in this Life, and in the next.
And if this will not fatisfy us^ and at the
fame time make us thankful, I think we are
both unreafonable, and inexcufable.
I conclude with the Apoille's ferious and
J Pet. iil. feafonable Admonition, Te therefore^ Beloved^
17, 18. feeing ye know thefe Things hefore^ beware left ye
alfo being led away with the Error of the Wicked ^
fall from your own Stedfaflnefs. But grow in
Grace ^ and in the Knowledge of our Lord and Sa-
TJiour Jesus Christ : To Him be Glory ^ both
now and for e^uer. Amen.
SERM.
389
SERMON Xlir.
Ephe s. IV. 15.
Speaking the Truth
Love.
tn
|T. Tml the Apoftle was a great Ad-
mirer of Peace and Lo^ve^ as well as of Salrers-
Truth. Next to Gofpel Holinefs^ lhall,T«e/:
know of no one Thing which he more ftu- ^^ . ^^'
dioufly inculcates upon "all Occafions_, than js;^^ % o^
the keepmg of the Unity of the Spirit in the 1720.
Bond of Feace. This he earneftly recommends
in the Beginning of this Chapter^ joyntly
with Lowlinefs^ and Meeknefs^ Long-fufferlng Ver. 2, 5.
and a loving Forbearance. And having once
touch'd upon this Subjed^ 'twas not eafy to
him to divert. He goes on to take Notice of
a Sevenfold Unity^ which one would think
might be fufficient to keep all Chriftians
dole together^ and ingage them to love one
another. There //_, fays he^ one Body^ and one Ver. 4, 57
Spirit y one Hope of our Callings one LoRD^ o?%e 6,
Faith ^ one Baptlf???^ and one God and Father of
/JL How then can Chriftians be any othej;-
C c } than
390 Truth and Love,
Serm. tl^s^ at Unity among themfelves ? We may
XIII. f2.fely fay^ they could not fail of this if their
s^^^^^^^ Practices did but anfwer their Principles. He
Vcr. 13. afterwards faltens particularly upon the Unity
of the Faith. This he reprelents as the End
and Defign of the Inftitution and Continu-
ance of a Gofpel Miniftry^, and one of the
moll proper Means of promoting that Stea-
dinefs that fhould be aim'd at; by all that
have any Value for the Credit of Religion^
or their own Peace. And then follows the
Claufe I propofe to take into Confideration y
m which a Motion is made^ which confider-
ing from whom it comes^ ought to have the
Force of a Command with us^ about Sfeakwg
the Truth in Lo^e^ which inftead of at all
weakning or flurring^ would by Experience
be found to add not a little to the Strength
and Beauty of that Tmth^ which it mult be
own'dj has an heavenly Rife and Original.
It has been the Opinion of fome^ That it
was ^ the Intention of the Apoltle by this
Motion of his^ to recommend Sincerity ^ and
to fi:ir up^ where we pretend Uve and Af-
Rom xii ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ that it he without DiJJi-
^^ " ' mulatlony as he elfewhere admonifhes : And
I'joh. iii. ^^^ t^ ^<^ve ;;; Word^ or tongue only, hut in Deed
,3, and in Truth ^ as another Apoftle has exprefs'd
it. But the Connexion points us here to
BoElrlnal Truth ^ in which it \s a molt defira-
ble Thing we Ihould all be fo fettled^ as not
to be liable to be tofs'd about with every
Suggeltion as a PuiF of Wind, or Ihaken with
every Blalt from fuch as fall into Miftake§
Ver. 14" ^^5^^^^v^Sj ^^4 fometimes lie in wait to de-
ceive their Neighbours. And in this Senfe,
Loye will much rather be a Help than an
Hindrance to us. The more careful wmer
to joyn Truth and Love together, the firw
Truth and Love, 391
will be our Settlement^ and the more re- Serm*
markable our Growth ,• the more Honour XIII.
will Almighty God have from us^ and the v,^^>^^.^
more ihali we credit our Holy Profeffion.
So that it may not be improper for u«
here diftindly to confider^
I. The Truth we are to fettle m^ fpeak^
and adhere to ,-
II. The Love in which we are to /peak this
Trut/j ;
III. The Motives that fhould make us
careful to maintain this Lo've ; And-^
IV. The Confiflency of hearty Lonye^ with
that Zeal for Trut/j, which is elfewhere
recommended as our Duty.
I. I begin with that Truth which we are to
fettle in^ fpeak^ and adhere to : As to which^
Thanks be to God_, we have no Reafon tp
complain we are left in Uncertainty. We
have a fufficient Diredory^ and know where
to find it. Filate in a bantering Way^ inquir'd^
JVhat ^ Truth? He ask'd it ot One that was Joh.xviii,
very able to anfwer his Queftion^ but he 38.
did not ftay for an Anfwer : Which fliew'd^
either that he was very indifferent about it^
or too much in Halte, or elfe thought it a
vain Thing to fearch after it. But Trut% in
Reality is a moll noble Thing. It is well
worth Waiting and taking Pains for^, and
Searching after with great Diligence ,• and
it will amply reward our Pains it we do but
find it. It was the great End of Christ ia
coming into the World to hear Witnefs to It^
C c 4 and
392 Truth and Love.
Serm. and make it known : And it is the main
XIII. 1^^%^ ^^ Revelation to fet it before us^ and
v^/-v->w communicate it to us with Advantage. The
Ads Apoftles of our Blefled Saviour /pake forth
stxvi. 25. the JVords of Truth. What they deliver'd to the
World for Truth^ was communicated to theni
from Above j and they made a faithful Re-
port. Without all Doubt it is reueal'd Truth
that is here intended_, which goes much far-
ther in Divine Things than the mere Light
of Nature could ever have carry'd us. It
comprehends the Effentials of Chriftianity^
and particularly concerning the One Spi-
RiTj One LoRD^ and One Go d^ that
is taken Notice of in the Beginning of
this Chapter^ upon which Doctrine I nave
given you fo many Difcourfes^ in the
Courfe of this Ledure. Common Truth is
valuable in its Place^ and defer ves Efteem :
But we are here pointed to the Truth as it
is /» Jesus. From him it came_, and in him
it centers. In the grand Concern of Reli-
Sion^ we have not to do with Truth of
lan's devifmg^ but of God's difcovering ^
for He is the Go d of Truth,
ycr. 21. This Truth^ we are firfl to receive and
learn^ and then to fpeak and publifh_, declare
and propagate. We are to receive it as it
is deliver'd^ and fpeak it as it is communica-
ted : And the nearer we keep to the Terms
in which it is deliver'd^ we are fo much the
fafer . Having it committed to us^ we fhould
reckon it a great Truft ; And it highly con-
^•j-^^j;cerhs not only Minifters^ but all the People
2, * 'of God to be found Faithful. We fhould keep
it entire without changing or ' altering it ;
i^.i. 13- holding fafi she Form of found JVords. We are
firmly to adhere to it_, whoever flight it^ to
fland up for it whenever it is afTaulted or op-
^ ^^^ pos'd^
Truth and Love.
pos'd_, and as far as we are able to clear it
when it is obfcur'd. We are not to part
with it or let it go at any Rate. We mull
keep the Truth of Christ's Dodrine jull
as it was delivered to the Church by his
Apoftles^ and as it is contain'd inthebacred
Records^ from whence (rather than from
humane GlofleSj Comments^ and Expofitions,
how juft and valuable foever) we are to tak^
and colled it for our own Ufe. We muft ad-
here to it_, whatever we may fufFer^ and
whatever our fo doing may expofe us to.
And if we corrupt or mifireprefent it^ betray
or lofe it upon any Terms_, we are accounta-
ble to the Judge of all another Day.
The more valuable we find this Gofpl-
Truth to be^ the more Reafon fhall we difcern
we have to be very thankful^ that luch di-
ftind Difcoveries are made of it to us^ as
well as to thofe who immediately fate under
the Preaching of Christ and nis Apoftles :
and that it has been handed down to us at-
tended with fuch an Evidence of its Divi-
nity^ and in fo great Purity^ and with fuch
a Freedom from adulterating Mixtures. We
Ihould count it a mighty Happinefs^ that in
the molt capital Matters we are not left in
any diftrac5ting Uncertainty^ but have Light
funicient to guide us in our Affections and
Motions. This is a Privilege that it becomes
us highly to prize^ and carefully to improve.
'Tis this Truth that is the Treafure hid in the Mat- xlii.
Field ^ the Pearl of great Price^ which can- 44> 45-
not be bought too de^r. We fliould in all
proper Ways exprefs our Value for it, and
take care to walk anfwerably. We Ihould
dread the Thoughts of holding it in Unrighte- Rom. i.
oufnefs : And next to that_, I know of no one 18.
Thing of which we have more Reafon
;. ^ • to
i594 Truth and ILoyeI
Serm.^^ be fearful^ than the holding it in XJn.-
XIII. charitablenefs : From which that wc may be
(•^V^ preferv'd^ let us^
II. In the fecond Place^ Confider the Love
in which we are to [peak this Trutb^ or with
which our Adherence to it fhould be ac-
company'd. It highly becomes us^ and
much conC&rns us^ to [peak the Truth in Lo've.
We fhould do it in fuch a Way as may teitify
and exprefs both our Zox/e to God^ and our
Fellow-Creatures.
We are to hold Gofpel-Truth in the Love of
GoDj, remembring that it is the natural
and avow'd Defign of it^ to inflame and
maintain the Love oi God in our Hearts^
without which 'tis altogether incapable of
doing us Service. And it fhould herein quick-
en our Care^ that we are fo exprefsly told_,
^... '*• That If any love GoD^ the fame is known of Him :
^^^^* ^* /. e, fo known of Him^ as to be approv'd
by Him.
We are alfo to hold Gofpel-Truth in the
Love of our Fellow-Creatures^ and that both
thofe of them that know and own the fame
Truth joyntly with us^ and thofe that either
know it notj or know and own it but in
part ; that demurr about it^ and cannot be
prevail'd with to joyn with us in adhering to^
and defending it ; or that differ from us as to
the proper Ways and Methods of fupporting
it.
All agree^ That we are in Duty bound to
hold and adhere to the Jhtth of the Gofpel^
in the Love of fuch Brethren as hold the fame
Truth joyntly with us^ and intirely concur
therein. Our Bleifed Saviour is fo pofitive
Tohn xiii. ^^ ^^^ Declaration^ By this jhall all Men know
25. that ye are my Difcifles^ If ye have Love one to
another.
Truth and Love. ^pc
another y and hath fo directly referred to this Serm.
as a Proof and Evidence that Perfons are XILI
true ChriitianSj that there is no Room for ^\-^^^
a Demurr about it^ as underftood with fuch
a Limitation. And it were well if this was
but confider'd as it ought^ that we might fee
Brotherly Love abound more among thofe who
without any difcernible Diverfity of Senti-
ments adhere to the fame Truth^ as it has
been delivered to the Saints j- and that ins be-
ing exprefs'd in all proper and becoming
Waysj might fall under a more general Ob-
fervation.
But then^ this is far from being all that is
requifite_, in order to tht ftilfiJl'mg the i^<?7^/jam. ii.8.
Law of Love. For there is a Love alfo that
is due to tiTofe- to whom Gofpcl-Truth is not
made knov/n. Even they that continue in
Darknefs and Ignorance^ ought to be Ob-
jects of our Love^ on Account of their par-
taking of the fame Nature with us_, together
with its noble Powers and Capacities. We
fhould efteem any Thing in 'em that is truly
valuable_, beware of running 'em down_, be-
caufe they have not been fo priviledg'd as
we ,• and v/e ought to love them to that De-
gree^ as to do all that in us lies^ in order
to their being Sharers in the fame Happi-
nefs with us^ by their coming to the Know-
ledge of the Trpith. This is not a Thing in-
different^ but Matter of plain Duty , and
I'm afraid there are many that have much
to anfwer for_, for their negleding iz.
There is alfo a Love that is due to thofe
who tho' they want not the Means of Know-
ledge^ but have them in common with us^
yet are not to be prevailed with to ac-
knowledge the Truth : They ftand off, and
jjemurr about it ^ they receive it but in
P^rt^
396
Truth and Love.^
Part^ and in Part oppofe it. They turn
away their Ears from it ; nay^ they refifi It :
They draw new Schemes diiFerent from
the Account the Scripture gives of it : And
while they themfelves are guilty of Mif-
Ib. ill. 8. takesj they inveigh againft thofe as erroneous^
that adhere to tne Truth as it is laid down in
the Word of God.
And yet much lefs are thofe to be exclu-
ded from our Brotherly Lo^e^ who firmly ad-
here to the Subftance of the fame Truth with
us_, while yet they may difFer about fome par-
ticular Words^ PhrafeSj and Expreffions^
which have been commonly us'd by thofe
that have appeared molt zealous in the De-
fenfe of of it ; or may not be in the fame
Sentiments as to the Ways and Methods by
which this Truth would be bell publifti'd^ fup-
ported^ and defended.
There have been and are fome ready to
grantj That Love is due to thofe that ad-
here to Gofpel-Truthy all fuch being Members
of the fame Body^ that have been and are
for Pleading againft any Obligation to love
fuch as they apprehend either betray the
Trut& by weakning it_, or openly deny or dif-
own it. But methinks,, when God has re-
quired us to love our very Enemies,, it is plain
there muft be a Love due to the moft Erro-
neousj in the moft capital Branches of Re-
veal'd Truth. If Enemies are not excepted^
neither are the Erroneous^ and Miftaken.
And our Bleffed Saviour by the Parable of
the Poor Man who was reliev'd by the Sama-
Luke X. ritan^ upon his finding him in that deplora-
ble Condi tion^ in which he was left by the
Thieves in his Way from Jerufakm to Jericho^
teaches us plainly^ that every One that in
any Refped needs our Regard_, or comes
' within
Truth and Love.
within our Reach^ is to be look'd upon as
our JSIelghbottr y and Icv'd accordingly. A Sa-
maritan was counted a Heretick by the Jnvs^
and yet was commended for his Charity : Is-
raelites therefore^ who might well be expect-
ed to do more than others^ cou'd not be ex-
cus'd if they were uncharitable ,- and from
Chriflians^ a yet more large and extenfive
Charity may well be look'd for_, than from
any that liv d before them.
When all indeed among thofe that pro- i Cor
fefs themfelves Chriltiaus^ [feak the fame ^o.
'Things^ and there are no Dl%nfions^ but Perfons
are -perfectly jojnd together in the fame Mind ^ and
In the fame Judgment^ it is an eafy and de-
lightful Thing to love : But tho' it is more dif-
ficult to love when there is the Reverfe of
all this^ yet is it not a Jot the lefs commend-
able^ or the lefs bound upon us as a Duty.
But then the Query will be this_, and a necef-
fary Query it iSj What Sort of Love is due
fromx uSj while we adhere to and ftand up
for the T'ruth of the Gofpel in the Eflentials
ot Chriftianity^ (and particularly with Re-
fped to the Dodrine of the Trinity) to-
wards fuch as differ from us in our Senti-
mentSj or Condu(St_, in fome Things in which
Truth may appear concern'd j and towards
fuch alfo as hefitate about the Truth^ or even
deny or oppofe it ? And in what Ways our
Lo've to fuch is to be exprefs'd?
Now I cannot conceive a better Method
to difcover how Love Ihould fhew itfelf ei-
ther in the one or the other of thefe Cafes^
than by having Recourfe to that large and
diftincSt Account which St. Vaul has given of
the genuine Workings of Chriftian Charity
and Love J in one of his Epiflles to the Corlr.-
thlans, which will furnifh us with an admi-
rable
398
Truth and Love.
Serm. niirablc^ and I think unexceptionable An-
XIII ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ Queftion proposed. /Tis true^
,^^/-^y^ there may be certain inforcing Circumitan-
ces which may fometimes oblige us to height-
en Love^ and carry it to a farther Pitchy
than it can be pretended is neceffary in all
Cafes^ without any Variation : But where-
ver Love is really due^ thofe which the Apo-
ftle mentions in his noble Defcription of
this Grace^ are the Ways in which it is to
be exprefs'd. Fll go over the Defcription
Article by Article. And^
1 Cor. I. The Apoltle^ after the preferring Cha-
xiii. 4. rlty and Love to any Gifts_, how excellent foe-
ver^ fays_, it fufferctb long : ixAKesBviJL^. Tho'
it may confiil with being affeded with Pro-
vocations that have been undeferv'd^ it yet
inclines to Patience and Equanimity under
them. Where Perfons therefore ad as in-
fluenced by Chriftian Love towards thofe that
differ from them about the great Trurbs of
the Gofpelj theyl bear with Injuries and
Affronts from them_, without being halty to
return them. They won't lie upon the Catch
to take Advantages againlt them. Inftead of
being haity of Spirit^ breathing forth Ruin
and Slaughter againlt Gainfayers^, and v^^ith
Lukeix. ^^e Difciples prefently caUing for Fire down
54. from Heaven to con[ume them ; they'l wait pati-
ently for their Amendment^ give them Time to
bethink themfelves^ try all the Arts and Me-
thods of Kindnefs and Good-will^ and there-
by (hew they are not inclined to pufh Things-
to Extremity againft 'em. They are able to
bear being ill ufed^ and the being reckon'd
Gal. iv. to be become Enemies^ hecaufe they tell the Truth.
16. Theyl be ready to put up Wrongs^ and ^afs
p . over Tranfgrejjlons, And tho' fome may think
^rov.xix. ^i^jg ^ Weaknefs in them, and a Piece of Stu-
pidity,
Truth and Love^ 399
pidity^ yet Solomon reprelents it as their Glory. Serm.
They'l not eafily conceive a Difpleafure a- vttt
gainit thofe whom they have to do with, v^..^^,-^
They'l be Jloii; to Wrath, and not eafily of- 1^^.1.19.
fended or incens'd. They will not jhlve^xXim.ii'
but be gentle unto all Men^ apt to teach ^ patient ^ 24, 15.
in Meekfiefs infirttEllng thoft that oppofe themfel^ues^
And this is a truly noble Inftance of Lo^e^
and fuch an Expreffion of it as is owing to
Truth ^ and the Go d of Truth ^ and the Dig-
nity of humane Nature.
2. Chart TY;, fays St, Faul^ is kind. 'Tis i Cor.
yjrr^h 3* full of Benignity. They therefore that xili. 4.
hold the 7r7/f/:> of the Gofpei in Love^ v/illfhew
themfelves tractable^ affable and courteous,
Jnftead of being four and fullen^ wafpiih
ehd churlifh to fach as differ from them,
and perhaps oppofe and cenfure them^, they'l
treat them with Gentlenefs and Candour :
And tho' they won't upon any Account part
with the leail Article of Truth to gratify
them^ yet they will carry it fo as to mani-
feft^ that it is pure Confcience^ that there-
in is their Hindrance. They'l be ready to
do them any real Good in all Ways that are
within their Reach ^ and their whole Beha-
viour towards them will fhew that they real-
ly wifh them well^ notwithftanding they are
oblig'd to differ from them. They'l re-
member that they are to increafe and abound j ThefT.
in Lo've^ not only one to^vards another^ but fo- iii. iz.
7vards all Men. And therefore will be tender
and compaflionate^ do Good for Evil^ and
endeavour to overcome E'vil with Good ; which Rom.xii.
is truly Divine and GoD-like. They will 21.
not be peevifh and froward^ but gentle. In- ^
itead of infulting they truly pity luch as wan-
der from the Truthy and heartily pray for
them. They perhaps in the mean time may
be
XIII.
xm. 4.
400 Truth and Lovi*
Serm ^^ ^o fi^'^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^'^^ Notions and Ways^
* as not to think they need any Compafliori)
and may be apt to flight the Kindhels
that is intended to be this Way exprefs'd :
But this will not hinder fuch as (peak the
Truth in Love^ from this Way fignifying
how kindly they are difpos'd towards tnem.
Where they differ from any the moft
widely^ theyl not treat them roughly^ or
haltily charge them with Fundamental Errors:
They will not do it^ unlefs they are forc'd
to it^ by the highefl Evidence of the Truth
and Neceflity of the Things which have
a Strefs laid upon them^ and by plain Scrip-
ture.
1 Cor ?• ^HARITY^ lays the Apoftle^ envieth not;
J ^«Ao7. He that holds the Truth in Loue,
grudges not even thofe that moft differ from
him any Advantages with which they are
favour'd^ nor is he in the leaft difgufted with
their Profperity. He is well-pieas'd with
the Benefits and Bleflings that are conferred
iipc)n them ; and wilhes the Continuance
of them, in Conjundion with Hearts to
make a goodUfe of them. He reckons not
their Reputation, Applaufe and Advance-
ment, to be to his Diminution. And fo
far is he from a Defire of building upon
their Ruins, that he takes Part in their Hap-
pinefs 5 and will rather add to them, than
leffen and take from them.
4. St. Paul adds. That Charity 'vaimteth not
itfelfy I Ti^Tifiv'ilett : And // not puffed up; «*
qivruTOLi. It is not rafli and infolent, haugh-
ty and fupercilious. They that hold the
Truth in Lo'vey won't be forward to fet
up themfelves as Standards for the reft of
Mankind, reckoning themfelves flighted or
abus'd if their Decifions be not allow'd to
pafs
ItiL
Truth and Love. z}.oi
pafs for Oracles : Nor will tliey fvvell in Serm.
their own Efteem becaufe they are in the w\\ '
Rights nor defpile ethers on the Account rl-w-xj
of their being in the Wrong. They won't ^^
carry it as it they were the only wife Men
in the World_, and others were bound to
take their Notions and Meafures from them^
and difparag'd them if they did not intire-
ly fall in with them : But they'l be lowly-
minded , fet a due Value upon the Abilities
of others^ and take care not to think of them- t> ^-j
fehjes more highly than they ought to think. They'l ^
'put on Bo-iUils of Mercies J and Humhknefs ^Col. iii.
Mind. Theyl neither magnify themfelves^ ii.
nor run down others with Contempt and
Scorn^ nor any Way give them unneceiTa-
ry Diflurbance^ nor defire or feek to hin-
der their Ufefulnefs.
5". Charity, fays the Apoftle^, doth not be- q
have ttfelf tmfeemly 'j ^k «t^%H/woi/«: It does not ^-^-^ /
run into Indecencies, either in Language or
Carriage. They that fpeak the Truth in Love^
when they are oppos'd, will not break out
into any injurious Reflexions, or unbe-
coming Pailions. Theyl carefully avoid
Rudenefs, and contumelious Behaviour, a-
bufive Language, and difgraceful Treatment
of thofe tor whofe Sentiments they have
the greateil: Averfion. Theyl debate Mat- ,
ters coolly, and Reafon calmly, and more
confider what is fpoken, than who is the
Speaker. Theyl ciofely think of^ and ftudy
whatjoe'ver Things are lovely. They won't dil- pi m ^y
grace the Perfons of thofe whofe Senti- g^
ments they moil dillike. And tho' they
may argue with them upon the Confequen-
ces of their avow'd and declared Notions, in
order to their Convidion, yet they won't
pretend that they are chargeable with them,
D d li
4© 2
Truth ^w^ Love.
Serm. :'fthey politively difown them, and declare.
XIII. ^^^^' Abhorrence of them. This is a Sort
^ ^ of Treatment which they will no more give
"^ to others^ than they could be able to bear
it from ochersj without reckonmg themfelves
hardly uied. They won't at every Turn
giv.e Pecpie of ditterent Sentiments from
them the Title of Heretkks^ which is provok-
ing;, and rather tends to inhame Mens Paf^
fions, than convince their Judgment: But
will leek to Ibften and win upon them^ and
not exafperate them.
n Cor. ^' S^' ^'^"^ adds^ That Charity feeketh not her
%m. 5. own ^ \'C>fi^TcL Uvr^Ai : It is not felfifh. It
does not feek Self-advancement^ to the Neg-
lect or Injury, or Diminution of others.
Such Perfons therefore a.s Jpeak the Truth in
Loz^e^ Will not be of a ftingy., narrow^ mer-
cenary Spirit, but will be ready to. do Good
for Evil ; and Hick at nothing, tho' it be to
their own Detriment, that might be to the
real Benefit of thofe whom they Iiave to do
with. They won't leek their own Praife,
Profit^ or Pleaiure^ to the Hurt of others^
any more than theyl be willing to have o-
thers do Co by them, which is the Meallire
by which they if atediy proceed.
7. CHAiHTYj- fays :,the Apoltie^ Is not ea~
Jtly . provoked ; ^ . 'Trct^j^vvircu ; is net apt to be
infiam'd^ or drawn into unkind Thoughts^
Words, or Adions. They therefore 'that
fpeak the Truth In Love^ will be of a Forgiving
"Spirit. They won't eafily be inrag'd. They
jnay at fome certain Times and in. fome
Cafes be difturb'd ,• but theyl take Care not
to be furioufly tranfported beyond all Bounds.
They'l moderate their Relentments, keep
their Anger under Government^ and not
fufFer it to rife to fuch an Height as that
they
Ihid.
Truth and Love.
they fliould lofc the Command of thcnifelvesj
or be harry 'd into any Thijig that isr out-
ragious : They won't be exalperated or im-
bitter'd. Even when they are angry ^ ^^"^^ylpohd^
be careful not to fin ,• endeavouring to keep 26.
their Tempers even towards their herceft '
and moft vehement Oppofers. .
8. St. ?(wl ^dsj That CLirlty thinhth no ^ ,
E-vil '^ ^ hoyi^iTcu Ti KcLitdi/ : It thinketh 111 '•;^°^'
of none^ without Ground^ and v^ithout Con-^^'^* ^'
Itraint. They therefore that fpeaJz the Truth
in La-je^ will be ready to pafs the beft Con-
Itrudion on what Men fay^ and. favoura-
bly interpret what they do. They will lef-
fen rather than aggravate any Thing that is
ill^ and carefully watch againit Jauoufies and
Stifficionsy which are many times as torment-
ing to thofe that entertain them^ as they are
injurious to thole againit whom they are
pointed. No one Thing is more oppolite
to true Charity_, than a detracting^ cenfb-
rious Humour^ which runs into grcundlefs
SurniifeSj and jU-favour'd Conltructions^ the
incouraging which^ opens a Door to all man-
ner of Contuficm. They that ac5t as Love
directs^ -will take Things' by the beft Han-
dle^ and not allow tiiemlelves to fufpecft
Men to be worfe in any Ileipecft than their
Words and Adions plainly declare them.
They won't mifconftrue either their Words
or their Intentions^ nor. interpret doubtful
Things to the worit Senfe^. but the. beft ^
nor lurmize an Evil of others^, that they do
not knoWj nor take up an evil. Report of
them lightly^ nor contribute to the Sp^^ead-
ing of it^ when it is rais'd by others^ viith-
out there be juft Grounds. They won't im-
pute Evil^ or put it to any Man s Account^
beyond abfolute Neceffity. They will be
D d z ready
Truth and LovEi
ready to make Allowances^ and notharfhf
ly interpret what is faid by others^ as if
tney were bent upon making the worft of
it that is poilible : But in this^ as well as-
other ReipeciSj will do as they would be.
done by.
t Cor. 9- Charity^ fays the Apoltle^ rcjoyceth
xlii. 6. not In Iniquity^ but rcjoyceth In tj^ Truth. They
that fpeak the Truth In Love^ will be fadden'd
initead of being pleas'd^ when even they
that are their greateft Oppohtes do what is
really amiis and unjuiliiiable^ or run into any
Sort of Extravagance^ notwithitanding that
this may poffibly give them fome Advantage
in their dealing vv^ith them. But any right
StepSj any Approaches towards Truth that can
be dilcover'dj are moll highly grateful to
them 5 and they'l fhew that they are fo,
by making the moil of them that :s poffi-
bie. Such Perfons inllead of watching for
their Neighbours halting^ and making the
moll of their Milcarriages^ will be "trou-
bled at any Difgrace they fall under : And
will be apt to take Pleafure in every Thing
they lay or do^ that is vvell^ and as it
fliould be^ and be rejoiced if Truth gets any
Groundj or Prejudices againft it are at all
abated^ even tho' it fliould be to their own-
Diminution,
i Cor. '^^' ^T. B?/// addSj That Charity bem'cth all
xiiL 7. Tijhigs: rz^ivTo. Tiyet : It covers all Th^ngs^ as
far as is pcffible. They that fj^eak the Truth
in Lo^jCy will rather throw a Veil over Mens
Faults to keep them out of light^ than make
them worfe than they really arc. They'l
readily commend what is truly commendar
ble in them^ and grv^e them the moft fa-
vourable Charaders they are capable of giv-
ing, confillently with Truth and Juftice.
The
Truth and Love. 403
The Wile Man fays^, that Hatred filrreth up S'-KM.
Strifes^ but LG-ue covtreth ,'ll Sins. Whereas XIII.
lU-wiil and Hatred raifes up Diitarbance _ --,>0
where all things are quiet^ and makes Men Prov. x,
quarrel about Trifles; Love will pacify the 12.
minds of fuch as it finds prcvok'd by real
Offences , and compofe Differences for
which perhaps there was but too much
Occafion. Lo-ve will mofi: certainly bear with
a Multitude of Infirmities ^ and that the
rather^ becaufe they that are the moft cha-
ritable^ are very fenfible that in fome Things
they themfelves need Allowances^ and fiiouid
be expos'd^ were they to be ri^3;o^ouily
dealt withaij on the account of fudden Sai-
liesj and hafty Speeches^ and Indifcretions^
which after the utmolt Caution^ they may
be guilty of e'er they are aware.
II. Charity^ fays the Apoitle^ heUevcth ^ Cq^^
all Things y bopetb all Things. They that [peak xili. 7.
the Truth in Lo^je^ will believe well cf all ^icin^
till they are forc'd to the contrary by cre-
dible evidence ; and theyl hope weU too^
as tar as they can difcover the leaft ground
for it. They 1 htUe^e well of others if they
have but the leaft probable ground to go
upon and hope for more from them than
they have any pofitive reafon to believe.
They won't intrench upon Gqd's Province_,
and pretend to judge Mens Hearts_, or pry
into their Secret conceal'd intentions^ but
will believe well as long as there is the
leaft room for it^ and their Ho^jes will go
yet farther than then' Beliefs becaufe they
will be as unwilling to give others up for
irrecoverable ^ as they would have their
Neighbours be to pafs fuch a Judgment up-
on them^ if they were in like Circumftan^
cc«. Let others be never fo bad^ they
P d 5 won\
406
Truth and Love'
S RN^ v/on'c abfolutly defpair of their Amendment^
XIII. ^^^^' S*^'^ ^^'^^ ulnig proper Means in order
,,_^x-v-C to if- They are eajj to be Intreatul. /^^t may
Jam. ili. remember tliat ^t. Paul was very far from
17. being infenilble of the ilrange and peciiliar
Hardnels and Stupidity cf the Jews with
whom he had to do^ yet he did not give
ever Dealing Vvith them^ as if their Cafe
'was abrciuteiy.hcpeiefs ^ but he declared he
Wv^uld ftiii do his utmoifj to provoke to Ermi-
P.om. xi. latlon thc7n that were his Fkjhy that he m'ght
[a^uc [ome of them,. We fliould endeavour to
be like him m our Carriage towards thofe
whom we find ourfelves in Duty bound to
pppciej as we are Handing up for God's
Truth ,• efpecially v/here their Spirits having
been lowr'd by ill Ufage^ their Corruption
may. have been drawn forth to a Degree
beyond what \s common and ufual.
IX, And Lajtij^ St. Tdid farther adds^ That
^ Charity emhtreth all Things. It v/on't be eafily
li Cor. - , 1 -^ T -n 1 *^ ^j • - r? -^
^;-; tir d cut. It Will be unweary d m us Ln-
deavoursj and will furmount all Difhculties
and Oppcfition. It will not feek Delays^
or take Pleafure in Excufes^ but will . find
Ways to vent itfelf, tho' there may be ma-
ny Thiiigs to difcourage and obftrud it.
They tliat [pcaK the Tuitb ]n Love^ will en-
dure a great many ill Things from thole
that fet themlelves againlt tlhem^ in Hope
of better Things hereafter ^ and vv' ill put up
Wrongs^ without any Inclination to re-
Rom ^"c^^^g^ them. Theyl much rather give phice
>:liL 10. *''«''^ Wrath, Theyl think often of their
Great Master^, who without Flinching or
Wearinefs endur'd the Contradiction of Sin-
ners againit himielfj till He had quite gone
th^'o' the great Work He had undertaken ;
Ai^*d in like manner they alfo will hold on
Bearing
Truth and Love.
jBearing and Fo'rbearing_, even to the End
of their CJ-clirfe^ whith'oiit any more defi-
ling to be excused from this, tnan from any
other Part- of their prefcrib'd Work ajid
Service. ' . '
HavhsTg .thus fot before you th's truly
Noble^ and Scriptural^ and Apoftolical De-
fcriprion ci CLarltyy m its ievcral Parts
and Branches^^ 1 think I have good Reafon
to niove^ and infill upoii it;, That ir riia^
be ferioully confider'd of/ and that it may
abide in your Thoughts^ and be ccpy'd cut
in your Tempers and Pradice. J. bcfeec.K
you Brethren^ don't look upon the Grace dc-:
Icrib'd as-.^'XhifTg indifferent^ or barely orna-
•mentalj bht'as highly neceffary. Don t plead
for^ don't' offer to extenuate or excufe any
pefecls her^, ;any more than you would as to
any cth^i'^Gfacey which bur bacred Records
recommend' with the gr^ateft Earneitnefs.
1 readily '^raiit it is diiiicalt to get^ and
ic.eep^ aiid itiaihtainj fuch' a Spirit as that
defcrib'd ; but that is rather a Sign of its pe-
culiar ExceUehce^ than any thing of a Proof
that it vvould net highly become us^ and be
necefTary for us^ earneffly to Itrive for \t^
and labour after it^ an^ heartily to lament
pur Defedivenefs \a it. lean treely appeal
to all cf you that hear me^ Whether the
Spirit defcrib'd be not exceeding amiable^
ajid whether it is not juft Matter of Grief
and Sorrow that it fhpuld be fo uncommon^
and whether it would not be happy for the
World in general^ and the Church of God
in particular^ if it did but prevail ; and whe--
ther our Animofities and Contentions would
not be very much abated^ and Things
would not appear with a quite different
Face from what they do at this I>ay>
D d 4 cou}^
4o8
Truth ^Ki Love*
Serm. could but Perfons be content^ and were they,
XIII. ^^^ difpos'd and inclin'dj, thus to ffcotk tl^
v^.^y-N^ Truth in Love*
III. To come therefore to the Motives that
fliould induce us to maintain this Love^ as we
are purfuing Truth *^ waving many others^ I
ifhall only touch upon thefe Two^ which I
take to be of great Weight ; i;/"^. That this
will be much tor our own Advantage^ and-
at the fame Time it will be the very belt
Way we can take to do Service to the Truth
which we ' ftand up for.
I. OcjR thus fpef.klng the Truth In Lg-ve^ will
be very much for our own Advantage. The
Apoflie tells us^ That Charity u the Bond ofFsr-
Col, ill. fe^fjefs^ and therefore preffes us above all:
}^' Tmngs to put it en: By which he plainly inti-
mates to us^ That as a generous and ex-
tenfive Love ^ is a grand LelTon which Chri-
Itianity teaches, and a Grace which it parti-
cularly inforcesj fo is it one of the molt ex-
~~ ceilent of Chriltian Graces : All others with-
out it being unprofitable^ and but vain and
falfe Paintings^ that have nothing in them
that is firm and fohd^ or that will turn to
any Account in the final Iffue. And there-
Rom, fore we are told^ That Loz/^ js the ful filling
xiii. lo. ^ the Law : And it is fo ^Tioft certainly^ as
to the Second Table of it^ which relates to
our Neighbours. . St. Teter alfo in his Lift of
Chriltian Vcrtms and Graces ^ which he enu-
merates particularly^ declaring the Neceflity
zPct.i.yiOf adding one ot them to another^, fixes
Charity at .the Top_, and mentions it laft of
all 3* thereby intimating to us^ That if Cha-
rity vjsis but carefully added to ali the other
ycr, 8, Graces mention'd^ it would wake: that 7pe
jhould he neither barren nor unfmitftd- in the -
Knowledge
Truth and Love. 409
Knowledge of our Lord Jzsufi Christ; and Serm.
help fo to preferve us, as that we fhould xill/
never fall. Without this indeed cur Chri- ^^^^r^
ftianity is a mere Pretence,- and Fah/j irfclfver. lo.
is nothing : But if this be carefully minded , 2 Cor.
and confcientioufly pradis'd, our Religion xlii. 2.
anfvvers its End, and it will appear with
a Luftre. We fliall recommend it to o-
thers, inftead of prejudicing them againit
it. This Way alfo fliall we have a good Evi-
dence of our own S'mcerhy. For this will
fhew that we are like-minded with Christ^
and a(5led by his Spirit. Let this M'md^ fays pj^.j -
the Apoille _, he In youy which was' alfo In ' '
Christ Jesus : And he had therein a
particular Reference to Love^ Humility
and Lowlinefs of Mind, as any Man wiU
ealily difcern that coniults the Context.
Our Blelled Lord Jesus ever fpake and pub-
lifli'd the Truthy and 'twas his conftant Bu-
linefs fo to do: But He always did it in
Love, Our doing the fame^ will be a plain
Proof and Evidence that the fame Spirit is
in uSj as was in him. For Love is a Fruit GdX.y .11^
of the Spirit of Christ ; and of his pro-
ducing and cherifhing. 'Tis a good Token
and Evidence of being his Difciples in-
deed^ and intitled to thofe Bleffings which
belong to thofc that are fo. This there-
fore cannot but be a great and unfpeakable
Comtort upon Refledion. Befides^ this will
alfo be a good Means of our own Growth^
and Stability^ and advance towards Matu-
rity. 'TwiU keep us from Waverings and
being Inconftant^ like Children that are
tofs^d to and fro^ and know not what to
itick to. Knowledge fujf'eth ifp^ bin Charity edi-^ , Cor.
fietb. It not only confults and promotes viii. i.
the Edification of others^ but it cdihes thofe
4!0 Truth and Love-
Serm. in whom it pi*evails and thrives. The Pre -
XIII.
valence of true Chriftian Love m our Pleart^
will do us more real good^ than the great"
eft Knowledge^ or any other Attainriien>
can do without it. And this mcthinks cughc
very much to recommend it to us. ^ And
then withallj
2. Our ffeak'mg the Truth In Lo^jc^ will al-
fo be the ' very heft way we can take to
do Service to the TrutJj which we ftaji'd up
for J and would williagly fupport and de-
fend. AH Men of Senie mult needs agree^
that 3. cool Spirit is in a much fairei' vvay
to- make Profeiytes than a fierce one. Tho*
it be Jrutb that a Man appears for^ if yet
he does it in a wrathful Way^ and runs
into angry: Reflexions and fierce Debates^
he vv^ill much fooner prejudice than per-
fwade Perfons of difFerenf'Sentiments. . The
\.\inA.zoJ'^^ratb of Man ivorketh not the ' R'lghteoujnejs of
God. It never didj not J t never will And
this I think may very " \Vell be laid down
as a Principle^ by all that deal with Gain-
fayers .. up6h a KeligiOlts' ' Argument. ^ 'Tis
not fierce Oppofition knd ;^ontention3 but
ii^it Wo'rds^ ' and mild aiid fober Reafonijig^
that makes Way for Tr^th in the ^ Mind^
and bears in Light^ and lays a Foundati-
on for Conviction. When the Word came
to the, Prophet EUjaJo^ 'tis ohferv'd., '.That
1 K''>"S ^^^^ Lord^ TV as not in the W.n4y nor hi the Earth-
y,-yi\,iiiz 'make ^ nor in the Flr'e ^ . but^"' In the ftUl_VoJce.
Thole vv^ere but boiitercus Harbingers of
a meek' and ftill Word. God gives the
cleared; and; moft advantagious iMotices of
himfelf in Sweetnefs ^ and therefore we piould
net wonder that that is the beft Way for
us t(^ con^Yty ff ruth to our FellowrCreatureSj^
and make' fuitable • Imjpreilions upon 'em.
if
Truth and Love. 41 r
If you deal boifteroufly with thcm^ thcy'l S^RM.
be ape to fulpecl that you rather defign to XIII
expofe and infult them , or domineer over -^.^^^^-sj
them^ than convince them cf real Trut/j.
If we confider human Nature^ or confult
our own make^ or look to the Experience
of Ages paft^ we fhall eallly be convinc"d
of this. Were we to ftudy ever fo long,
how to fpread and promote T'ria/j_, and make
Converts to it, we could pitcl; upon no
Method Co eifedual as the fpcakwg it In
Love : And therefore. we flialL diiTerve Truth ,
as well as crofs our own real Intereit, if
we do not comply with the Admonition in
the Text: Which are Confiderations fo im-
portant, as to make any farther Motives
neediefs. ,
But tho' (my Friends) I would gladly
have the whole Scheme of Gofpd-TvMth held
and maintain'd, and fpoken and defended
in Love J and am particularly deiirous it fhould
be fo as to the Doctrine of the Trinity
which runs through it (on which I have
fo largely inlilted;) and tho' I can fafely
fay that I would not ftick at any Thing
that in me lay, that I could difcern would
contribute towards it, yet would I not be
underftood, nor was it in the leaft my In-
tention or Defign, to charge, or bring
in Inditemejjts againit any. of my Bre-
thren- We have what is abundantly fuffi-
cient, we have enough in ail Confcience to
expo(e and weaken us j we need not weaken
and befpatter one another. I leave it
to every Mans own Thoughts to charge
him, as far as he has oiFer'd any Violence
to that Love which he ought to have dif-
cover'd in all his Searches after Truth^ De-
bates about it, or Methods taken to fup^
pore
4i2> Truth and LovEi
Serm. P^i't it. I have only endeavoured to take
XIIL Pattern from St. B^w/^ who finding the Chri-
y^^y^ ftians of Corinth^ for whom he had a moil
tender Concern ^ very differently difpos^d
from what they fhould have been, through
Di'vljions and Jealotifiesy fets freely before
them the true and genuine Offices, Pro^
perties, and Fruits of Charity^ and leaves
It to them from thence to recoiled then*
own Mifcarriages. It has been my Aim
to do the very fame by myfelf and you,
in order to clofe and lerious Thoughts a-
bout the Matter proposed, which is really
of no fmall Concern and Confequence.
And I muft confefs I am afraid, if we
make any Thing of a ftrid Review, and
deal impartially ,• and if we lay our Hands
upon our Hearts, and are ingenuous, we
ihall all of us fee Caufe to own we are
guilty of negleding that Love and Charity
of which we ought to have been mindful,
in all our Difcourfes and Debates , and
the whole of our Condud and Manage-
ment.
After what has been advanced, my Bre-
thren muft give me leave to fay, that we
ought not to reckon it enough that we
have Truth on our Side, unlels we have
fpoken it and adher'd to it, and endea-
vour'd to fupport and defend it in Loz/e.
It will be but a poor Relief, in fuch a
Cafe as this, to go to throw the blame off
from ourfelves upon others : For they may
have been guilty and we too ,• and we may
be affur'd their Fault will not excufe or
lelTen ours. For my own Part I fhall not
ftick to declare, that if in any of thofe
Difcourfes in which 1 have, with fome
Paints, been fearching for Truth upon the
Head
Truth and Love.
413
Head of the Trinity^ I have broken in Serm.
apon the Love that was owing to any that XIII.'
I- have pointed to_, I am far from juftify-
ing myfelf 5* I am truly forry for it ; and
Ihall endeavour to correct it : And I can-
not but hope that others will do fo too,
as to what they upon Reflexion may dif-
cern to have been amils : A.nd then the'
after our utmoft Pains and Care^ we might
not perhaps be all of one Mind^ even in
fome Things that are of Moment^ we yet
might differ amicably^ which I Ihould think
would be no fmall Happinefs ^ and prove
a confiderable Comfort to all the Hearty
Lovers of ierious Religion among Us. ,
It now only remams^ that we Confi-
der_,
IV. How that Love which I have been
recommending and preffing^ may be re-
conciled with that Zeal for Truthy which is
often urg'd upon us as our Duty. For the
Premifes being confider'd^ I dou-bt not but
fome will be ready to iay^ what would
you have us do? Muffc we out of a re-
gard to Charity embrace thofe in our Bo-
loms^ who lubvert the main Foundations
of our Holy Religion ? Muft we give them
an Opportunity of undermining and over-
throwing the Capital Articles of our Faith^
that we may*- fhew our Love ? Are we not
earnejHy to contend for the Faith once deliver d]^^^^''-'i*
unto the Saints^ and is not that prefs'd as
a Duty of mighty Confequence ? Why then
fhouid you take Pains to flacken our Zeali
I anlwer^ I am far from aiming at dif^
couraging Chriltian Zeal^ tho' I think it
highly concerns us to get our Zeal right-
ly temper'dj that it may not do more Hurt
than
414 Truth and Love.
Serivi. than Good. All that I movefor is^ that St.
YTTT ^^^^^'^ Admonition in the Text^ of S^cakivg
' the Truth m Love^ may not be forgotten in
the Heat of 2.eal. And this Charge of his^
may^ I conceive^ be comply'd with^ without
giving luch as heiitate about the Truth^ or
oppose it^ the leaft Advantage againft it ;
and without breaking in upon that 2jeal
with which I readily grant we ought to
contend for it. And here I have a few
Things to offer_, that dcferve to be well
confider'd^ and were worthy to have been
enlarg'd on.
I. There's a great deal of Difference be-
tween being againil: the Tnnhy and demurring
upon Ibme Phrafes and Expreffions that
have been commonly us'd by the Afferters
of that 7I7///6 : And it is but a blind Zeal
that will not ' or cannot allow of a Di-
ftindion between thele two. For my own
ParCj, I have not the leaft fcruple as to any
of the Words or Expreffions that have been
generally made ufe of in the Chriftian
Churchy and particularly among the Re-
formed^ upon the Head of the Trinity-
I never -yet could fee any juft Reafbn to
dillike the Principle^ in which I was trained
up fr.om my Chiidhoodj That there are Three
T-erfons In the Godhead^ the fame in Suhfance^
ecjual In- Voiver and Glory, And yet fuppofe
I meet with fome that are ruDt fb free for
the ufe of the Word Terfon^ when apply'd
to Father^ Spn^ and Holy Spirit; and that de-
clare they are at a lofs for the meaning of
the Word ^//^/j?/^^ when it is apply'd to the
Deity^ tho' yet they own themlelves devo-
ted ,to Father y Son^ and Spirit; and acknow-
ledge .that it is by the Spirit enabling, and .
through the Son encouraging^ that they ap-
ply
Truth and Love. 415.
Plv tOj and depend upon the lu^tLcr as fi- ScRm.
nally and fully effecting all Good '^^ I can- XIII.
not fee any Reafon^ why our Zeal fliould ^^-^^^
carry us fo far^ as to rejed them^ or ex-
clude them our Lot'e. 'Should any condemn
fuch^ and caft them off^ as tar as I can
judee^' their Zeal would not be according eo
Knowledge. " For is not the main Subftance r> ^^ ^ ^
of a Truths of a great deal more Signiti-
cance and Importance, than any particular
Words, Phrales or Expreffions that Aleu
have devis'd, with ever fo honeit an In-
tention to do it Service ? Perhaps it may
be faid, and I know it has been faid ofteri^
that it is not only a Piece of needlefs Sc'ru-
pulofity, to be I'hy of fuch Words and Ex-
preffions as the moit faithful and eminent
Servants of God have ordinarily made ufe
of in fuch a Cafe, but it feems to look as if
they that were againft fuch Words and Ex-
preffions, were really againft the 'Truth itfelf
in whole Service they have long been us'd;
and that Experience often proves as much;
And that therefore we mull guard our Out-
works, if we'd fecure our Pbrc. But if thefe
are Out-works, they are of Man's ered-
ing : And fliall we then for their Sake, and
upon their Account, rejed thofe who frankly
alTure us, they admit whatever God has
rear'd up in Scripture, whom in Charity
we are bound to believe, till we can prove
the contrary, from fomewhat that is plain-
ly inconfiftent with fuch a Profeffion ? Would
not this, Interpretatively, be a preferring
Mans
* See Dr, OldfieldV Brief, Praakai, and Pdci-
fick. Difcourfe, of God', tind of the Father, Son, and
Spirit ' and of our Concern with them ; Lately pub-
HfhU
/^\6 TrDth and Love.
I
hahy to God's, I
And if it is I
Serm. Mans Provifion to fecure the Tt
yTTT* as if wc were wiier than he?
J^^~i^ liable to be fo interpreted^ would not this
^^^^ be Ibch a Sort of Zeal as would make work
for Repentance^ initead of doino; Trut/j any
real Service^ and procuring Chriftianity any
Credit ?
2. It deferves alfo to be confider'd^ that
^ Tim. 5(.^ p^^j hiniielf has plainly told us^ that there
11. 13. ^rcfoolijJ} ^lefi'wns that gtncler Strifes^ that are to
be a-volded. Whatever particular Queftions
the Apoftle might in that PalTage have in
his EyCj 'tis to me very piain^ that there
are feveral fuch Queftions^ particularly up-
on the Head of the Trmhj: As about the
wanjier of the Generation ot the Son^ and the
Trocejjion of the Holy Ghofi^ and the Way of
their being in one another mutually^ and the
7fianner of their Dlfiintllon from each other.
Queftions of this nature I take to be both
foolijl) and unlearned: For they are about
things that are beyond our Capacity^ and
which we can have no Notion of^ becaufc
God has not revealed them ; and the No-
tions vented concering them are at belt but
unprofitable Qmojities ; they have nothing
of Unttion in them : And at the fame time
they tend to Strife and Debates^ and pro-
duce Parties and Diftances^ which breed
Confufion. And yet thefe are things^ a-
bout which fome have been^ and yet may
be^ wonderful zealous. But iliould any be
for turning their Notions about fuch thmgs
as thefe^ into j^rtkles of Faith ^ and make
them Ttjh of Orthodoxy^ I fhan't ftick to fay
it would be a Prepollerous and unfcriptu-
ral Zealy and be tar from any way pro-
moting Practical Godlinefs: The way the
Scripture has marked out for us in things
cf
Truth and Love*
of this Kindj is to leave Perfons free^ and
at their Liberty^ without pretending to
limit or prefcribe to them. Theie are
Things in v/hich x\\t Truth ^ as God has re-
veal'd it^ as far as I can perceive^ has no
Concern : And therefore for Zeal here to^
juftle out Love^ would be to difregard what
God has exprefsly commanded^ out of a
Tendernefs for fbmewhat that He has ma-
nifeltly dlfcourag'd^ and ordered to be avoid-
ed. The fame Apoftle has indeed told us.
That It IS good to be always z,ealouJlj ajfe^led in a GaL Ir.
good Tlnng ,• i, e. in Things that are good iS.
in themlelves^, and that tend to make either
ourfelves or others better : But as for fuch
Things as thofe mentioned, they are far from
having any intrinfick Goodnefs in them;
and nothing can be produced in Proof that
they have the leaft Tendency to do Good,
to thofe that are ever fo warmly con-
cerned about them. Nay, they rather tend
to divert People from fuch Th;ngs as would
improve them, both as to their Tempers
and their Lives.
I cannot here forbear recollecfting a Paf-
fage of a Learned Man, about the Time of
the Reformatio?}, which I take to have a
great deal of Truth in ic, and to be much
to jthe the Purpofe. ^^ We (fays he) are Erafm;
^^ contending without End, what ic is that f^o^erod.
^^ diftinguiflies the Fat/jer from the Sotj, and 1^ ^ '^^^^
*^ both from the Holy Spirit; whether it^* ^'
^^ be a Thing, or a Relation ; and how it
'^ can be that they can be faid to be Three,
^^ of which One is not the Other, when
^' They are but One in Effence ? How
^^ much more (fays he) to the Purpofe
would it be for us to take all poflible
Care pioufly and hoUiy to worfiiip and
E e cf a^ojig
iC
4i8
TsLvru and Love;
SSRM. ^^ adore th's Trin'itYj whofe Majesty
XIII. ^^ ^^ ^^^ unable to pry into^ and to ex-
s^r>r'^ ^^ prefs the ineifable Concord of that^ by
*''■ our Concord among ourfelves^ that 16
^^ we may in Time come to be in Part-
^ nerfhip with them. "
To be hafty in condemning fuch as cannot
fpeak of the Myftery of the Sacred Three^ in
ail Refpeds^ as we may think we may do very
fafely and allowably^ efpecially when we
take in Speculations as to the Way and
Manner^ where God has reveal'd Things
to us only in the general^ tho' it may be
caird an Kd: of Zeal^ yet it is no Part of
llr.il.14. the being z^e^lous of good Works y the bring-
ing i?^ to which is reprefented as a mam
Defign of our Redemption. It is rather
1 Cor.iv. a being wife and zealous^ ahoue that ')vhkb
^' h written, Bur-*tis fit we fliould alfo cojni-»"
fider^ ' \' ■ ■ '
; 5. That where any do fall into Error^
there is a Di-iference to be made between
the erring Perfons and their Errors. Tho*
Errors are far from being all alike^ yet Er-
rors in Matters of A^oment may be free-
ly declar'd againft , while yet the erring Per-
Ions may in many Cafes be tenderly dealt
withj without any Diminution of that Zeal
for the Faith^ which the Word of God hath
made our Duty. Among erring Perfons_^
there may be feveral hearty Lovers of
Truthy who yet are not fo happy as to ^nd
\ty who would deteft their own Errors^ if
they did not take them for Truths. To run
down all fuch without Diftindion^ and con-
demn them in the Lump^ may be caii'd Zeal^
"but 'trs no Zeal oi God's requiring^ for the
fupporting any Tnnh of his revealing. His
Way that He hath mark'd out in his Word3
i-5
Truth and Love.
is plainly this^ (as has before been hinted)
hi Meeknefs to hfiruH fuch as oppofc themfel-ves^
if Go D peradvemure 7iM glyc timn Repentance^
to the AchjoivUdging of the Truth ^ that they may i Tim. it.
recover them fives out of the Snare of the De^Al. 25, 26.
A Almiiler cf the Gofpel may do his Du-
ty towards Supporting the Truth ^ by de-
clariiio; in the Courfe and Exercife of his
Miniftry^ againll fuch Errors as are fpread
and propagated,- but in the mean time he
ought to be mild and gentle in his Car-
riage towards them that hold them^ and
fo manage himfelf as to fhew that he loves
their Perfons^ while he hates their Errors,,
and that his DeUgn is to amende but not
provoke them. W ithout this^ his Endea-
vours in Favour of the Truth^ will be but
Labour in Vain : His Zeal will anfwer no
End, becaufe of its being m.anifell that it
rather aims at Revenge than Corredion.
But farther^,
4. Tho' we are ^tis true, to contend ear-
neltly for the Truth}, yet ought we to be
fatisty'd with that Way of doing it that
God has prefcrib'd, if we defire or hope to
approve ourfelves to him. ^ We are to contend
by Reafon and Argument, an4 not? by Force
and Violence at any time ,- nor by rejedling
and catling off, till the Cafe is evidently
remedilefs. One that is in Doubt about the
Truth^ is not to be treated bke one harden-
ed in Error : Nor are any to be w^holly
call off, till they have given good Proof
they are irreclaimable. Certainly we may
learn fomething from our Lord's being a-
gainft gathering up the Tares ^ lefi ive fijould root t ^t.^
tip aljo the IVheat with them. Why fhould we j:^^^^ ^J^
offer to reject any of thofe, wnom for any
thing we know God may accept ? He has
E e z joyn'd
420 Trut'h and Love^
Serm. joyn'd Truth and Lo^e together in my Tcxt^
XIII. ^^^Fahb and Love together /?; Christ Je*
i^y^yT^ sus elfewhere : And nothing required of us
z Tim. i. upon the Head of Zeal^ fhould put us upon
15. feparating them^ or difturbing this Haiiiio-
ny^ which is fo defirable in itfelf, and fo
ornamental to Chriftianity.
The fever eft Paflage I can remember^ is
what v/e meet with in St. John^ in thefe
^ John Words : If there come any one unto you, and bring
JO, II. not this DoBr'me^ that ts^ the Dodrine of
Christ^ mention'd in the Verfe before^
receive him not into your Houfe^ neither hid him
God [feed. For he that hlddetb him Godfpeed^ is
Tartaier cf bis evil Deeds, From whicn ftrid
Apoilolical Charge^ we may juftly gather^
that heretofore upon Apoftatizing from Chri-
fiianity to Judaifm^ Famiharities v/ere to ceafe.
'And by a^ Parity of Reafon we may ahb con-
clude^ That fhould any in our Time arrive
at that Fleight of Malignity^ as to pour
Contempt on Christ and his Dodrine^ we
ought to be cautious of keeping up Fami-
liarity with them^ and do nothing that may be
fairly interpreted a Juftifying them in^ Con-
fentmg tOj or Approving of^ their Evil Prin-
xiples or Ac^ions^ left we iliculd be involved
^in their Guilt by Participation. But I can-
not perceive that it from hence follows^ but
that we may very warrantably exercife Htf-
jfnanlty to the very worft cf fuch when they
are in Diftrefs, nay^ I cannot fee but it Itill
inuft be our Duty to have Compr,JJion upon
them^ and pity and pray for them^ tho' they
are ever fo bitter Enemies of the Truth, Let
them ever fo pcfitively or vehemently deny
any of the Effentials of Chriftianity^ tho' we
ought to take Care to do nothing to favour
or en<;ourage them in their ill Defigns^ yet
as
Truth and Love/
as far as I am able to judge_, we may fiifficicnt-
ly (hew our Zeal by Difcountenancing them,
without knocking thepi on the Head^ com-
mitting them to the Flames, or denying
then> Offices of Humanity : Nay, I muft
own, I am firmly of Opinion, That the
Love we are to joyn with Trutb^ obliges us
to do them any real Good we can.
Seducers were not in the Times of the
Apoftles to be receiv'd as the Difciples of
Christ were to be receiv'd ; nor were they
to be wifh'd Succefs in their Undertakings ;
but in other Refpeds they were ftill to be
well ufedj and to iliare in various Inftances
of Love^ confiftently with all that Regard
for Trntb that was due, from thofe that were
moft hearty in its Interelts.
But I cannot conclude without obferv-
ing, how common it has been in the Chri-
ftian World, for Perfons out of a prepofte-
rous Zealy or a Defire of Dominion, or even
a vain Fear of giving Way to Innovations
in Religion, to inveigh againft others with
bitter Hatred, and disown them as Brethren
upon flight Occafions. Ever fince the JVe-
ftern fell out with the Eafiern Church about
the Day of keeping Eafier^ fo that Degree
as to Anathematize them, has this unchari-
table Temper llrangely prevail d, tho' it
has been really unaccountable.
When a Gangrene feizes any Part of
our Bodies, 'tis agreed, that Neceflity re-
quires it fhould be cut oiF without Pity^
left the Malady ftould fpread farther,
and prove Mortal. But fuppofe there
ihquld be any little Swelling or Protube-r
E e 3 rancc
Truth and Love. j
ranee in the outer Skin^ or a Sore that is
not deep^ and hinders not the Spirits from
flowing down to the Part afFeded, for
any one prefently to be for Difraembring^
would be rather to ad: tlie Part of an Exe-
cutioner^ than a skilful Surgeon.
The Good Lord guUe us all In the Ways of
Trufh and Love.
s E R M=
42?
SERMON L
I J o H N . y . 7*
for there are Three that hear
Record in Heaven^ the Fa-
THER, theWo^Dj and the
Holy Ghost ; and thefi
Three are One.
KNOW not a Paffage in all the Nevf Salrers-
Teftarmnt fo contefted as this. Tho' hall,T«f/i
it has of a long Time been own'd and ^^y i-ec-
ufed both in the Greek and Latin Church_, ^^'^ 5
and is in all our Modern Verfions, (a very ^!!^ji^^^
few only being excepted) yet have we fome ^" *'
that rejed it as fpurlousy and won't allow it
to be a Part of the Sacred Scripture^ but re-
prefent it as brought in out of De(ign_, an4
added by thofe that had a Turn to ferve.
This is fo heavy a Charge3 that it had nee4
be well prov'dj confidering hpw fevere a De-^
nunciation St. Jo/m ha? in the very Clofe of
the Canon of Scripture made againft fuch
E e ^ as
424 I John V. 7. V'indicated.
Serm, as arc under any Guilt of this Kind. If
J^ any Man^ fays he^ fimU add unto tbefe TtnngSy
v^^^,,-.^ God fliall add unto him the Plagues that are
Rev.xxii. 7VYitten in this Book, And indeecf the fevereft
^8. Punishment that could be thought of^ would
be but the juft Defert of fuch Arrogance
and Prefumption. But then on the other
hand it deferves Obfervation^ That the
Threatning added in the very next Verfcj,
againll fucli as diminilli and take from the
Sacred Scripture, is as fevere and awful^ as
that againit thole that make Additions to it :
Ver. 19^ For it is faid^ Jf any Man jliall take away
from the Words cf the Book of this Fropbecy^ (and
the Reafon will hold as to any other of
thefe divinely infpir'd Writings) God fiaH
take aivay his Fart out of the Book of Life , and
cut of the Holy City ' find from theHhings which
4re 'ii'rltten in this Bock. So that the Danger
is very great, whether we offer to add to
God's W ord, or take from it : And we "have
all the* Reafori in the World to beware, left
out cf Fear of the one, we r^n into the
ether. For. any to take upon 'em to
add fuch a PafTage as this, if it did not real-
ly come from bt.Johuy was certainly very
Criminal, and no End that could be proposed
to belerv'd by it^ could be the leaft Juftifi-
cation of it ; And the abetting, favouring^
fupporting, or excufmg fach an Addition,
(v^^hen once it is difcover'd) can be no fmail
Fault. Nor can the oppoiing or cenfuring
this Pailage as an human Addition, be ^
Jet the ieis Criminal, if fuitabie Evidence
be but produc'4 that it was reaiiy Apofto-
lical, or if its being an Addicit^i,- be not
♦ iblicUy proved. This Matter therefore is
important, and of no Imall Confcquence :
And that the rather^ becaufe if Que Paiiage
; ■ ' "' " that;
..J
I John V. 7. Vindicated. /^^ ^
that has been fo oft cited for Scripture as Serm.
this^ be own'd fpurious^ People will be natu- t
rally apt to fuipecfl that the Cafe may be v^^.,^1^
the farne as to a great many more ; And it ^^^''^^''
will be hard to fatisfy 'em that it is other-
wife.
However^ there being fome Things that
have a plaufible Appearance alledg'd againft
this Text^ it is but fit there fhould be a
careful Examination^ and impartial Search :
And I fee no good Reafon we that are moft
earnelt for keeping itj can have^ for being a-
gainit fuch a Search, or why we fhould not
to our utmoft encourage it. And tho' we
have no Occafion to condemn fuch as have
modefl Doubts after all, concerning it ; yet
to have the worfe Opinion of it on the
Account of the great Affurante with which
it has been oppos'd and aiTaulted^ would in
my Apprehenfion, be a Piece of fliameful
and fcandalous Weaknefs.
We that think the adhering to this Text
our Duty, Itand openly chargd (by a Wri-
ter, that firit appear'd without, and lincc
with his Name) with mifiaking an unwarrant^
ed modern Addition ^ for an inffl/d Oracle ^, ^Ti^
but fit we fhould wipe it off, if we can, and
fhew ^he Charge to be undefery'd and
^ruundlef^.
That I may here give what Affiftancel
am able, I propofe^
I. To fremife a few Things that are fit
to be taken Notice of, by fuch as are
for purfiiing the Inquny, Whether this
Tcit be gcmane or Jvurioas i
II. To
* £w/^'s Trad:s, /^^. 353.
425 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm.
I.
II. T o make fome free ConceJJlons^ that fo
they that are moll vehement againft
this Text^ may have no Grounds left
for jult Complaints.
III. To give the Sum of the Argument
agalnfi this Text_, with a Reply to it
in its feveral Parts and Branches.
And^
IV. T o add the Sum- of the Argument for
this Text^ with an Anfwer to the Sug-
geftions of Oppofers^ that have been
delign'd to weaken it,
I. I Ihall begin with TremlJIng a few
Things that are fit to be taken Notice of,
by fuch as are for purfuing the Inquiry^
Whether this Text be genuine or Jpurms ^
And they are fach as thefe :
I. The Truth of the great Pocftrine of
the TrinitYj, as it has been commonly
held in the ChrljHan Church all along^ and
particularly among our Reformed DMnes^ does
not^ as far as I can perceive^ either in Whole
or in Part^ depend upon this fmgle Text.
The foremention'd Writer indeed^ ailbrts
with great Pofitivencfs 3 That thefe Words
are not to he MatcUd with any In the whole
Blhlc ^ : And that It is p-lnclpallj on the Credit
of this Texty that fome Importajit Bra?jches of the
Creed feem to he founded f. He might e'en as
well have exprefsly mcntion'd the Doi^trine
of theTRiNiTYj which I believ^ moft Peo-
iple
t Emlyn% Trac^sV p.- 308,
t Ihid. p. 31%
I John V. 7. Vindicated 427
pie will be apt to think was what he
ainfd at. But I mult own myfelf at a Lcfs
for his Warrant for either or thefe Alfer-
tions^ when on the direct contrary it is
fo evident ^ both that the ieverai Texts
that referr to the Doilriae of the Trini-
ty do match with this Text moft exact-
ly ; and alfo that what the Creed delivers
as to that Dodrine might be prov'd to be
well founded y tho' the Credit of th;s Tcxt fhould
be intirely dropp'd.
Tvv'O oi the moft' import^int Branches of that
Dodrine^ are^ That the Father^ Son^ and Sfirit^
are Qo Dj and that they are One God. And tho'
both thefe are clear in this Text^ (fuppofmg it
genuine) yet I can't fee that we jfhould be with-
out fuificient Proof of the Truth of both^ ei-
ther if no fdch Text had ever been infer ted^
or if it fhould be now difcarded. That the
Father is GoD^ the 6"^;^ GoD_, and the Holy
Ghofi GoD_, may be prov'd by Texts in great
Number : And their Unity alfo may be coU
leded from feveral other Texts ; tiio' as to
^11 the Three_, I can't fay that that is any
where elfe fo exprcfsly afferted^ as it is here.
So that we don't nee'd fuch a Text as this,
as a Foundation of our Creed,
And then^* as to the matohlng of thefe
Words with other Texts in the Blble^ We need
be in no Pain : For nothing can match bet-
ter than this does with the whole Current
of the Ne-w Teftament '^ and that is one Rea-
fon why we are the more inclined to ad-^
here to it. We have nothing here, but a
Nomination of Three, that hear TVltnefs to
our Lord's being the Mtfiah^ and a Decla-
ration that theie Three are One : And both
thefe are fo intimated elfewhere, that we
fliould have had good Reafon to have believ'd
'' ■ ^ '" ' 'era.
428 I John V. 7. Vindicated,
Serm; 'em^ altho' no Notice had here been taken of
L them. This is far from being the only Place
v^oyx^ in which thefe Three are referred to as Wit-
^jJJ^sto Chriitianity_, or to our Lord's Mef-
iiahihip^ which was one of its capital Arti-
cles. Our Blefled Saviour directly points
us to the firft of thefe Three Witnefles^ when
Johnv: he fays^ Tie Father hlmjelfivhkh hath fent me^
37' hath l/om IVitnefs of me. He did fo at his J5^p-
tlpn^ by a direct voice from Heaven^ faying,
Matth.Iii. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well fleaj-
17. ed. He alfo mentioned the firll and fecond
of thefe Three WitnefTes together^ when He
John vlli ^^^J ^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ Wltnefs of myfelf^ and
jg, ' /^e Father that [ent me^ heareth Wltnefs of me.
We read alfo of the third TVltnefs^ when our
Lord Jesusj fpeaking of the Sfirity whom He
jr^.xv.25. promis'd as a Comforter^ fays^ He Jljall tefiifj
of me.
Neither is the New Tefiament filent as to
the Unity of thefe WitneJJh, Our Lord is
1^. X. 30. plain and pofitive as to the Unity of the two
firfl of themj faying^ / and my Father are One,
And tho' fome of the Fathers were for refer-
ring this to an Unlty^ of Jffe&ion and iViJly yet
the main Stream of them carry 'd it for an
Unity of Ejjence and Nature *. And if there
was an Unity of that Sort between the Two
firfl PFitnejffeSy VIZ, the Father and Son^ it
might_, I fhould think, very naturally be
concluded. That if the Spirit was as truly
God, as either of them. He muft in the
very fame Senfe be One with them too. And
to me^ I confefs, it is far from feeming
likely, that when the Apoftle was here fpeak-
ing
f yid. Petavii Dof. Jheclo?, dc Trin. Lib. II. cap.
I John V. 7* Vindicated. 429
ing deHgnedly of thofe that boremtnefs to Serm.
the Truth of Chriftianity^ he fhould mention j^
Three initviov Witneffes^ and forget the Three ^...-J-,^
fuperior ones; take notice ot Three Wit-
7iej]es on Earthy and filently pafs by the Three
JVitneJJes in Hea^jev^ which are of infinitely
greater Authority_, ^^Iz. the Father^ Son^ and
Holy Ghofiy to whofe Teftimony he well knew
our Lord had often taken Occafion to re-
fer in order to full Satisfadion.
2. Tho' it is comparatively but of hte^
that this Text has been debated and can-
vafs'd^ yet can it not with any Shadow or
Appearance of Truth^ be faid to have been
of late thruit into the Ne-w Tefiamevt^ by thofe
that would moft gladly have it expunged. If
it was an Addition at firft_, which we have
no Reafon to yield^ without good Proof;
yet ftill Mr. Emljn was much in the Wrong to
call it a Modern Addition *. Were it but ^
few Years fmce^ or in later Ages only^ that
this Text had firft appear'd_, there would_, it
muft be own'd^ have been more Likelihood
of a MiftakCj or more Danger of a Fraud :
But after all the Bravado's of fuch as are
egainft it^ we have inconteftible Proof, and
fuch as none can juftly call in Queftion^ that
it not only is generally now own'd in the
Chriftian World^ but alfo that it was own'd
for Scripture above Twelve hundred Years
ago j and we have probable Proof that goes
yet much farther^ and rifes higher.
This Text is not only now common^*
ly read in thefe Parts of the World^ but Fa-
ther Simon ■\y as much as he fets hi/nfeJf
againft it^ freely owns^ that it is read by
the
f Pag. 353. t Crir. Hift. of ihe N. T. c. xviii.
430 I ]ohnv.y. Vindicated^
Serm, the Greeks at this Day in their Ccpy intitled
I. * Apofiolos. Nor is this of late only^ but it has
l^.'-^-y^ long been own'd amongft 'enn. Mr. Sddcn t
acknowledges it was read conftantly and
folemnly^ as a Part of Scripture^ both in
the Greek and Latin Churches before the
Reformation. So that as Bifhop Stlllingflcet ob-
ferves ^y There was a general Confent of
the Eafiern and JVefi^rn Churchds for the rcr
ceiving it ; and we Ihall afterwards fee^ that
this was of-a long ftanding too. Tho' there
might be fome Variety in the remaining Co-
pies of the Ncw Tcfiamenty with regard to
this Yerfe^ yet there was little Notice taken
of it ; there was no Variety in the Tubllck Ser-
"uice^ nor* do we meet with any Obje<5i:ions
• againlt the Gemdnenefs of this Text^ till Eraf-
mm rais'd a Duft^, and began a Scruple^ which
others have taken no fmail Pleafure in increa-
fing fince. So that tho' our Humble Inqtiirer
(who has fince ftyi'd his Performance^ A Full
Jnejmrj) thought ht to ftyle thisj a long dcubted
Text 4.^ yet he might as well^ (and I think
more truly) have call'd it^ a long oivnd Text,
in as much as it has been much longer own'd
than doubted of in the Church of Christ,
where for any Thing that appears^, it was
firft opposed by Erafmus and Ser^jetzis,
And as to Erafmus^ tho' he left it out of
ihis firit Edition of the 'New Tefiament^ yet he
brought It into his third Edition^ An,\^z2,y
being prevail'd with by a BritiJJ) Copy^ which
he foiiow'd, tho' he does not tell us where
that Copy was depofited. . It was alio kept
in in the CompluHnJlan'Edmon^ after a variety of
Copies
^ DeSynedr. Lib. II. cap. iv.
* Vind. of ihQ Dodt. of th? Jrmif^, p. 165. i P. 30$,
I John V. 7- Vindicated. 4,31
Copies had been fearch'd. And as for us here Sjerm,
in England, tho' Bede takes no Notice of it^ yet j
it IS obfervable^ that this Text has been in
all the feveral Editions of the EvgUJlj Bible that
ever came out. It was in Wlcklijf's Bihie, and in
King Henry VIlFs^ and in King Edward's Bl^
hlcy and in TjndaWsy and in the Bifhops Bible
in Q. Eliz^abtth's Time, as well as in our laft
Tranflation of K. Jar/ies I. It was indeed un-
der the Influence of Erafmm, put in a different
Letter^ m the Bibles Printed in the Time of
H, 8. and Ed. 6. and in Tjndal's in i^^o :
But it has fince been printed without any
diftindion of Charader at all, which fo me
it feems are much troubled at.
I freely grant this would be no Argu-
ment for itili retaining this Text^ li it was
once proved Spurious. And yet confidering
that it has been fo long own'd and retain-
ed and refpeded in the Church of Christ,
and has been in our Bible ever fince wc
had a Bible in the Brh'fi Language, they
that are againfl: it, had need give us very
good and lubftantial Evidence that it ought
to be quitted, before they can reafonably
expedl we fhould be free to part with itl
But farther,
3. Tho' it mult be own'd. That a conclu-
five Argument cannot be drawn in this Cafe^
from tne different Charaders of the Per-
fons that have been on the two oppofite
Sides, in the Debate about this Text, yet is
there fomething fo remarkable in this Re-
fped to be obferv'd, that I think it ough^
not to be wholly overlook'd *. It is a
Confideration
** I rho'u I had here exprefsM myfelf modeftly enough :
But k appears from Mr. Er^lyns preface ra hi3.^«/Wri»
Mr.
I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Confideration that may I think be well
allcw'd to have fome Weight with
Men of Senfe and Sobriety^ to taKe Notice_,
That among the Moderns that have flood
up for this "Text^ there have not only been
fome of as good and extenfive Learnings
and as much Penetration^ and Sagacity^ as
any of thofe on the other Side^ but that they
have been more remarkable for their Love
to ferious Piety^ and their Veneration for
the Holy Scripture^ the main Support of it,
than thofe that have been for dilcarding it ^*
who have been pretty generally loole in
their Principles^ bold and venturefome in
their Tempers^ and little concern'd to what
they fliould have been^ tho' the Sacred Scri-
ptures fhould be exposed to Contempt^ by
the Methods they have been intent upon
purfuing. I hardly think they that are a-
gainlt this Text_, can produce any one of
their
Mr. M/irtin, that he was not a little dlfpIeasM, that
I fhould heghi mth Mens CharfiBers, rather than with
their Arguments, And yet he knows very well that this
is not only the Way of the great Spanhehn in his
Elenchtis Contrcvetfinruniy but of the generality of the
Reformed Divines in their Debates with their Oppo-
fers. So that my Mcrhod has nothing in it that is
in this Refpedl: at all peculiar. As to the Four Per^
fons I mentioned, he Tingles out Three of them, and
fays of Le Clerc, Mr. iVhiJion, and P. Simon, that
they are vcell k^How?i to be Men of fuperior Abilities,
and fingulnr Learning. And the fame mip.ht alfo have
been laid of Sccinus, whom he over'ookM : Bur ftiil I
think I have otVer'd that as to their other Qaalifi-
cations, as miift necefTarily make 'em appear unfit
Perfbns to be our Guides. Or, if Mr. Emlyn con-
tinues of another Mind, he may boafl of 'em with as
much Glory as he pleafes for me ; for I fliall be fjir
from envying him his Satisfadion.
I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^00
their niind^ of more general Learnings ^^Serm.
more cxcenfive Knowledgej or a better Cri- t'
tick J than Mr. Sel^kvy wlio has openly de- ^^-vV>^
clar'd for it. BiOiop Vatrkkj (who himfclf
was no mean Perfon_,) declares^ he needed
no more to fatisfy him that this Text was
genuine^ than what had been offered by the
Great Sii-Un. '*■ Bifhop StiUwgfieet went the
fame Way • together with Dr. HajTimond^
Bifliop Bully and Dr. Qrabe^ Dr. Thcmas Smith
and Dr. MVds. On the other fide Hand Sod-
ntiSy V. Shnon.'h^CkrCy and Mr. Win f^ on. Is
there any Comparifon between the Men !
Father Shno7i in particular^ take him with
all his Learning, was moft certainly a
Man of very ill Principles^ and one that
did more to leiTen Mens Veneration for
the Holy Scriptures^ than any Writer of
the laft Age. The Scr'i^turey fays he^ whe-
ther It has been corrupted or not^ may be cited
as an Authentick ABy vjhen it is confind ovith-
in the Bounds forementiond ^* that Is^ when h
agrees with the Doctrine of the Church : And ^tls
in that Senfe that the Fathers faldj that the trtte
Scripture was found only in the Churchy and that
that only foJ]ej]es it. t And Upon this Bottom^
the Church may reform the Copies of the
Scripture at Pleafure^ and their Copies thus
reform'd muft be taken for the Doctrine
of the Apoftles \.. Is not this an admira-
ble Man to be a Guide to Proteftants I
It mutt be own'd he had a greater Op-
portunity than moft Men^ for confulting
F f and
* Bifliop Pntriclis WitnefTes to Chrlftianicy. Vol. L
Ch. i. p. 7.
t Crlt. du N. Teft. Lib. III. c. xxll. p. 494-
i See Sentimcns dc iiudq j Tbeol. de HolU^fide."-^
pag. 419.
434 I ]^^^ ^' 7* Vindicated.
Serm. ^"^^ fearching into Manufcript Copies of
T * the Bible '^ but at the fame time it Ihould
\^^^>^^^ not be forgotten^ that the whole Current
of his Writings difcovers lo little Venera-
tion for thofe Sacred Records^ and they
have fo many things in 'em^ tending to
v/eaken their Authority^ that we have the
kls Reafon to take his Wcrd^ or pay him
Regard^ in what he fuggeits about iuch a
Text as this. When this Gentleman has
done all that in him lay to unfettle others
about it^ the Sal^o with which he comes
oif at laft^ is perfedly ridiculous. There Is
enljy fays he^ the Authority of the Churchy that
at this day makes us recehje this Vajfage as An-
thentlck. * And if he could believe upon
Authority againft Evidence^ I can't fee
what Authority his judgment or reprefen-
tations can have^ over Iuch as are for pro-
ceeding rationally in their determinations
and decifions. Again^
4. If the Text of this Epiille of St. Joh?^
has really varied from what it was at hrft^
I thinkj upon a fair Comparilbn^ it will
be found much more likely^ to have been
by leaving out^ than by taking in. To
me I mult confefs it is much more eafy
to fuppofe fuch a Paffage as this_, to be
omitted_, tho' in at firft^ than to be intire-
iy added^ either at one t/me or another^
if it was never there before^ which could
not well happen without Noife and Obfer-
vation. It might be at firfl: omitted by
Accident and without any Defign^ but it
could not be added without an ill Dtiign^
of which we ought not to fufped Alen
without Reafon. If
Hifi. Crit. du N. X Ch. 18, p. 3,17.
John
V. 7. Vindicated.
If there really has been any defign'd ill
Alanagement with refped: to this Text^ it
is much more likely (as farr as I can judge)
to have come from the Arlans^ or thole
who were either for making way for^ or
fupporting their Notions^ than from the
Trinitarians. According indeed to Mr. Whlfton's
Notions it would be very unjuft to offer
to fufped the Avians. For he affures us that
no fingle inltance of this Nature_, was e-
ver prov'd upon them : '^ And that they
had the Ancient Authors fo clearly on their
fide^ that they were under no Temptati-
on to corrupt them, f But after a careful
fearch into the Matter^ I cannot help be-
ing of a quite different Opinion. I think
it admits of very good Evidence that the
Arlans had much more occafion^ and much
Itronger Temptations to be tardy in this
refped^ than they that were call'd CAtho^
licks. And befides_, they were often charg-
ed with faults of this Nature^ even in their
itioft flourifhing Circumltances,, and when
they had the Afcendant.
^ If this Text be genuine_, the whole Arian
Scheme is at once overthrown^ and cannot
Hand before it : And upon that account
we have the lefs reafon to vv^onder that
they that are in that Scheme^ are {o zea-
lous againft it^ and fo defirous to ^^t rid
of it : Whereas tho' this Text fliould be
own'd Spurlousy yet the Dodrine contended
for by the Trinitarians^ might (as has been
before obferv'd) have been fufficiencly prov'd
out of other Texts. This to me makes it
F f 2 plain^
* Efifay on the Apoftollcal Conftltudgns, p. 675,
t Ihld, p. 676.
1 John V. 7. Vindicated.
plain^ that the Temptation to ftrain a point
was much greater on the Arl^n than on
the other fide. And withal^ the Jrlans and
their abettors and adherents^ were often
charged with maiming the Scriptures when
they were in flourifhing Circumftances.
Dr. M'dl is willing as to this to excufe
'enij and this is reckoned a Matter of tri-
umphant boalting : ^ But he was therein
more complaifant to 'em than there was
any occafion for. For we are told by 5o-
crates the Ecclefialtical Hiftorian f that it
was obferv'd by the Ancient Interpreters^
that there were fome who depraved this
Epiftle of St. Jolm^ deilgning to feparate
between the Man and God in our ElelTed
Saviour. And had the works of thofe An-
cient Interpreters been ftill remaining_, we
might have been able^ to have judged bet-
ter about itj than we can now they are
Ipft. And mofl of the Latin Fathers^ af-
ter the rife of the Herefy of Arms^ com-
monly brought it as an Objec^lion againft
Tiis Followers and Supporters^ that they cor-
rupted the Scriptures^ and us'd to blot Paf-
! fages out of them^ and ftrangely mangle
.them. This was particularly objected a-
' gainit them^ by Hilary of VoiBlers^ Hilary
' the Deacon _, St, Amhrofe^ and Sahnanus.
This is ground enough for a fulpicion :
Whereas we don't find the Trinitarians charg-
• ed with any thing of that Nature. Belldes^
" the Jrlans had much more opportunity for
■ fuch Fads than their Oppoiites. They were
. extreamly favour'd by Confiantius and Valens
the Emperours^ and in their time had all
the
* £w/^«'s Trads. p. 3T9, \ Lib. 7. cap. 32,
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 4^7
the power in their hands^ and when onceSERM.
they had gotten the Trinitarian Clergy t
expell'd their Churches^ might dp whate- ^^-^l^s^
ver they would in all Parts^ having no re-
Itraint or check but from the Providence
of God.
As to the Gofpel written by St. Jo/j?f,
tho' the Jrians (as well as the Alogl and
Theodottts before them) could not by any
means relifh that^ and were contmually
cavilling at it^ yet they could not fo eafi-
ly corrupt_, or maim^ or alter it. For Hue-
tius * has obferv'd that the Original of that^
was preferv'd in the Church of Ephefus^ to
the time of the Emperour Homrlusi And
Teter Bifliop of Alexandria^ who liv'd to-
ward the middle of the 6th Century_, fays
it was preferv'd there till his time_, and
much valu'd by the Chriftians. f So thac
if any Debates arofe about any Part pjr
Paflage of that^ it was eafy to have it
d^^cided: and they that were ever fo much
difpos'd that way_, could not well corrupt
it^ by reafon of the many copies which
we may well conclude were taken from^ and
collated with that Original^ which was fo
long preferv'd. But it was quite otherwife
as to this firll Epiltle of the very fame
Apoftle. That (as the Fathers generally
tell us) was written to the ?arthla?iSy and
when it was once lent to them^ we never
hear of the Original of it afterwards. It
is generally faid to have been written at
Efbefus : But we have not the leaft hint
that the Autograph of it was there prefer-
* Demonftr, Evmgel. Prop. i. §. f5»
j in Chfon, dUx, 4 B^^no r^?>.
438 I John V. 7- Vindicated.
Serm. ved. On this Account it might the more
T * eafily be corrupted by the Anansy and it
^^-JL, has been the Opinion of many that it was
^'^^fo.
Among others^ this was the fentiment
of the Learned Grotius ; tho' at the fame
time it was his Apprehenfion that the J-
rmns did not as to this Text^ fo much
take away from the Words^ as add to them^
on purpofe that they might be able to ga-
ther from them^ that the Father^ Son^ and
Holy Sfirh were not One^ any otherwife
than by Confintj in the fame Manner as
the Spirit y the Water ^ and the Blood ^ agreed
in one Teftimony. In this Appreheniion of
his he is pretty lingular^ and I fee no Rea-
fon to fall in with him. To me it appears
much more probable^ that the Avians left
thefe Words out^ than that the Orthodox
put them in. The Notes on the Rhemijh
Teltament go that way ,• and Fromondus a
Divine of Lowrjain in his Notes on this
Text does fo too. And tho' Simon wonders
at him for fo doings "^ yet we may as
well wonder at him in return^ and io be
even with him. The Learned Heinfms up-
on this place^ gives it as his Opinion^ that
the fwQrn Enemies of the Truth^ could
not bear^ and eras'd this Text^ bccaufe of
that Doctrine which was fo plainly and
nianifeftly here delivered. Cormlitis a La fide
alfo gives it as his Opinion^ that the Ari^
ans took it out pf their Copies. And ma-
jiy others of note in the Learned World^
have beeii of the fame Opinion.
And
I Hift» Crit. du N, T. Ch. 18, p. 2^x4,
I John V. 7. Vindicated^ 439
And whereas it is query'dj How fhould Serm-
the Aria7is put cut thele Words_, upon Sup- j
pofition they were out already^ an Hundred ^ys/^^
and fifty Years before Jrhis was born ? It is
eafily anfwer'd • That tho' this Verfe might
at nrft be accidentally left out of feme Co-
pies of this Epiille^ yet the Anans happen-
ing to light upon a Copy that had it_, might
leave it out by Defign^ in order to the
hindring thofe who were in the oppofitc
Scheme of Notions^ from making Ufc of it
to their Diiadvantage : Which as far as I
can perceive^ carries nothing in it that is
at all unlikely.
5". We may obferve farther^ That they
who have agreed together in oppo/ing the
Genuinenefs of this Text^ have been far
from agreeing in the Account they have gi-
ven of the Matter ^ nay^ they have been
very oppofite to each other : Which to mc
is an Argument^ that the Strength of their
Evidence is not equal to their Pofitivenefs
and Affurance. Faufim Socinus fays of thefe
Words_, ^Tts 'very e'vident^ that they are Jhw
riousy andfoified into this Tlace by Men that were
bent upon defending their Opinion of a GoD that
was One and Three in any Way that offer d. He
will have it^ That St. Jerom lighting on
one or fever al Copies in which this Verfe
was addedj in fuch a manner as that the
Fraud could not be well difcover'd^ began to
defend it as genuine_, in Oppofition to all
other Copies both Lailn and Kjreek. But Si"
men flatly denies that this Text was addc^
by St. Jerom. Erafmus fays_, That the GrceJz
Copies in which this Paflage is founds were
alter'd from the Latin : But Father Simon
lays, the Paffage crept out of the Margin in-
50 the Text, He tells us^ That the Dodrine
~ f f 4 ' . of
440 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. ^^ ^he Trinity was formerly written in
j^ the Bible by way cf l>lote or Scholium 5 but af-
s^y^^fis^ terwards inferted in the Text^ by thofe who
tranicrib'd the Copies. But he leems in this
RefpecSl to have chang'd his Mind^ when he
came to write his DlJJcrtatlon upon Mamffcripts.
He takes Notice of a Copy in the French
King's Library^ where over againft the 8th
Verle^ of the Three Wltneffes on Earthy there is
this Remark in Greek^ that h^ the Holy Spirit^
mid the Father^ ayrd He (that is the Son) of
hlmfelf. And from hence he gathers^ that
the Author of that Remark uaderftood the
Father^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghofi^ to be
fignify'd by the Sfhlt^ the V/ater^ and the
Blood '^ and fays^ That what was formerly
written by way cf ]\cte^ pais'd afterwards
into the Text. He adds^ That in the fame
Copy, over againft: the other Words^ mid
thejc Three are Otie^ this Note is added aifo in
Greek ^ That Is^ One Deity^, One GoD. And he
mentions a like Remark in one of the MSS.
belonging to M. Colbert's Library. Now if
either Soclnus or Erafmm be in this Cafe in
the Rights M. Simon is miftaken ^ and if
M. Simon is in the Right^ both Socim4s and
F/'-afmrn are miftaken. We may farther ob-
ferve^
6. That if the Context be but fairly
confider'd^ it will appear much more pro-
bable that this Text is genuine than fuppo-
fitious. I'm not ignorant that Sandlns * fays^
That the Words would be better connelied^ if the
^th Verfe were omitted : And SUchtitigius ^ That
thefe Words ha^ue no Coherence with what went be^
fore. The former fays_, That 'tis unworthy of
the
Appnd. Inter^rftat, Paradox, p. 381,
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 44.1
the Supreme GoD to be a J^Htnefs ; and asks^ Serm*
Wjom It Is He fljoidd be a VVitnefs before ? Which j
is an impious Cavil ,• fince the Blelled God^ ,^y^y^^^^
who is belt Judge of what is unworthy of
himfelf, or any Way injurious to him_, hath
often reprefented himfelfas a Witnefs. The
latter argues thus : J/?efe Words ha've the canfal
Particle tor^ frefix\l to them^ which JJieii^s that
the Reafon is given of what was faid he-*
fore. Now fays he^ 'Twos faldy that the Wa-
ter^ and Bloody and Sprit ^ as a moft true Witnefs^
gave Tefiimony f<? Jesus_, that He was theChriji
of God : Of which faying it is no Reafon at
all y that there are Three that bear Record in
Heaven^ the Father^, the Word_, and the Holy
Ghoft. There was no exprefs me?itlon either of
the Father^ or of the Word , and the Teftlmo^
ny of the Holy Spirit was not to be troduc*
ed^ as a Reafon and Caufe of the Holy opirit's
tefilfyiyig : This would be mere Trifll?ig. i3ut when
the Thing the Apoftle was here feting him-
felf to prove^ was this^ That Jesus wasjthc
ChrisT;, true God and Man_, and our Me-
diator and Saviour^ nothing could be more
natural^ proper^ and orderly^ than for him to
prove this both by Divine and Humane Wit-
neffes^ that he might convince^ that it was
abundantly attefled. For^ in this Cafe^ comes
in very naturally^ becaufe it fhews that his
main Alfertion is well prov'd. The Apo-
ftle fJDeaks of all thefe Wltnefes joyntly^ ver. 6 .
Then of the Divine feparately^ ver. 7^ and
of the Humane feparately^ 1/. 8 : And at laft^
in V. 9^ he joyns both together^ and fays_.
If we receive the Witnefs of Men^ the Witnefs
of Go D is greater. And this Way^ the Teftl*
mony of the Holy Spirit is not produced as a
Reafon and Caufe of the Holy Spirit's teftlfying :
But good Evidence is given that the Truth
affejpted
442 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. afferted is fully attefted. Knd k th^ Trlfilng
J falls upon SUchtinglits ^ and not upon the Con-
syy^m^ nexion of thefe words_, which is plain^ and
dear^ and admirable.
Our late Inquirer ^ or rather Determiner^
here falls in with his beloved Companions,
and faySj That the Context has no internal E'vi-
dencCy to perfuade m that the Words are genuine l
and Is compleat without thcm^ and rather more
[mooth and eafy '^. Dr. Louis Roger^ tho' a
Romany in this Cafe referrs to the Sjnopfis
Criticoru?n for Proof of the contrary f, which
I fhould therefore have thought it proper
for this Writer to have confuited and con-
fider'd. But he argues in this Manner :
The Three foUovy'lng Witnejfes halving already been
difiinBly fpoken of^ it ivas "very natural to fum
them up in one Conclufiony There are Three that
hear Wltnefs^ the Spirit ^ the Water ^ and the Bleed :
But the other Three Witnejjes had not been men-^
tiondy to gl'ue Occafion for the like to be [aid of
them. Which is a dired begging the Thing
in queition, tho' he might be well alTur'd
it would not be granted him. He goes on ;
Nor 7ms ity fays he, likely the Spirit Jhould be
troduc^d as another Witnefs on Earthy if it had been
numbred before among the Witnejjes in Heaven,
The Spirit 'was no more an Inhabitant of the Earthy
than the Father, and Word were : who alfo opera-
ted and gave their Tefilmonyy not In Heaven^ but
on Earth, Nay^ fays he, the Word incarnate
was more properly an Inhabitant of the Earth
than the Spirit, and yet is not reckon d among
the IVitnefjes on Earth. Is it likely the Spirit
Jhould be made twice a Witnefs In the Matter ^ and
fi.
* Emlyns Trades, p^r/^. 308.
t Dijfemj. Cnt» rkolog, pag. iS8_.
I John V. 7. Vindicated^ 4^^
Co gt've two Tefilmomes for one of the Father SsRM.
and Word ? But what becomes of this fine j^
Reafoning of his^ upon Suppofition^ that the ,^,^>^^^
Sfirit here produc'd as a Witnefs on Earthy
js very different from the Sfirit fpoken of as
bearing Record in Heaven ; and that tho'
the IVord did truly bear Witnefs on Earthy
in his State of Humiliation^ yet when his Te-
flimony is here mention'd^ He was to be
confider'd in his exalted State ^ and fo no
longer an Inhabitant of the Earthy but as
hearing Witnefs from Hea'ven ? And what it
the Holy Sfirit y who is One with the Father ^
and the Word^ is no more brought in as gi-
ving two Teitimoniesj than either of tne
other ? All this may be fafely afferted^ and
eafiiy prov"d. And therefore his Difficul-
ties have nothing in them.
But on the other hand^ it fhould not be
forgotten^ That the Apoltle here declares,
'V, 9. That it is the Witnefs of God he pro-
duces in. this Cafe. If^ fays he^ 72jc receive
the Witnefs of Men^ the Wltnejs of Go D Is great^
er : For this Is the Witnefs of GoD^ which He
hath teftified of his Son. This manifeftly ex-
plains what he had faid of Six WitnefTes^
Three in Heaven ^ and Three In Earth ; and fup-
pofes that the two Veries foregoing^ con-
tain the Teftimony^ both of thofe in Hea-
"ven^ and thofe In Earth. And^ as Dr. Grahe
has well obferv'd *, this Apc^itie s having
taken fuch Notice in his Goipel, of the
Wlinejs given by the Father ^ the Son^ and the
Holy Gbofi^ maKes it the more credible^ that
their Teftimony fliouid here alfo be re~
ferr'd to. And with him Calovim t alfo
agrees y
* Vid. Bulll Def. Fid, JViV. Se^. II. cap. x.
t In BitL mjir.
4ij.^ I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. agrees ,• intimating it would be altogether
T ' Uiilikely, when the IVuneffis to Jesus are
X^^^y^^^ d.^flgnedly treated of, for the Three fVitneJJes
in Hea-uen^ which are the chiefeft and moll
remarkable^ to be omitted^ fmce St. John in
hisGofpel took fuch particular Notice of
their Teftimony^ and Jesus himfeif in John
{o directly appeal'd to it *.
These Things being premis'd^ I conceive
will help to make my Way the more plain
and eaiy. And now I go on^
II. T o make a few free ConceJJlons^ m or^
der to the taking away from thofe that are
againlt this Texr^ any jult Grounds oi Com-
plaint. And this I the rather do^ that fo
when all is granted 'em that they can juil-
iy clainij or produce a plaufible Appearance
of their having a Right to^ it may be the
more evident they are altogether Unreafon-
able^ if they hold on Complaining.
I. Then^ let it be granted^ That this
Text was not urg'd by any of the Greek Fa-
therSj before the Council of Nice:, nor by
any genuine Greek Writer againfl the Avians
afterwards^ while that Controverfy was in
its Height. Be it granted^ that no Notice
is taken of this Text in. any remaining ge-
nuine Writings of Irenaus^ Clement, or Denis
of
* He that would fee the Grammatical Conftrudli-
on of this Text and Context difcufsM, may confult
Principffs contre les Socinicns par Theod. De Blanc. Secft.
II. chap. X. pag. 157, ^e. And he that would fee
the> Analogy that there is between the two Ranks of
TVitneffes, thofe in Heaven, ver. 7. and thofe on Earth,
ver.. 8. confider'd, may confult th? fame Writer, Cha^.
xiii. Art. III. pag. 232.
I John V. 7. Vindicated, zj.^^
O^ Alexandria y or the great Athanafms, Beit
own'dj that this Text is wholly overlooked
by the Fathers of the Council of Sardlca, by
Ep'i^hanhiSy Bajil y Alexander of Alexandria ^ NjJ-
fenCy Naz^lanzene^ DidjwuSy Cyril o{ Alexandria ^
the Author of the ExpoJJtion of the Faith m the
Works of Jufiin Martyr y C^farlm, Trochts^ and
the I>^lcene Fathers themfeives : Nay^ let it
be granted^ that it is not to be found cited
by any one genuine Greek Father^ for up-
wards of Five hundred Years after Christ.
^Tis all granted to our Contenders -^ let them
make the moft they can of it. 0\iv Determi-
ner ^ who feems to have thought thefe Greek
Fathers likely to ha^e feen the Authentlck Originals
oftheApofilesy ^^ (tho' as to the Authentick
Original of this Epiftle^ I don't find any of
them ever pretended to fee it^ or know much
of it^ any more than v/e) may perhaps think
his Point gain'd : Whereas in Reality^ all
that can jultly be inferr'd from their Silence
in this Cafe^ is only this_, That this Text
was not in thofe Copies of the Nev^ Tcfiame7it
which they made Ufe of j- notwithftanding
which_, it might ftill be in the Autograph or
Original Epiitle of St. John^ and alfo in ma-
ny true and genuine Copies of it.
2. Let it alio be granted^ that this Text
was not taken notice of by many of the
Latin Fathers^ any more than the Greek,
Be it own'd^ that it is omitted in the Trea-
tife of the Baptifm of Ilereticks that is in
the works of St. Cyprian ^ and alfo in what
we have remaining of the Writings cf Nc-
'vatian^ Hilary ^ Calaritanus^ Vhahadlus^ Ambrofe^
FaujtinHSy Aufiin^ Leo the great^ Facundus
HermiamnJiSy
* Emljtis Trads, //r^. 31^,
44<5 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. Hermlancnfis y ^u?iiU/ts and Bede : and that
I. feme cf them do not mention this 7th
verfe^ even the' they produce and make
ufe of the Verfes before and after. All
that this Conceflion proves^ is only thi$_,
that fome how or other^ the Copies that
were us'd by thefe Latin Fathers were with-
out this Verle ; but not by any means^
that it was in no true Copies^ and ought
not of right to have been in all.
3. Let it alfo be granted^ that this Text
is wanting in fome of the molt Ancient
Greek Copies that are extant at this Day :
As in our famous Alexandrian Copy in the
Library at St. Jaims's^ reckon'd by fome to
be 1200 years Old^ ^ and in the Vatlain
Copy^ that is much of the fame Age. t
This Conceffion aifeds me the lefs^ becaufe
I have good Proof that this Text was us'd
and own'd as genuine^ before either of
thofe Copies were written^ fuppofmg them
as Old as is pretended^ which yet fome
queftion. The forefaid writer indeed {ays_,
that 'th enough to jhake the Credit of the Text
with all impartial Men^ that "'tis 7vantlng in
thefe twOy the mofi 'valuable and Ancient Copies
we know of in the World. * But methinks
'tis hard that none can be Impartial but
Father
* Dr. Ihcmns Smith fays 'tis farr above a Thou
fand years old. Vind. i S. Jo. c. 5. 1;. 7. afuppcfi
tionis notk, p. 124. Dr. Mill fays it was writren it
the 4th Ceorary : And Dr. Gr^he [in Prafaf, /id OBo
teuch.) is of the fame Opinion.
t Dr. Louis I(pger fays that the Vntknn MS is a-
bove 1300 years old; tho' at the lame time he
owns that Father le Long does not conn: it fo Old.
Differ tat. Crit. Theol. p. "18, 19.
in
I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^^7
Father Simon and his Difciples. I am oFSerm.
Opinion^ that had we thofe two Copies ^
printed exadly as they arc, we fhould find ^^-^^^^
them in fever al things difagree with each
other, and that the Credit of feveral o-
ther Texts would be fhaken, if they were
allow'd to pafs for the Standard. And
mult we either yield to this, or elfe be
partial ! For my part, I can fee no Reafon
for it. I think, to rejed any Text as fpw
r'loiis^ merely begaufe 'tis wanting in thefe
two Copies, tho' it is found cited by good
Authors before thofe two Copies were
tranfcrib'd, as well as is to be met with
in leveral other Copies of good Credit,
looks much more like Partiality *.
Be
* When this was deliver'd from the Pulpic, there
was this Addition : Ihcit iVriter appears in reality to
have fo great an Averfioii to the Docirine which this
Veife holds forth, that he'd net only be content to
part with feveral Texts befides this, rather than he
brought to 0VP71 it ; but I am inclinable to hclieie,
that if this verfe had been found in the two Copies
rnentiondj as valuable as they are, and even in
Twenty more, he would Jiill have had an Inclinatiort
to Cavil againji it ; and would have rcckr,nd that
if there had been but two or three Copies to have been pro-
duced in which it was wanting, that would have been
fuffcient to have juftifyd his calling it in Quejiion :
And if foy what he fays of thefe two celebrated Copies,
is a meer Flourifh. Thefe are the very Words in
which I exprels'd myfelf, tranfcrlb'd from my Notes,
without any Variation. Mr. Emlyn in his Preface to
his Anfwer to Mr. Martins Dilfertacion, reprefents
himfelf as not a little aggriev'd an this, and fays
it is not very Charitable, &cc. I fiiall nor feek to
juftify myielf by laying, (uch expreffions are com-
mon in fuch Debates ; and that upon Search 'tis
not impoiTible but like Inftances might be found in
that Author's own Writings ; and thac feveral hav«
lold
448 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. Be it alfo own'd that this Verfe is want-
I, ing in feveral valuable MSS^ which Bifliop
\^,^-Y^ B/^r;?e/- examin'd in his Travels^ as he has
given the World an Account in his Let-
ters from Swltz^erland. And tho' the Au-
thority of Father Simon is very far from
being fo great with me^ as it appears to
be with the ///// Inquirer ^ becaufe_, notwith-
Itanding the great Sagacity of that late Learned
£ind Laborious Crltkk^ f which that Writer
fo much applauds^ and has fuch a Vene-
ration for_, there occurr in his Performan-
ces fuch manifell Inftances of the groffeft
Partiality and Prejudicej as will not en-
courage any very firm Reliance upon his
Report
told me, they were not aware of any unjuftifiable
feverity in rhe Expreflions I made ule of in this
Cafe ; but I have two Things to offer. The firft is,
That I did not then know for a certainty that he
was the Author of the hiquiry. I had indeed oft
heard it afferted ; but it was many times alfo de-
ny'd in my hearing. The hiquiry was at that time
an Anonymous Pamphlet: And the Refledion was
not Perfonal, till he made it fo, by applying it
to hlmfelf, and fettlng his Name. The fecond is
this; That having fince, in my Printed Difcourfe on
Truth nnd Love^ promised, That if I could difcover I
hnd broken in upon the Love that vons owing to any
that I had pointed to^ in my Difcourfe s o?i the Tri-
nity, I would endeavour to correct it; I have ac-
cordingly here omitted it, as thinking It to be need-
lefsly grating; and believing I myfelf fliould have
reckoned any thing of the like nature to have been
fo, in my own Cafe. And I had not now added
the Words usVi, at all, but for fear leaft the Com-
plaint being publlck, and made with fome warmth,
it might have been Imagln'd by fome, that there
was fome what in my exprefTions, more provoking,
thaa thQre was in reality,
•J Ibid. pag. 309,
I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^^p
Report of matters of Fad,- yet he having Serm.
mentioned feveral Ancient Copies^ in the Li- j
braries of the Fretjch King, and Monfleur Cvl- vX^/^«^
herty in v/hich this Verfe is not to be founds
I am free to allow it to be wanting in
them, till Evidence appears to the contra-
ry : Which I think is as much as can with
Reafon be defir'd.
4. I freely alfo own, that this Verfe is
not to be found, in divers Vtrfions uf the
'Ncjv Teftament into the Languages of fe-^
vera! Nations, who valued and us'd that
Sacred Volume as the Rule of their Faith. The
Learned differ in their Sentiments as to the
Antiquity of feveral of thefe VerCio-ns. The
Syrlack \^ the moft ancient. And it has been
laid by fome. That that Verlion was made
in the very next Age to the Apoftles ,• nay^
even by St. Aiark himielf. But Dr. thomas
Smith alferts "*', That both the Syrlack and
Arahlck Verfions, as we now hare them, arc
not fo ancient as fome have boafted^ but
were made lang after the Council of Kice z-
And the Ethloplck is but a laae Verfion. Dr.
Roger t inclines to think the Syrlack Verfion
not finifh'd before the fixth Century. And
Dr. TVhltby is very pofitive. That neither
the Coptick nor Ethloplck Verfion is of any
Value : And that neither the Syrlack Ver-
fion, nor the Arahlck^ nor the old Itallck,
(efpeciaily not the laft) are worthy of that
Regard, that many Learned Men have ex-
prefs'd for them 4.. father Slr/ion aifures us tt^
G g That
* Vindlc. I John v. 7. n Suppof. Nof^. p. 127.
t Differ tnt. Crlt. Theol. in i John v. 7. p. 27-
i Vid. Exnm. Vnr. Leci. Jo Millii cap. iv. S^Ct. u
tt Blfi, Cm, dsi Verf, dfi N. T. ch. xiii,
^{^o I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. That this Verfe was not in any o1t\\t MSS,
J of the Syriack Verfion that he had confQlted :
^.^^r-^^ But then he alfo obferves^ that many ge-
nuine PaiTages of Scripture are wanting m
that Verfion. He fays^ This Text was not
in any but Guthirius's Edition of it. And
this Gutbirius firft inferring it^ charges the
Jirians as not fparing either the Greek Text^
or the Oriental Verfions^ with Refped to
this PafTage. And yet at length Dr. Tocock
fupply'd this Verfion with this Texc^ out of the
Copy he had from the Eafi^ in our Times '*^.
And the Syriack Verfion being generally with-
out this Textj we have the lefs Reafon to
wonder that the Comck^ Ethloplck^ and Jra^
lick VerfionSj whicn are commonly thought
to have been made from it^ fhould be with-
out it too. But when they that are againft
this Text have made the moll; they are able
of this Particular^ they can only from thence
gather^ that this Verfe was wanting in thofe
Copies from which thofe Verfions were made :
But notwithftanding that^ it might ftill be
Authcntick^ and in St. Johns Original^ and
in many true Copies too that were taken
from it.
5*. I am free alfo to grants That fome
Things have been urg'd in Favour of this
Textj which deferve not the Strefs that
has been laid upon them. Thus in the
Works of Athanafiusy there is a Difpute * a-
gainlt Arlusy in which this Text is cited :
But I cannot fee to what Purpofe it is to
iirge it J when Du Pin and others fo freely
tell uSj that the Dialogue between them two
was drawn up by one that liv'd a great
while
I * Frid, S^rnthe^: Bjl. Chrift. Sccui II. J. 7.
I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^5 1
while after Athanafms ^- and we from attend-
ing Circumftances ^ have a great deal of
Reafon to believe as much. Nor am I for
infiiting on that call'd Athanafms^ Book to
Theo^hliiis^ concerning the United Deity of the
Trinity^ as a Proof , bevaufe Dr. Cave reckons
it among his fpurious Works "''. Nor fliall I
infift on its being referr'd to^ in the Sympjls
of the Holy Scripture^ which is amongfl the
Works of Athanafms^ notwithltanding that Da
Yin reprefents it as genii iiie^ and it is com-
monly own'd an ancient TreatireV" '' ^' -■•■'-'
There is alfo a VrologMc or Treface to the
Qanonical Evlflles^ that has gone under the
Name of St Jerome^ and been printed in va-
rious Editions of the Latm Bible^ in which
former Tranflators of the Nap Tefiament are
charg'd with Unfaithfulnefs^ for mention-
ing only the Water ^ the Bloody and the Spirit^
and omitting the Teftimony of the Father^
tbeWord^ and the Spirit^ by which it is there
intimated^ the Cathollck Faith is much firengthen-
edy and the One Suhjtance of the Dhjinity of Fa-
ther^ Son^ and Spirit^ Is evidenced, Stunica
pleads mightily for this Prefice as St. J-erom'&
againft: Erafmns. Father Slry^on himfelf con-
felTes^ that Fithaus and Alahillon thought it
was St. Jerom's. Bp. Fell pleads for it as St.
Jeroins in his Notes on St. Cyprian : Dr. Tho^
mas Smith offers much in Favour of it f ;
and Worthy Mr. Martin (than whom none
has more zealoully flood up in Defence of
this Text as genuine) has ranfack'd all An-
tiquity in its Defence |j and yet after all^
G g 2 . I
* Uift. Liter. Vol. L Pag. P47.
^ Vindic. ijoh.y.j. a SuppofitionisKotu, p. i37,G?r.
4- DlJfertAt.fur St. Jean, i Ep. c. v. 'v.']. Exnmejt
de In F{epo7ife de Mr. EmlyUj chap. iv. 7— La Veripc
dn Te^tej chap. yi^i.
^i^2 I John V. 7. Vindicated^
Serm. I ^^ft o^n it appears to me a vain Thing
j^ to exped any real Support for this Text
from thence j by which frank Acknowledg-
ment^ I am lenfible I defert fome of my
beft Friendsj and yet am not likely to ob-
lige my Oppofites. But I can't help own-
ing the Truth wherever I meet with it.
Not only is this Preface wanting in feveral
Ancient Manufcript Copies of St.JeromsNew
Teftament^ but this Verfe is alfo omitted in fe-
veral of them that have this very Preface pre-
fix'd to the Canonical Efifiles, , Which to me is
io fair a Proof that the Preface and the t^erfton
had not the fame Author_, that I fhould be
forry the Fate of this Text^ fliould depend on
the rate of that Preface. I here therefore rea-
dily fall in with Dr. MUl^ and own that to
feek to Itrengthen the Authority of this Textj
by that Prologue^ is to go about to Support
the Truth with Fallliooci ,- and that that Prc-
fact was neither drawn up by St. Jtrom^
nor by any one that underftood the Affair of
the Bihle as it ftood at that Time which it re-
fers to. For tho* it cannot be deny'd that
there is in that Preface^ fomewhat that looks
like the ftile and way of '^t.Jerome^ yet are there
fome Things that I cannot conceive could
come from him. He could not fay^ that the
Greek Fathers ge?ier ally retained this Tcxt^ when he
knew the contrary. Nor could he charge
the want of this Text in the Latin Verli-
on, purely upon the Intcrpreter_, who was
oblig'd to keep ciofe to the Greek Copy
that lay before him^ and could not faith-
fully infert this Text in his Verfion^ if
that had left it out. Nor could he pre-
tend that he in his Verfion hrft reltor'd
this feventh Verfe^ when it is not to be
found there, even tho' this Preface is pre-
fix'd
I John V. 7* Vindicated. 4.55
jSx'd. And if that Vreface was not St. Je- Serm.
Yome^ whoever was the Author of it^ I j^
cannot perceive it can do us any Ser- •^/"^^^^sj
vice.
But tho' I freely quit fuch Things as
thefe_, through an unwillingneft to alledge
any Thing tor Proof that will not hold,
yet can \ not by any means Confent to
part with the Citation of this Text by
TertulUany and yet much lefs with the No-
tice taken of it by St. CyprUn^ for Reafons
that will be mentioned atterwards.
And finally^ I readily alfo grants that
if this Paffage did not really come from
St. John^ its Agreeablenefs to the Truth
delivered in other Scriptures^ would be far
from juitifyingj either the nifertmg it at
firft^ or the retaining it afterwards. As
true Chriftian Principles will not allow
any fuch Bcus Frauds ^ fo neither does our
Religion or any Thing that belongs to it
need them. Could I fee good Reafon to
believe this Text Spurious I would be a5 free
to expunge it out of the Bihle^ as they that
are the moil fet againil it could defir.e.
I readily grant our Incjulrer^ That the H<k^
Twur and Intcrefi of our Holy Religion will b^
better fer^vd by dlfownlng ingeiiioujly what we
find to be an Errour^ eiien tho* it barje long
-pafs'd current for Truth ^. But then we muft
have good Evidence that it is an Error
that we quit ; b. Convidion of which^ won't
fo eafily be produc'd by big Words a$
ftrong Arguments.
Our Inquirer y after M. Le Clerc takes the
Liberty to affirm^ That Dr. Mill^ who put?*
lifli'd the celebrated Greek Tcjfammt at Oxr
G g J fird^
'I — ' '4vm
454- I J^hn V. 7. Vindicated.
Sbrm. ford^ has himfelf overthrown the Credit of this
J^ Texty by the E'vldence he has gluen that it Is
V^^yN^' 7iot Original and Genuine ^ tho'' he has not ac-
knowledgd himfelf overcome by It *. And he
may perhaps think that by fuch Conceffi-
ons as thefe^ I alfo have overthrown it^
tho' I am feeking to ettablifh it: But I
hope it will appear by the Sequel^ that I
have good and iatisfadory Evidence yet
remaining^ that neither has Dr. Mill over-
thrown this Text^ nor have I any Reafon
to give my Confent to part with it^ not-
withltanding thefe Conceffions made^ in
which I have therefore been the freer,
that i^o they who are on the other lide
may not be able to fay^ that after great
Pams taken^ they can get nothing grant-
ed them. Having gone thus far in yield-
ing^ I think I may at length make a Itand,
and take my rife to argue with thofe that
are againit this Text with fome Advantage,
without being juilly liable to that heavy
Charge of rather maintaining Cujtom than
Truth t.
However, when we find fuch a Text
as this is, attended with fo much Difficul-
: ty, I think I may be allowd to make
this fair Motion, That inftead of being fur-
priz'd at it, we fliould (as it very well
becomes us) be thankful that it is not fo
as to many more. If we foberly confider,
the Negligence and Carelefsiiefs of the Wri-
ters and Tranfcribers, through whofe Hands
the IS^eiv Tefiamcnt pafs'd for many Ages ,
and the \\'illuignefif and Readinefs of de-
figning Perfbns, to alter and mangle fuch
Copies
* Trads, p. 307. \ Ihid, p, 307,
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 45^
Copies of the infpir'd Writers as were .at Serm.
their own Difpofal^ I can fee no Occafion we j^
can have to be iurpriz'd at any thing of this \^y>^->^
Kiiid^ we may obferve. Inltead of being
fhcck'd at the many ' uarlous Readings that
appear^ in a Courfe of fo many Yea rs^ I'
think verily we may rather wonder that
they are not more_, and more Confidera-
bie. Nay_, we may well adaiire the watch-
ful Eye of Dhjlm h-ovidence^ which has not
fuffer'd the Scripture to be corrupted^ al-
tered, or deprav^dj either by Negligence
or DcUgn^ to any fuch Degree^ as not to
leave lucli Difcoveries of needful Truth as
are fufficient^ and a plain Way to Eternal
Happinefs. This is moft certainly juft Matr
ter of great Thankfulnefs.
There are indeed in our New Tefla-
ment Revelation^ feveral Things that are ia
themf elves hard to be under flood ^ and there
are feveral Paffages in it that are dilferent-
ly recited: And yet Truth and Puty are
plain enough^ unlefs we'll fliut our Eyes^
or willingly give way to a Spirit of Per-
yerfeiiefs- As dubious as many have ffcu-
dy'd to make this particular Text^ yet the
JJodrine it declares 15 plain enough in the
very Form of Baplfm that our Saviour ap-
pointed to be continued' in his Church in
all Ages^ in the Name of the Father^ and of
the Sony and of the Holy Gbofl ; which is
an Order we may I think well conclude
he would not have given^ if either each of
the Three had not been GoD_, or all of them
had not been One God. Let us blefs Air
piighty G 0D3 that by thjs Settlement he has
made our Way fo plain : And let us ad-
here to this Dodrine whatever may be
ofFer'd to divert us from ic. Let us live
^i^6 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
^BKM as Perfons truly devoted to Father^ Son]
T * and Holy Gbefi^ and either the whole of
^" Chriftianity muft be a Fable and Fidion^
or we may depend upon
be fafe and happy.
sy>r^
it that we ihall
S E RM
457.
SERMON II.
I J O H N . V. 7^
For there are Three that hear
Record in Heaven^ the Fa-
ther, theWoK,\^j and the
Holy Ghost ; and thefe
Three are One.
Proceed^ Salrers-
III. T o give the Sum of the Argument dny Lee*
agalnfi this Text^ with a Re.^ly to ^^"^ »
it in its feveral Parts and Branches. •^^"* ^"^^
This is an Argument in which fome have
mightily triumphed ; But no one more than
the late Incjulrer, It ftand^ thus : So many
Ancient Greek Copies^ and Ferfions of the
I^ew Tefiament into Other Tongues^ being
without this Text ^ and fo many of the
Greek and Latin Fathers ^ not having
quoted it;, when they have fpoken of the
Trinity^
4^8 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. Trinity^ and had fo much Occafion to
TT produce it^ there being nothing more per-
\^^->J^^ tinent to their Deilgn^ than this would
have been ,♦ it cannot be genuine : For if it
was^ we fhould moft certainly have heard of
it from them^ and met with it amongft them.
We are told^ this is a large Stock of E-vldence^
end as much as one can well require for a JSle-
gatl've^ to JIjcjv that this Verfe was not orlginaL^
/)' a7Ty Part of the New Teltament : And that
one had fteed ha-ve I'ery dlreci and perempory Je-
jHmofues to the contrary^ to make him fo much as to
hafitatc in the Matter ^. From hence it is con^-
cluded, That either the Fathers knew nothing of
this Texty or counted h fufficlpns. And Father
Simon^ vyho was fo converfant in Munufcrij>tSy
declaring^ That after all his Searches^ he
could not meet with It inferted as we ha-ve Ity in any
oTje Greek Manufcrip fj it is reprefented 2S
Matter of ^idmlratlon^ that any Man of common
Sen(e fnould fiiH Infifi upon it as genuine. But I
have Four Things to oiFer^ that appear
to me a fufficienc Anfwer to this Argu-
ment.
I. The not mentioning fuch a Text as
this by a good number ,-cf the Fathers^ in
luch W'ritin^,^ oi uitiis ak we nave remain-
ing^ and their Silence about it when it
might be thought they had great Occaiion for
it^ is far from being a Proof there was no
luch Text ,• nor is the Cafe much alter-
ed fuppolijig the ancient Verfeons taken in.
This might indeed well enough have occa-
fion d Harfitation^ and given Ground for
Doubt and Sufpicion^ had there been no-
thing
^' Enihtis Traces, ^ng. 317.
t DiJJert.Crmq.'fur Us. M^S, du N, T, p. 5."
r John V. 7. Vindicated. 459
thing to have been alledg'd on the other hand Serm-
that over-ballanc'd : But to pretend from jj
hence certainly to concltidCj that there was ^••>Js^
no fuch Text as this in beings is to run too
far^ and too fafl.
Several Writings of the Greek Fathers_,
and particularly of thofe who liv'd in the
molt early Ages^ are ioftj^ and not to be
recover'd "*". Had they been preferv'd^ they
might have help'd us to a great deal of
Light which now is wanting. Eufcbms par-
ticularly tells uSj as to demerit of Alexandria^
That among other Things he wrote upon
this firft Epillle of Jude^ and the other Gr-
thol'ick Epjfiles. Had what he wrote upon this
firft Epiitle o^Jchn comedown to our Times^
we might perhaps have found this Text m-
ferted ; I am well afTur'd thofe Gentlemen
who are molt againlt the Text^ neither are
able to prove J nor have any Right to con-
clude^ the contrary. Dldymus alio wrote a
Comment on the Catholkk Epiltles. And as .
to hinij we may fay the very fame. Several
others among the fathers ^ that did not cite
this Text in thofe Works of theirs that are
Itill extant^ might for any thing w^e knov^
have it in fome other Works of theirs which
have perilli'd in the Ruins of Time. It has
been obferv'd^ That Clement of yiUxandrla^
and fome others of the Fathers^ fpeaking of
the Trinity f^ took no Notice at all of the
Baptilinal Charge in the Name of the Father^
the Son^ and the Holy Gholt : But it by no
Means fc^ows from thence^ that that was
not Scripture^ or that we have any Reafon
to
* Ecdef. Hift. Lib. VI. cap. xiv.
t S^c Mnrtin Differ tat. Criti^. Part 11. chap. iii.
I John V. 7. Vindicated.
to queftion its being genuine. 'Tis true^
that Charge is mentioned by others : But its
being oft omitted^ where the mentioning it
would have done good Service^ is an Evi-
dence that the Text we are upon is not
proy'd fpurlous by its not being cited^ when
we may imagine it fhould have been cited_,
had llich a Text been knov\^n3 and own'd.
And withal^ our m oft ancient C(?^i!7/V/3 and
the feveral Oriental VerJIoiis^ are defedive as
to fome other Texts^ which yet are general-
ly own'd to be genuine^ and undoubtedly
are fo. M. Martin has produced feveral In-
ilances out of Dr. Mill ^. And Dr. Whitby
affirms_, That there are Six hundred Places, in
ni'hlch our common Reading of the Text of Scri-
pure^ is dijferent from all the Old Verfions f . And
after all^ feveral of the ancient Fathers (as
we ftialt fee in the Sequel^) have cited and
own'd this Text as genume, I muft own
therefore it appears to me unreafonable^
and indeed abfurd^ becaufe a number of the
Fathers have not cited it^ and the ancient
Vtrfions have not infer ted it^ prefently to
conclude it tp be no Part of Scripture,
Butj
2. After all the Noife that has been
made of this Text's being wanting in the
Majjufcrlft Copies of the New Teftamenty we
have good Evidence of its being found in
feveral very Valuable Manufcrlfts, I can rea-
dily grant all that is dropp'd by Critlcks and
Dealers in Mamtfcrlpts^ is not to be depended
on. I agree with the h^ttirer^ that Cr kicks
fire not aiv;ays to be trttfted^ in what they fay of
their
* Ibid. P^rt IL chap. i.
t Vld, Exam. Var. Le^. Job. imH car. Iv. f? h
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 4(5f
their oivn Fidelity '^. They as often fee thro' Sfrm«
.falfe SpeclaclcSj and are as liable to Mil- tt
takesj and as capable of ferving hnlif er Pur- ^/-w^
pofesj and therefore as much need to be care-
fully watch'd^ as any Men whatever. And
yet when a Number of Perfons that have
no way forfeited their Charader^ pofitively
allure us_, after Searching into AlamfcrlptSy
That tho' others want this particular Text^
yet fuch and fuch have it in 'em ; to reprefent
it as a Thing doubtful^ Whether any MSS. at
all really have it^ is to deftroy all Credit y
and therefore very hard and unreafonable :
And to cry upWitnelTes on one Side of a
Debate^ as if they could hardly be fufficient-
ly magnify'd^ and upon all Cccafions to dii-
credit thofe on the other Side^ is extremely
Partial. And yet this is the Way of thole
that arc againft this Textj who make httle
or nothing of all that is faid of the Manu-
fcrlpts in which it is to be found j and at
the fame Time run-down Erafmns about his
Britifli Copy, from whence he declares he
took it 'j and inveigh againft Bez^a and Stc-
fhens (tho' Father 6hfW7i himfelf owns^ that
He may be compared to' r^|pjoft able Cri-
ticks t) and reprefent thenf and others^ as
Perfons deferving no Regard^ while hardly
any Thing that is great enough can be faid
of Father Simon^ who with all his Skill was
moft certainly as bigotted and partial^ and
as prejudiced and canker'd a W^iter^ as any
our Modern Times have afforded. That
Author is very free in acknowledging. That
the main Dejign of his Writings^ 'was to efiabl:jlj
the
* EmhrCs Traces, pag. 331.
4<52 I Johi^ V. 7. Vindicated.
W/'V^
SerM,' ^'^^ common Belief of the Churchy againfi the No^
jr ' z?elty of the Frotefiants *: And yet fuch a Ve-
neration have fonie Vroteftants tor him^ that
they are for fwallowing whatever comes
from him by wholefale. I cannot help
faying. That this has an Afpecl: that is a
little Peculiar.
I have already own'd, and it is not to
be deny'd or conceal'd. That this Text is
wanting in fome valuable Copies that are now
remaining : But I can't fee any Reafon we
have in fuch a Cafe as this_, to conline our-
felves to MSS. that are now in being. I
think we may very well claim the Benefit
of fuch MSS. as were view'd by Perfons that
liv'd a great While before us, and are fmce
worn out, or loft. Hiltory gives us an
Account of a careful Collation of AdSS, in
thefe Parts of the World at two different
Seafons, the one above Seven hundred Years
ago, manag'd by the Dodors of the Sorbon y
and the other above ISiine hundred Years
ago, under the Management of our Famous
Countryman Jlculn^ and other Learned Men
his Cotemporaries, at the Command of the
Emperor Charles the Great. Upon both thefe
Occafions, we may well fuppofe, they had
various MSS^ which we have not at this
Day : And particularly in the latter Col-
lation, that was countenanc'd by fo great a
Prince, they could not but have all the Libra-
ries in Europe open to them, with their Trea-
fures. After they had collated all the MSS. that
offer'd, (and fome of them if they had at that
Time been tranfcrib'd but Two or Three hun-
dred Years, muft have been of as ancient
Date
* Advertiffmmt ti CHifl, des Vcrfions da N. T.
I John V. 7. T^indicated. ^[.5:^
Date as the very elded that are now any Serm,
where to be found) they inferred thisText^, tt"
or rather continued it. And I cannot fee, ^>-.^^-^-
but we have as good a Right to claim the
Benefit of their ManufcrlptSy as if we our-
felves had i^coin. them, or they had been
preferv'd till our Times.
But befides the Confirmation we may
have this Way, I think wt have good Evi-
dence, that this difputed Text is to be fouAd
both in Latin Manufcripts and Greek.
I begin with Latin Manufcripts, which
we have on our Side in Abundance. Lu-
cas Brtfgenfis tells us , That in Thirty-five
old Latin Copies, he found it wanting but
in Five. Dn Vm alfo tells us. That it is in.
a great Number of Lathi Manufcripts, and
thofe ancient ones too *, tho' in fbme Co-
pies the 8th Verfe, or that which is faid
of the VVitnejTcs in Earthy goes before the 7th,
or that which is faid of the Three JVitneJJes m
Hea'ven. And Father Simon himfelf acknow-
ledges tj That he read this Verfe in the
Bible of the Emperor Lotharlus^ which was
written in the Time of Charles the Great ^ or
at leafl was copy'd from the Revife of the
Bible which was incourag'd by that Empe-
ror, towards the Clofe of the Vlllth Cen-
tury : Bp. Burnet alfo, tho' he mentions a
MSS. at Bafily and another at Zurich^ and
Three at -Strasburgh^ in Vv^hich this Text was
wanting, yet tells us, that One of the Four
MSS. he law at Strashurghy which wanted
but a fmall Matter of the Age of Charles
the Great^ and by Confequence was Nine
lumdrcd
* Hift. of the Can. of the 0. r.nd N. T. Vol. II, c.li. J. xl,
P'-^g- 77.
t Hlft. ^;, V^rfmf, dn N. T. ch. 9,
^64 1 John V. 7. Vindicated.
Sej^m. hundred Years old^ had this Verfe ^ and
11.
that he faw feveral other ancient MSS. at
Gene^-ay Venice^ and Florence^ which had this
Paffage in them.
Du Pin alfo gives it as his Opinion^
That tho' the Antiquity and Number of the
Greek Alanufcrlfs is of lome Weight -^ yet as
there are none ancienter than Eight or nine
hundred Years_, we fliould not upon their
fole Authority rejed a PaiTage which is
found in Latin MSS. as ancient *. And
agreeably to this Sentiment of that Learned
Man (who mull be own'd a Man of more
Candor than moft that are of his Commu-
nion) I find Erafmus in his Difpute with Ed-
Tvard Ley, lays it down as a good Rule in
Criticlfmy That the confentient Voices of the
Latin Fathers^ are futhcient to eftablifh the
Authenticknefs of a Text of Scripture^ tho'
it Ihould be wanting in Greek Manufcripts.
And if fo^ I muft confefs I cannot fee^ why
the meeting with this Text^ in fo many of
the moft ancient of our Latin Bibles^ lliould
be made fo light of as it is by our hjfdrer :
Efpecially when we add to it^ the multi-
ply'd Quotations of the Latin Fathers (which
we fliall hear of afterwards) which we have
to fet againit the bare Silence of fo many
of the Greek,
A s to Greek MSS. it mult be own'd^ our
Evidence is not fo clear^ full and ftrong^ a$
it is with Reference to the Latin : And yet
we are not fo deftitute as we are reprefent-
ed. One of the firft CoUedors of Greek MSS.
Qfthe Nop 7'eflament in thefe Parts of the
Worlds
* Hift. of the Canon of the Old ^\ Kejp Tiftiw;mfi
Yoj. II. chap, il S^d. J I5 p. 77.
John
V. /• y mauaud.
\\'orld_, was Lanrcntlus Falla, a Learned Ro-
7nan Nobleman, If^ wrote a Book that he
caird_, Collations of the ]^epifTcJ}a?fjent^ which we
have in our Londoyj Oitlch ,• in which Work
he took Notice of the Differences he obferv'd
between the Vulgar Latln^ and his Gre^k AISS.
And tho' Dr. Ailll ^^ (as well as fome others)
complains of his being too fevere upon the
Old Verfion ; yet neither he^ nor any one el[t\
as far as I can obferve^ has any Thing to
offer againfl our depending upon his Account
of fuch Greek Co fie s as he had. Now when
he comes to this Text^ which was then com-
monly read in the Vulgar Lat'm^ as it is with
us at this Day^ he takes no Notice of any
Difference as to tjiis Paifage^ from his G^reck
MSS. faving only that whereas the former
concluded the 8ch Verfe as the yrh^ And
thefe Three are Onc^ Er Hi tres unum fimt ; He
intimates^ that according to the Greek Co-
picsj, that Claufe was thus : \i^ 7^ h u(r/ -,
Thefe Three agree in One. In how many of his
AISS. this ill Epiftle of St. John was foatid^
he does not fay : He might have Seven
Copies of the Gofpels^ and but One or Two
per haps J of the Catholkk Eflfiles. But it
muft be in One of them at leall^ or he for-
feits the Character of Judgment and Fideli-
ty^ that he has had fo generally given him
in the Learned World : in which Si?yjon.hAm.-
felfconcurrs f- And tho' Er^^j^wi might •&)%
as our Inquirer obferves 4-:> ^^^'^^-^ Valla read h.
not evident ; yet all that could be thereby meant^
vvasj that he was not certain how the whole
H h 7tu
* Prolcgom. in N, T. 7ium. 10S6-
t Hift. Cm. des. Princ. Comment, du N. T c
4- Em'^n pag. 47$, and 496.
I
John V- 7. Vindicated.
7th Verfe was exprcfs'd in his Greek Copies^
for want of his reciting the whole Verfe
as he found it there,- without any thing
of an Infinuation^ as if he did not find there
the Verfe about the Tjjree Wltnejj'es In Earthy
as well as that about the Three WitneJJes in
Heaven^ without fuppofing which^ there is
no making Senfe ot what he declares.
I fhall not ingage in the tedious Debate
about the Greek MSS, with the Afliftance of
which the famous Robert Stephens publifti'd his
Noble Edition of the Greek Teftament^ An, i J Jo.
Morlnus "*" afferts that of the Sixteen Greek
MSS. with which he was furnifti'd^ he points
to 7 in which this Verfe was to be found ;
Whereas Father Simon will not allow it to
have been in any but the Complutenjian Ccpy f.
This Matter has of late been debated with
fome Warmth i perhaps more than it deferves.
For my part I'm very inclinable to think
the Mark in Stephens's Glorious Greek Tefia-
went might be mifplac'd ,• and that we have a
fair Account of tliat Matter given us by
Dr. Louis Roger \.^ and Father Le Long ft-
And yet I don't know that we have any
Occalion quite to lay afide all Hope of
Help and Benefit from Stephens Greek Aianu^^
fcripts.
For Bez^a^ who I fiiould think deferve^'
as much Credit as Father Slmcn^ in his Dedi-
catory Eplftle to our Queen Ellzak'th that Is
prefix'd to his New Tefia?nent^ which Epiftlc
waS'
* Lib. I. Excrcltat. Biblic. Exercltat. IL cap. i.
t Dlffert. Crlt. fur les MSS, du N. T. pag. 14.
i Dlffcrtat, Crit. Thcolog, de i Johji \, 7. §. Ill,
t3 XIL
tt Voye:{ 'Journal dcs Savnns du mois de Jum, 1720.
I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^6j
was drawn up Jn. 15-64. pofidvdy alTures
us. That in chat Work of his, he had the
Help of a Copy out of Rokrt Stcp/jejjs's Libra-
ry, that was carefully collated with about
1 wenty-five MSS. which was fent him by his
Son Henry Stephens, And in his Notes up-
on the Text, he exprefsly, and in fc many
Words, declares, that it was in fome of Ste-
phens's ancient Copies, as well as in the Com-
flutenfian Edition. So that if the Text was
in. none of Stephens's Greek MSS. nothing can
excufe Beza from teUing a down-right Lye
in a Matter of Fad. It cannot be evaded,
by faying, he might miitake undefignedly.
For he tells us how thefe ancient MSS, of
Stephens difFer'd from each other ,• and inti-
mates, that the Father^ the TVord^ and the Spirit ^
had Articles in fome of them, and the Epi-
thete of i/o/y, was added to the Sprite &c,
I think therefore it is altogether unreafona-
ble to rcfufe to allow, that (however it was
as to Stephens's Sixteen Greek MSS. with which
he was affifted in publifhing his Greek Tefia-*
ment^ this Text was in fome of the Twenty-
five Copies, with the various Readings where-
of Be-z^a was furnifti'd by Henry Stephens, And
we may this Way be able to give an Ac-
count now it came about, that as Dr. Roger
obferves "*", Bez.a fhould produce feveral va-
rious Readings, which had efcap'd the Fa-
mous Robert Stephens. The plain Reafon was,
becaufe he was provided with the Collations
of more Greek MSS. than that Celebrated
Printer was furnifti'd with, at the Time
when his Famous Greek Tefiament was pub-
lifti^d.
H h 2 Nor
* Dijfurt. Critic, Thsol. ds 1 John v. 7. pag. 64,
468 1 John V. 7- i^ tnaicated.
Sfrm, Nor can I by any Means think Er^jSw///''
n, Brhi^^ Copy fit to be made light of. The h-
l^\j qturer makes himfelf pleafant with it ; and
wants to know^ whether the Manufcript be.
in being ililljj and what is become of it j and
reprefents it as much contefted^ whether
ever Erajmm faw -it^ or pretended to it "^.
But whether he faw it or no^ 'tis plain by
the Account he gives of it in his Notes upon
tho. Text^ and the Comparifons he purfues
between the Spanijlj and the Brhifli C.opy^,
that he^ who was a good Judge^ depended
upon it. It feems to be againlt the Grain
with him that he at all prcdiic'd it ,* and he
appears as it were forc'd to it : And there is
but little Likelihood he Ihould at iail have
inferted the Verfe^ when he had omitted it
•in his former Editions^ if he could have
found any Way fairly to have avoided it.
■Can any one imagine^ that fo Stomachful a
Perfon as Erafmus was^ after he had defy'd
'Stumca the Spaniard^ whom he wrote againfl:^
to "produce any one Greek MS, in which this
-Verfe was to be found3 Ihould himfelf pro-
duce fuch a Copy, if he could not depend
.upon the Truth of it ? And that he did
fully depend upon it is plain^ in that he
not only inferted it in his third Edition of
•his Greek Tejtamcnt^ An. 15:22^ but in his
Latin Edition of the Nt-a^ .Tefiament^ that wa^~
printed the Year before at Bafil^ in Confoi
mity to the Greek. Nor only therefore Ai.
■Mijrtbjy but Dr. Roger f(y lays . a conuderable
Strefs upon this BrftiJ}} Copy of Era/mm ^ and
the
* Emlyn\ TraAs, fag. 497,
t Differt.i Crh. T/W. in hunt Jextum : d p2:
1 John V. 7. Vindicated, 469
the latter particularly anfvvers Fatlicr .S'iV^o^i's Serm,,
Objections 'againil ic^ who was as willing to n "
get rid of fuch an Svidence_, as any can bt
that come after him., And let Men quib-
ble and cavil as long as they will^ cither
there muft have been Ibme Brlfljh Copy^ that
Erajmus could . depend on, that had this
.Verie as he repreicnts^ or he that has hi--
therto been admired as a great Reitorcr ot"
Learnings mult come under the Imputation
of being at once both weak and Falfe; ib
that he cannot be depended on.
And this is not the only Br/tifi Cdpy nei-
ther that * has this Verfe^ for our E?igHjh Pc-
Jjglot takes Notice of another^ that it llyles
.Codex Moniforthis *j which is alfo mentioned
by Father Le Lo-ng^ and Dr. Roger ^ as well
,as by M. -ALirtin. This Copy is to be found
in the Library at Dublin. Iz was, formerly
I'royt the Francifcans^ aud afterwards belong'-u
to Thomas- Clemc?U j then to IVlillam Chrk^ and
then to Ttjomas Montfort^ from whom Bifhop
V^^tr had it^ with, whole MSS. it came into
the Duhl'm Library. This MS. alio has this
Verfe at large. And M. Martin has publifh'd
the Copy of this Text and Context as it is
there to be found^ atteited by the Library
Keeper of 7r/>//r/-College *. This cannot be
the fame MS. as Erasmus referrs to^ bccaufe
it differs from it. tor the Word Holy is ad-
ded to the Sfirity in the DMln MS. v/hercas
it is omitted in Erafmufs Copy. And withal^
whereas the Article d \s added to adL^rufvm
-I'. 8, m the Dublin MS, it is omitted ia 'traf^
vim's CoDy.
H h 3 So
^ U-; Verite du Ts^tc fie a : £/>, d^ S. jCVf, f y.
yej, 7, Chap, yii,
I John V. 7- Vindicated.
So that upon the Whole, the MSS. that
omit this Text are not fo old or fo many_, but
that we have feme both Greek and Latin ones
to fupport it. And therefore I may fay, as
1^x:,Ro^eY ^_, That It is mere Trifling for Feo-
pie to be continffdly dunnlvg us with the Greek
and Latin MSS. in which this Tajjage is not to
he met 7mth. For we deny It not : As neither
do we deny that there are a Number both of
Greek and Latin Copies^ in which we cannot
meet with the Hiftory of the Adultrefs in the "^'lllth
of St, John. But there being both Greek and
Latin Copies that ha^ve this Verfe^ the J^iefilon
will bc^ iVhich are mofi likely to agree with the
Autografh of the Afofiky effeclally^ when it is
certain there are "very ancient Greek Copies that
are faulty.
When therefore Dr. Clarke takes the Li-
berty to fay. That the whole Text (for ought
that yet appears^ has been wanting In eijery Ma-
%ufcript Copy of the Original that Is^ or enjer was
In the World t : tbo' he fliews his Zeal, yet
he difcovers little Impartiality 5- and not much
Regard to a Number of Valuable, Learned
Men, that liv'd before him : And has ad-
ed as if no Man could have AfTurance that
fuch a Verfe, Chapter or Book v/as really a
Part of the Bible ^ unlefs he himfelf had turn'd
over Mamfcrints. And what an unhappy
Condition moft of us would then be in,
may be fafely left to any reafonable Man to
judge. But farther^
J. The fhevving how it is poffible, that
this Text might be ia St. Johns Original,
and yet afterwards omitted in feveral Co-
pies
* Dijfertnt. Crk. Thcol. in Textum, pag. i^i,
t Leccer to Dr, H'^elis, rag. 72.
I John V. 7. Vindicated^ 47 r
pies and Tranfcripts for a While, and at
length reftor'd out of other Copies in which
it was preferv'd_, bids fair for taking away
the Force of the Argament, drawn from
its being omitted in fb many ancient
Copies, as much as it is boafted of. Tho^
a Negatl've will not admit of the fame Proof
with a Tofiti^e Aflertion, yet when it is pre--'
tended to be prov'd, if the Conclufion that
is drawn from the Premifes offered to fup-
port it is abfolute, the Proof ought to be
luch as will lay a Foundation for a Rational
Convidion of the Im^ojfibility of the contrary:
And to conclude an abfoUtte Negative^ from
Premifes that at the mcft prove but a ?ro^
babllity of being in the Right, is fallac'ous^
That this Text is not genume^ is a Negative
Affertion. To prove it, an Argument is
drawn from the Silence of the Fathers about
it, and from its being wanting in the
Oriental Verfions^ and in a great number of
MSS, And in order to the rendring this
Argument Conclufive, it ought to be fhewn^
That being thus omitted, it could not fof-
fibly have been in St. Johns Original ; Which
neither is nor can be done. Wnen the moll
is made of this Argument that it will bear,
we have no Evidence given, but that this
Text might Ifill have been in this Epiltle
at firit, and afterwards omitted by fome neg-
ligent or hafty Scribe that took one of ttie
firit Copies of it, and might be the Occafion
of its being left out in a great many other
Copies that were tranfcrib'd after him.
And fuch an Omiffion as this, might hap-
pen in the very fame VVay with Mutilations
m other Writings both Sacred and Profane.
It might be cccafion'd by a Repetition of the
fame Words^ either thofe at the Beginning^
H h ^ 747?7
47^ I joiinv. 7. Vindicated.
j5£RM. 7/3^':^ are Three that l^ear Record ; or thofe at
II, the Endj are One. The Tranfcriber cafting
V'V^**^ ^"^^'^ Eyes on either of thefe^ without at that
Inftant exaclly minding what went before,
might happen to omit the whole 7th Verfe :
And not carefully collating his Copy after-
wards^ it might continue omitted^ and that
Omiflion might be tranhnitted to a great
many other Tranfcripts. The 7th and 8th
Veries happening to begin with the fame
Words^ nothing more eal'y^ than for theTran-
fcribers to omit one by JNiegligence. For it is
very ulualj when the fame Words^ or Words
that are almoft alike^ are in two Periods that
follow one another-, for the Copier to pafs
from the^ Words of the firlt Period^ to that
which .follows in the fecond : And Examples
of fa ch Omiffions are fo frequent^ and that
in PalTages of Impdi"tance too^ that no one
that has m.ade any Obfervations on. the Co-
pying of ManufcriptSj can be ignorant of
them. And yet when Dr. AHIl had given it'
as his Opinion^ That it was thus m this
CafCj and that the' this Verfe .was omitted
ii\ feveral Copies ufed by the Ancient Fa-
thers, yet it was recorer'd from the Original
by St. Cjprian^ who appears to have had a
Copy that was in this Refpecl true and un-
altered^ our Inquirer complains oi vM^Stifpo-
j'nlonSy and improbable hr/ao-huirionSy of this and
the ether hare FoJJihlUty '^. Whereas^ if the
Way fuppos'd and mentioned was but pof--
fMcy the Proof given that the Text debated
was ffurbiiSy could jiot be certain^ tho' it liad
been ever fo often omitted. And he aftcr-
ward"^
v^y-yv-?
o
John V. 7* P" indicated. ^ 472
wards infults^ and lays. That Dr, Mill -not Serm
oniy could not give a true Account hoiv It really tt
came to pafs that the Greek MSi. andWrlters^mdcL
he ignorant of this Verfe ^ but that jetting his Ima-
gination to 71'ork^ he could not fo much as invent or
contrive a Way how It could j)offihly he done^ "ih^uh
any tolerable Shew cf Probability^ or Conpjhncy of
Circumflances "**. And yet one that I believe
will be generally thought to have had as
good a Tafte in Matters of this Nature as
th^ Inquirer^ \ mean the Learned Dr. Grabe,
has given it as his Judgment^ That that was
very likely, which he rcprefents as fcarce pof-
jible t- And to fhew it to be probable^ that
this was the Way in which this Verfe came
to be omitted^ he has produced Two like In-
fiances with this, out of the Ufctings of
St. Cyprian and I'erttiUum :, and xVvo .Other
Verfes aUb of the New Teftament, which are
not in our printed Copies, and are wantr
ing. in feveral MSS. (and fome that are very
ancient too) and are not cited by the Fathers^
which yet he thought he had good Reafon
to believe were written by the Apollies them-
felves, becaufe other wife no Reafon could be
imagined why they fliould be added: And
thele Verfes alfo might reafonably be fup-
pos'd to have been omitted in the very fame
Manner. The Learned Vfaffius alfo herein
concurrs |, and Dr. Roger tt-
And- whereas fome might think that the
fuppofing fuch Defects, would detrad: from
the Divine Care in prcferving the Holy Scri-
pt uros^
* Ibid. pag. 543.
t Annot. in Bull. DefFid. Nic. Sed. II. pae, 139:
i Differtnl. Crit. d^ Genuin. JJbr, N.T. Leit. c.9
tt Dflfertnt. Crit, JheoL in i JoL v. 7, $. XXX.
474 ^ Joh^ ^^' 7- l^i^dicated.
Serm. pturesj Dr. Grahe anfwers^ that it is enough
jj^ thar in fuch Cafes there are fome Books or
Copys left_, by means of which we may be
able to fupply fuch Deficiencies ; Which it
cannot be pretended but that we have as to
this Text^ notwithftanding that it has been
lett out and overlook'd by lb many. M. Du
Pin alfo has given Hke Inftances ot Omiffions
in the Seftuapnt^ of whole Periods that are
to be found in the Hebrew Text *.
But tho' our Inquirer owns that ml/lakes of
this kind have happen d to Tranfcrlhers^ yet he
lay s_, that it was not fo here is plain ^ becaufe the
Tranfcriber had then taken the next words to the
fecond i^d^Tv^^mu which are ^ tm yvi, in Earthy
whereas It Is confefs^d thefe Words are wanting
dfo f. To which it is a fufficient Reply^
that tho' thefe Words cyTM^-?, in Earthy arQ
wanting in. fome Copies^ yet they are
found in others. And tho' the hquirer obr
ferves 1^ That the MSS, Copies of Bede in
his Comment on the 8th Verle^ differ from
the printed^ in terra^ on Earth being want-
ing in the former^ and added in the latter ;
yet M. Martin ft affures us^ that thofe Words
m Earthy are in an ancient MS. of Bede
in the Library of Utrecht ^ and that he faw
'em there with his own Eyes. And then
I add farther^
4. That our not meeting with 2iny Com-
plaints againil this Text when it came to be
publickly produc'd^ and had a confjderable
Srrefs laid upon it^ is a better Argument
it was own'd for genuine ^ notwichitandmg its
not
* Hift of the Canon of the 0. and N. T. Vol. I. c. ii.-
\ Emlyns Tr<i(^%y pag. 339. \Ib. p. 491.
It Exam, de I a Hs^onfi ^^ A^- Bmljn, p. s'5, 85=
I John V- 7. Vindicated. 47^
not being much taken Notice of before ^ Seem.
than its having been before omitted^ can jj^
be pretended to be^ to prove it fmrlous and yy-yj^s^
fuffofititlous. St. Johns Apocaljpfe was Oppos'd
by fevcral^ in the firft Ages of the Church.
Caius a i^ow/zwPresbyte^ditown'd it^ and faid
it was written by Ccrlnthus the Heretick : And
Dems of /ilexandria argu'd ftrenuoufly againft
it. But as for this lirlt Epiftle of St. John^
not the leaft Doubt was ftarted^ vvhccher or
no 'twas his whofe Name it bore ^ nor was
there any Ha^fitation about this particular
Textj among any of the ancient Writers^
upon its being cited. Tho' it muft be own'd
it was not much cited for a confiderable
Time^ (as far as we can judge from the few
Writings of the earlieft Fathers that remain^
and have been preferv'd) yet^ as we fhall
lee prefently^ it at length appear'd publick-
ly in the feveral Copies of the Neiv Tefiamenty
and in the Writings of thofe who made a Fi-
gure in the Churchy and was as commonly
and unexceptionably ufed as other iexcs.
Hadit^ when it came to be thus generally
ufed_, or for fome Time after^ been by ma-
ny difown'dj and objeded againft as ffurl-
cus^ this might have created no fmall Dith-
culty. But fo far was ic from that^ that it
was no fooner ufed^ than it was own d^
without any Objedion againft its being ge-
nuine^ of which we can find any Foocitep
remaining^ till after 1400. The Greeks took
it into their Confeflion of Faith *. The Fa-
ther^ the Son_, and the Holy Gho^^ fay they ^ are
fill Ihree of one and the famt Ejfcnce. According to
the Evangellfi St. John^ there are Three that bear
Record
f Fid, Smith Def, DliTf rtat. in i Job, V. 7. ^. 155, 1 5 60
I John V. 7. J^indtcated.
Record in Hea'ven^ the Father;, the Word, and
the Holy Ghoft^ and thefe Ihree are One,. They
had it alfo in their 'Rituals^ or pubiick Ser-
vice-Books_, ia which SeUen obfervea % they
order'd it to be read on the jth'Day of tlic
55:th Week. And this Jpfiolos of theii's. ap-
pears to fome to hftve been as old as the
Vth Century^ it being mentioned in the Life
of St.. Sabas^ who liv'd at that Time t- ^^
was alfo in the ancient Latin Service-Books r
l^or t\\<^ Or do Rcjnantis^ which both Archbi-
fnop UjW^ and T>i\ Ca^e reckon drawn up
in 7 50 J prefcribes 'the Reading this of St.
'Jchn^ among the Seven Ca?tonical Epljvlesy be-
tween tht. Octaves oi Eafter zndi Whltfuntule,
And It appears from St. Bernard and Duran-
dm ix\ his Rationale^ that this Paffage was
read Annually in the Office of Trinity Sunday^
and the hrft Sunday after. And this is the
higheft Proof that could be given^ that both
the Gruk and Latin Church approved of thefo
Words as real Scripture. And they fo ap--
prov'd of theiTij that we cannot find there
■was the leaitObjeclion againft them ^ which
ought not to be overlook'd.
Whereas therefore the Inquh'er asks^ with
reference to the Primitive Chriftians^ whether
they did not often hear St. John'/ EpljHe read to
them^ the reading of the Gofpels^ and the Afofiks
ilrltln^s being rcprefented by Jullin Martyr and
Tertuilian as the con fi ant pratilce of their Affem-
biles t And whether If there had been an omlffion hi
the Tra?ifcripty fome or other would not have mifs\l
fo memorable a Pafage as this Text contains^ h
ip- fo fmgtdar and remarkable.^ that the 07nfjTion
azin^
jmin V. 7^ Vindicated, ^jj
€ouhl fcarcdj bs tinobfir-v\lj whm thty came u Si:k
read it over again * ? . I might in AiiAvcr^ tt
referr him to Father Simon^ who tells us f:, ^^> -^.
that the Primitive Chriitians f?7aJe link ac-
count of any of the New Ttfiammt^ but the Gofpels,
and the Epiftles of St. Paul. And that perhaps in
the firfi Ages they read only thofe two Works in
their Churches, 1 don't affirm that It was re-
ally thus^ but if I did J F. Simon (whom our /?j-
^w/rer Teems not much inclin'd to contradid)
would be my Voucher. However^ I thhik
there's a great deal in what is alTcrted by our
Dr. Smithy That the Ca7ionical Epifiks were fcarce
at firfi \.j and there was much greater plenty of thz
Gojpels^ and the EplfilescfSt, Paul. And on that
Account 'tis very likely, they were more read^
both in their Cliurches and private Houies.
At leaii we have good Evidence, that thofe
Churches that us'd the Syrlack Verfion, could
not at firlt publickiy read this Verle, becaufe
the Catholick Epiftksy and the Jpocalypfe were
at firll wanting in that Verlion, and after-
wards added t|. And tho' this Epiftle fhould
be read, in common with the other Cathcllch
Eptfilcs in the publick AiTemblics of the Pri-
mitive Chriitians, yet if this Verfe happen'd
to be omitted in fume of the firil Tranfcripts
from the Original^ it might not be read there
for fome Time, together with the iceft of the
Chapter : And yet it might not be mifs'd by
thole that were prefent, becaufe of their be-
ing us'd to Copies in which this Verle wai;
omitted. But then I take the Freedom m my
Turn
^ Emlyris TraCls, pay. 34.2.
t Uijl. Crit. du Teste du Ni T. piig. 154.
I Vi?idic. I S. John v. ver. 7. n SuDpuj^ 7iotli. p. 126.
\\ Vld, Frid. Spnnhem. Epit. Ifng. U Hift. EsqL N, T,
; 4^au. p.78,
A»
^
I John V. 7. Vindicated.
turn to Query^ whether fuppofing this Verfc
had been tor a confiderable time omitted to
be read^ it would net have been likely to
have occafion'd a Complaint^ that there was
an Addition made to the Text, when this
Verfe came to be read conftantly in Courfe
afterwards ? And whether the People would
not be apt to reckon themfelves impcs'd up-
on, if they had not good Reafon to beUeve
that this Text was genuine, notvvithitandine
that it had been omitted before ? I muir
own for my part, I take this to be a bet-
ter Proof that this Text was gemune^ than any
that is produced that it WasfpurloHs^ and a
meer humane Addition,
And thus having done with th^ Argument
agalnfl this Texty and ofFer'd what leem'd
proper, by way oi Reply to it, I proceed now,
IV. T o add the Sum of the Argument
for this Texty with an Anfiver to the bugge-
llions of Oppofers that have been d^^\^T[id
to weaken it.
The Argument here Hands thus. Not-
withitanding that many of the Ancient Far-
thers have taken no Notice of this Text, and
feveral MSS. as well as the Ancient Verfions
have omitted n^ yet is there fuch Evidence
of its having been own'd in the Chrlftian
Church from one Age to another, fi'om the
Primitive to the Prefent Times, as may be
fufficient upon Rational Grounds to ^IVQ us Sa-
tisfadion, that it is real Ge77n'ine Scripture,,
and no Corruption or humane Addition to the
Word of God.
Two different ways may be taken to give
Proof of this. We may either begin with the
Firfi Ages of the Chnftian Churchy and {o
come
I John V. 7, Vindicated. 479
come down gradually to the prefe?it Times :
Or we may begin with Latter Jges^ and ib aP-
cend by degrees to the 'Pri?nitive Times, And
if in either of thele ways it can be made
out^ that from one Age to another this Text
has been own d for Scripture^ it will I think
afford us an unanfwxrabie Reafon for con-
tinuing it in our Bibles_, how much foever
any are difturb'd at it for thwarting their
darling Notions^ and how willing foever they
may be upon one Pretence or another to di-
fcard it. I ftiall pitch on the latter of thefe
waySj becaufe I think it has lefs Intricacy
in itj and may be more briefly difpatch'd
than the former.
A s to the laft 600 Years I fcarce need a
better Voucher^ than I have in Father Simon
himfelfj who freely owns^ that there is a
great Uniformity in the MSS^ that have been
written within that compafs of time. 'Tis
ohfewabky fays he^ that -well nigh all the Manu-
fcrlfts not above 600 Tears oldj agree in thls^ that
they ha^ve the Verfe in difputr f. And this
brings us at once_, as high as the Year iioo.
And if it was then very commonly in the
Copies of the Ne-w Teflament^ 'tis a fign it was
at that time generally own'd for a true,
and not reckon'd a fiditious Text. But that
this mayn't feem too large a ftep to be ta-
ken at x.^^ firft fetting out^ I'll divide it in-
to Periods.
The Reformation in thefe Weftern Parts
began foon after the expiring of the XVth.
Century ,• and from that time to this^ tho' it
muft be own'd that this Text has been much
debated^ yet I believe it would upon Com-
putation
t Uift, Crip, dcf verfionSf Ck 9. p. 113.
4S0 , i John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm.' putation be found^ that thefe have been .fe^
" TT * veral Learned Men for it^ toone-tRat^^nas
^^«/„^ been againft it. And fmce the Invention of
^^^^ ehe Art of Printings there have been feveral
Imprefftons of the New Trfia??7cr^t in y^hich' it
has been infer ted^ to one in which it "lias ,
been omitted.
In the'XIVth Century^ and about ij^o
liv'd Manuel Cake as a "Greek Writer^' "who
.Ekblifh'd a Tracl concerning the Vrlmlptes of
f/Catbolick Faith ^ in which this Text is in-
jed. Tho' -our hqulrer feems not pleas'd
wrH\br. Mill for mentioning him^ yet I
hop^Vhe'il allow me to take ISiotice of him^
becaufe it di redly anfwers my End^ which
is to fheWj that this Text was not counted
fpm-lous in the Time he Hv'd in. In the fame
Age^ but a little earlier^ %'lz., .about 1520^ we
have Nicolas de Lyra^ a Learned ProfeiTor of
Divinity at Tarls^ who wrote a Commentary
on the Holy Scriptures-' that was much e-
ileenVd : And this Paffage is to be met with
explain'd there^ without the leall Infmuation
of its being fufpeded as a Forgery.
In the Xlllth Century ^ and about
i26o_, Dura'ndus Bp. of Mmdt brought this
Text into ]iis Rationale ; but plac'd it after
the 8th Verf-^j mentioning the Jhrec Wit?2eJ]es
on Earthy before the Tt'jree WltneJJh. In Ilea-
^en^ which is aifo the Way cf fome Wri--
ters yet more ^ancient^, and of fome Ma-
•nufcripts alfo^ as has before been intima-
ted. This is no uncommon Thing,', m o-
ther Parts of the New TeJUmen't,,, FQr\ the
50th and 3iit Verfesof 4Xi:^/^/; xx,irau3* feje--
ral other Places^ are alike tranfpos'd. X little
before hinij about i^^o^ liv'd Thomas Aquinas^
who commented on this firft Epiftle of St,
Jobn^ and cxplaia'4 this Vcrfc of- it among
the
1 John V. 7. Vindicated. 48 1
the reft. And yet a little earlier in the
fame Age, that is, about 1215-, was held the
Later an Council, under himcent III, when it is
reckon'd there were prefent above Two thou-
fand Prelates of all Sorts, and among the reft
the Two Patriarchs of Confiantlnople and Je-
rufakm in Perfon, and thofe of Jntloch and
Alexandria by their Proclors. In the Acfls of
this Council this Text is quoted as decifive
upon the Head of the Trinity : Which is
an Argument it was at that Time generally
own'd both in Eajl and ffefi *.
I i In
* Father Simon (In his Differ fat. Crit. fur les MSS.
du N. T. pag. 13) will have it, that this 7th Verfe of
the 5 th Chap, of the ift Epiftle of Si. John ^ was taken
from the Greel^^ of this Later/tn Council ; apd to con*
firm it, he obferveSjThar in both, A&>(^ and 'TrvivuA are
without Articles ; and in both of them it is ^ irot ot
7^?.? ; which feems to have been rranllated out of La-
tin : But M. Martin, who gives an Extracft both of
Erafmuss Britijh Copy, and of the Gr^r^ of the La-
teran Council, (Dijfertat.fur S. Je/tn. i Ep. c. v.ver. j,
p. 138.) takes Notice of a Difference between them in
Four Things ; and obferves,
1. That in the Councifs Greek,, the Word ^^^va, is
without an Article -, whereas the Britijh Copy has the
Article Tti.
1. That in the. Council's Greek, the Word Tldirnf
has the Article 0 • whereas in the Britijh Copy it ha3
no Article.
3. That In the CouncU's Greek,, the Word 'Trvivfj.A
has its common Epithet lyiQv^ whereas in the Britijh
Copy that Epirhet. is wholly omitted. And,
4. That in the Council's Greek., it is t»to/, whereas
in the BritWo Copy it is »7o/.
Which Four Differences I fhould think a fufficient
Evidence againft Simon, that the Greek, of the Britijh
Copy referred to by Brcfmus, was not taken from chi$
Latrran Council.
482 I John V- 7. Vindicated.
SeRM- I^ the Xllth Century^ about iip^ Teter
TT Lombard Bp. of Nris^ commonly call'd the Ma-^
^^1, fier of the Sentences ^ mentions this as a Text
about which there was no Doubt. At the.
Clofe of his firil Book of Sentences and Second
DifiinB!o72y he has thefe Words : That the Fa-
ther a?2d the Son are One^ not by Confiffion of Fer"
fonsy but by U'Jtty of Nature ^ St. John has taught
its in his Canonical E fifties ; frying^ There are Three
vjh'ich bear Record in Heauen^ the Father^ the
Word_j and the Holy Ghoft^ and thefe Three are
One. And St. Bernard a little before him_,
and about the Year 1120^ quoted it in his
Feltival Sermons: And many think that it
was about that Time the. -^/)o//J<?j was drawn
up (which was publifh'd at Venice An. 1602.)
tn which alfo this Verfe was inferted.
And thus are we rifen to the Year iioo.
And tho' I'll freely own to the Jnfiirer^ That
if the IVords were not In St. John'j Efijile^ for
Jo many Hundred Tears ^ 7ior known to the Chrlfiian
Church as fuch^ 7ve may conclude ^ that no Man
can give a good Reafon for admitting ''efn fince "** ^
yet I hope if we find our Evidence rather
mcreafes than abates upon our afcending
higher^ that may be allow'd to pafs for a
food Reafon for our retaining them_, and ad-
ering to 'em as geimlne.
Du Pin informs us t:> That Errors and
Miftakes being apt from Time to Time to
flip into the Copies of the Bible^ the Authors
of the later Ages endeavour 'd to corred them
in their Works^ which they intitul'd^ Corre^
Uhns of the Bible j Two MSS^ of which he
fays
* Emlyns TraAs,/^/?^. 314^
•t Compleat Hift. of the Canon of the Old and N^w
Teftamenty Book I. chap. vii. §. 2.
I John V. J. Vindicated. 483
fays are yet extant in the Library of the
Sor bonne. One of thefe. Father Simon tells
uSy was as old as the Xth Century ^^ when
rhe Bible was carefully revised by the Do-
<aors of the Sorbonncy and this Verfe kept
in by common Confent^ after their molt an-
cient Copies were confulted^ and compared
with the Greek. And this Teitimony from
one of the moft Learned Bodies of Men at
that Time in Europe^ may well be allow'd
to be very confiderable : Efpecially when we
have no Reafon to apprehend they had
any Thing to give 'em a wrong Byafs.
Even Si'r^Qn acknowledges^ that theie Critical
Works^ call'd CorreSIorla Biblia^ may to us
fupply the Place of MSS. and give great
Am fiance in judging of the true Reading
of the Text of the Bii^le : And that the ra-
ther^ becaufe^ as he tells us^ they that were
concern'd in this Work*, examin'd what was
to be kept in ^ and what left out of the
Text^ according to the ftrideit Laws of CW-
ticifm. And therefore we have the lefs Rea-
fon to wonder at the Affurance given us by
Lncas Brugenfis^ who had one of thefe Corre^
thrlumsy that he found there alraoll all the
different Readings^ which the Writers of our
Time have coUeded out of a Variety of
MSS. and that they are there faithfully exa-
min'd by the Originals.
In the IXth Century^ IValafrid Str.aho drew
up and publifli'd the Gloj]a Ordinaria^ of which
F. Simon gives lo great a Charader^ faying.
That Tve harue no Commentary up07j the Scripture^
wliich has fo much Authority as that Glofs, from
that Jge to the prejent Times f. And in" this
I i 2 alfo
* H/'i?. Crit:. du Vcrf. du N. X c. ix.
t iJifi^ Crir, du Princ, CommynitUj 4** N. X c, i*
I John V. 7. Vindicated^
alfo we meet with this Text *, tho* I don'tf
remember that 6/w(>» thought fit to take any
Notice of it.
In the Vlllth Century^ and about the
Year 760^ Ambrofius Autfertusy Abbot of St.
Vincent y writing a Commentary on the Af(H
calyffe^ brings m this 7th Verie of St. John^
to explain Rev. i. f . t- Nor fliould the De-
cretal Epiftles of the Popes^ which are gene-
rally own'd to be forg'd in this Age^ be here
overlook'd. Both Baronlus and Blondel agree^
that 'ti^ probable they were drawn up about
the Year 785". And it is obfervable^ that in
the very firft Letter there attributed to Pope
Hygimsj among a great many Citations from
Scripture^ the 7th and 8th verfes of the lit
Epiftle of St. John are brought in; tho' the
8th Verfe is plac'd before the 7th : And this
appears to be the moil ancient Writing We
have remaining^ in which thefe Verfes arc
thus tranfpos'd. In the fiime Age^ about the
Year 798, were the Latin Bibles revis'd^ by
the Order of Charles the Great y under the Con-
duct of our Countryman Alculn, Father 5/-
nion owns^ that this Prince apply'd himfelf
with a great deal of Care to reftore Learn-
ing in the TFefiy and made ufe of the ableft
Men he could find^ in reftoring the Latin
Bibles^ which had been very much altered
by the Tranfcribers in thofe barbarous
Times that went before. And fpeaking of
himfelfj in a Preface before Paul Deacons Bopk
of HomlUesy the Emperor fays^ JVe ha've al-
ready TPlth great Exathefsy by Divine Ajfiftancc
corrected all the Books of the Old and New Te-
Itament^
* M. Martin fi DIflertation, p/i^, 25,
fMng. Blbl.ratr. Vol. XUL
I John V. 7. Vindicated 4.8^
^^rCitnZy'ivhicb 7ver.e corrupted tbro' the Unskilfulnefs
of the Tranfcribers *. Now after this Cor-
rcBion, this Text was commonly read^ and
Simon owns it f- Nor is it at all likely that
fo ' Wife and Learned a Man^ with his At-
liftant Divines^, would have inferted a Text
of this Importance^ if they had not found it
in the Greek as well as Latin MSS. which they
confulted , and if the Church had not ge-
nerally acknowledged it for a Part of the
iufpir'd Writings- Our hcfulrer indeed, who
is for greatning the Difficulty from Point to
Point_, fays J fV/Jat t/jo' this Ttxt was found to
be diretUy in the Bible of Charlemain^ -which
father Smjon oppofes not ? will this proye It to
have been In the Grjeejc AIan,ufcripts at that
Time I? I anfwer^ it makes it probable, efpe-
cially if it be conlider'd, that as Simon tells
us, we read iw Xhegan, That that wife
Trinc^ had before hts Death y cor relied the Latin
Edition of the New Teltament, by the Greek
Copies ; and that there were at that Time Perfons
'Well skilled in the Greek Tongue ||. And thus
we fee that this Text has been in the Bible
above 900 Years. And tho' if it was not
t)iere at hrft, it could have no Right to come
there afterwards ; ycf I think it it was an
Addition_, it cannot jultly be fajid %o be a>
Modern Addition ff .
In the Vllth Century^ we have a fuffi-
cient Witnefs, if Maxlmus^ who ftourifti'd
about the Year 645-^ was the real Author
of the Dilpute at the Council of Kice^ whigh
bears the Name of Athanafmsy and is joyn'd
with his Works, as the Leari^'d generally
li J think
■■- * iiifi. Crit. des Vcrfions dfi N. T. cap. ix.
t //'xW.pag. III. I -Ew/yw's Trad3, f. ^ji^,
14- Hlft. Crh.dss Vcrfions du ^, T. pag. I99.»
tt §ml^n's Ta(5ts, pfi^. pi^ '^
8^4 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serw. think he was. For that Work^ fpeaking of
jj^ the Perfons of the Trinity^ cites this Text.
And tho' the Inoulrer feems not lo well-
pleas'd with Dr. Mill, for citing i'uch a fpuri-
ous Work ^ 3* yet a Work that bears a wrong
Name^ may 1 fhould think be allow'd to
give good Evidence in a Matter of Fact^ at
the Time when it was really drawn up.
'Twas this Citation that in F. S'lmofC^ Opi-
nion gave Rile to the Opinion^ That Father^
Sony and Sfirlt^ were to be underftood by
Spirit y Water y and Blood t- And tho' he fays^
he TTiakes no quejllon of it ; yet I mult confeisj
1 take it for an Imagination that is altoge-
ther groundlefs. For all that this Author
fays_, is this : That John jajs, Thefe Three are
One ; which he really fays of the Father ^ Son^
and Sfirlt : Whereas of th^ Spirit ^ Water ^ and,
Bloody he only fays^ They agree In One.
In the Vlth Century _, we have a very
fignificant Witnefs in Ftilgentlus, the Bifliop of
Ruj;pe in Africa , who dy'd about the Year
529^ or as others lay_, ^35^ after having fuf-
t'er'd much from the Arians. He without the
leail Haslitation cites this Text \n three feve-
ral Places of his Works. I (fays he) and the
Father are One |. It becomes m to refrr One
to the Nature ^ and are to the Ferfons, So alfo^
there are Three then bear Record In Heaven _,
the Father^ the Wcrd^ aitd the Holy Ghoft^
and theje Three are One, Let Sabellius hear
are ; Let him hear Three^ and beltez'e there are
Three Ferfons. Let Arius alfo hear One ; and
not fay^ that the Son is of a different Na-
ture. He was looked upon as the chief of the
Catholick
* Ibid. pag. 320.
t Hifi,Crh. du Texte d:i N. T. fa^. 2^3.
i Lib, ie Tfinitatc^ Cap. IV,
I John V. 7, Vindicated. 487
CathoUck Bifhops whom K. Tbrafimund banifh'd
into Sardinia^ tho' there were others of 'em that
were older than he. He was fummon'd by that
Prince to appear at Carthage^ to anfwer the
ObjecJions which the Arians had :dra\vn up a-
gainft the Eternity of the Son of God_, and
his Ec^iiallty with the Father. And in fuch
Circumltances as he at that Time was^ 'tis
very evident^ the utmolt Caution and Ex^
acftnefs was requilite in choofuig out Texts
of Scripture : And nothing could be more
neceffary^ than Care that none might be ci-
ted that were liable to be objedled againfl as
not genuine. Now he in this Cafe alledges
this Text oi St. John^ in Proof of the Sons
Confubitantiality* with the Father. In An^-
jfwer to Fmta an Avian Bifliop_, among the Te-
llimonies produc'd^ he brings in this Text.
In the Eplfile of John^ There are Three that
bear Record^ fays he^ the Father_, the Word,
and the Holy Ghofl:_, and thefe Three are One.
And finally in his Book of Anfwcrs againft
the Arians ^^ he fays^ In the Father^ Son_,
and Holy Spirit^ VJe receive the Unity of Sub-
fiance y but dare not confound the Perfons. For St,
John the Apofile bears fVltnefs^ faying ^ There are
Tjree that bear Record In Hea'ven^ the Father,
the Word^ and the Holy Ghoftj and thefe Three
fire One. Wjich alfo the blejjed M.irtyr Cyprian
confeJJ'es^ fajlng m an Efifile of the Unity of the
Churchy He that breaks the Peace and Concord of
Christ,, a^s agamfi Christ ; he that gathers
finy 'where out of the . Churchy fcattcrs the Church
of Christ : A?jd that he might fiew that OriQ
God had One Churchy he frcfently inferts thefe
Tefilmonles out of Scripture : The Lord faith.
114 i
f^eff.'ffd ghje^, 10,
I John V, 7. Vindicated.
I and my Father are One ; and again ^ of VslA
ther^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft_, it is wrlttetiy-
Thefe Three are One,
If it be query 'd^ How it fliould come a-
bout that St. Jufiin who liv'd before Fulgen-
tiHs^ fhould not take Notice of this Text as
well as he ? 'Tis eafily anfwer'd^ That he
having but a very fmall Knowledge of the
Greek Tongue_, commonly made uie of that
which he calls tbe haiick l^erfion of the Neiv Tc-
fiament^ in which this Verfe was not found.
And 1 fuppofe it won't be contelted either
by our hauirer^ or thofe of his Make, that
St. Jufiin was no great Grecian^ when X add-,
that F. Si?77on exprefsly afferts^ that that Fa-
ther did not underfland the Gre^/^ Tongue *.
In the Vth Century^ This Text is cited
by Vigilius Bifhop of Jiifjm^ who flour ifh'd a-
bout the Year of Cbrift 480. He wrote Trads
againit feveral Herefies^ without prefixing
his Name. He particularly conceal'd him-
felf when he wrote againit the Arians^ that
he might the better fcreen himfelf from their
Kage and Malice. He fometimes perfonated .
Idaclm Clarm^ who had been a Bifhop in Vor^
tugaly and is fpoken of by Stdficius Seijerus : At
ether Times Athanafms^ under whofe Name
he publifh'd Tweh^e Books concerning the
Trinity, \t). the Form of Dialogues : And
at other Times St. AujUn^ in whofe Name
he publifh^d a Treatife againit an Avian call'd
Felician. This Author cites this Text, both
in his Treatife cencerning the Trinity t^
and in his Difpute againit Varimadm the Arian.
He has defcanted on moll Texts in the New
Tefianunt
* Hift. Crit. du Tex;te du N. X V<ig, 312=
I John V* 7. Vindicated. 489
Tefiament 'w\i\Qki relate "to the Trinity, and Serm
on fome of them admirably well. In Re- tt
turn to the Objedion made by the ^r/<7»j, ^^.^J^
that our Lord fays. My Father ts greater than ^^
I ; he makes this Anfwer, The Son, fays he, />
lefs than the Father in the humane Form which He
ajjum'dy but equal to the Father in the Subftance
of the Diz'ine nature^ and In Fower. And He
faysy I and the Father are One, A^d again ^^ Tfsat
they may be One in Us^ as We are One : Thou In
Me^ and 1 in them. And again ^ All Things are
thine ^ and thine are mine. And again ^ The Things
that the Father hath are mine^ &C. And Johll
the Evangeitfi fays^ In the Beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with Go d, and the
Word was God. And the fame^ writing to
the Parthians, [ays^ There are Three that bear
Record in Heai^en^ the Father, the Word, and
the Spirit^ and thefe Three are One. About the
fame Time alfo, that is. An. 484. this Text
was cited by Eugenlus Bifhop oi Carthage^ m
that celebrated Lonfejfion of Faithy which he
prefented to Hunnerlcky the Arian King of the
Vandals y which inrag'd the whole Body of
the Avians y and put 'em to Silence, if it did not
convince them. This Confejfion of Faith is there-
fore the more remarkable, becaufe Gennadlus
tells us, it was drawn up and prefented with
the common Confent of all the Bilhqps and
ConfefTors of Africa ^ Mauritania ^ Sardinia ^ and
Corfica *. In this ConfeJJiony there are luch Ex-
preffions as thefe : iVe belle<ve Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, to he of one Stibftance or EjJtncCy
becaufe the Deity of the unbegotten Father, and of
the begotten Son, and of the proceeding Holy Spi"
rit, is Oney tho' the Terfonal Properties are Three,
And
• Cap. xcvii.
49° r John v. 7. Vindicated.
Sern. And afcerwarcfs_, Toat the Unity of Sub fiance^ an^
TT ' the Equality of Divinity ^ -with Re/pell to both Fa-
%yr^^^ ther and Sony might bcjlicwn the more euldmtly^
cu;y Lord fays in the Gofpel^ 1 am in the Fa-
ther^ and the Father In me ; and I and the Fa-
ther are One : Which relates not only to an Unl»
ty of the Willy but to one and the fame Sub fiance ^
hecaufe He does not fay^ I and the Father will one
Things but are One, And again^ It u alfo writ-
ten ^ That all Men might honour the Son_, e^ven as
they ' honour the Father. But an equal Honour is
only given to thofe that are equal. The Son alfo
fays to the Father_, All mine are thine ^ and thine
are mine: And he faid to Philip_, He that hathfecn
me hath feen the Father ; which he would not have
faldy if he was not equal to the Father in all Things,
And yet a little after^ We own two Natures in
the Son y that is true GoD^ aitd true Man y con-
fifilng of Body and Soul. Whatever the Scrlj>tures
/peak of him with Refpecl to the excellent Sublimity
of his fo7very we reckon It to be afcrlPd to his Di-^
"vlnltyy which we achtowledge : And whatever is
ffoken concerning hlmy that is meany and below
tjie Honour of bis heavenly Tower y we afcrlbe not
to the V\'ovaofQoTiy but to the Man He ajjum'd.
It Is therefore according to his Divinity y thaty as
bos been above hinted ^ He faysy J and the Far
ther are One ^ and he that has feen me y has feen
the Father ,• and all Thmgs whatfoever the Father
dothy the Son doth the fame y &C. But when He
faySy The Father is greater than I; and I came not
to do mine own Willy but the Will of Him that
fent me ^ andy Father -, if It be pojjlbky let this
Clip pafs from me _, ^ andy ' My GoDj my GoDjj
hiihy baf 'Thou fcrfaken me ? Thefe lyings are fpo-
ken cf Him as Man. And afterwards they
undertake to prove^ That Fathery Sony and
Holy Ghofi are of one Subftancey by PafTages out
of the Old Tsfiamm and the Neii;. And after
' ~ feyeral
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 4.9 1;
feveral others produc'd^ they add^ But that we SfRm,
may make It clear as the L'ghtj that the HoIy Spi- Tj
rit is of one Dl^u'wity with the Father, and the s^/>y^
oon, it is pro'^/d by the Ttfiimony of John the*"
E'vajjgcUjty who faith ^ there are "Three that bear
Record In Heaven ^ the Fat her _, the Son^ and Spi-
rit, and thcfe I'hree are One. He does not jay^
Three feparated by their d/ff(ire72t Qualities ^ or dl-
'vided from each other by gradual Dl'verfitles^ in
a long Space of Diftance j but he intimates , they
are One, And in the Clofe of all, to intmiate
that they were far from having any pecuhar
Sentiment in thefe Matters, they add. Vols is
our Fahhj bottomed upon Ez'angelical and u!^pofto-
Heal Traditions y (by which it is plain from the
whole Tenor ot their Confjfion^ and the Proofs
which it contains, they mean the Gofpcls and
Epiftles^ and the yigreement of all the Catholick
Churches which are in the IVorld ,• /» which by the
Grace of Almighty GoD, we trtift and hope to
continue y e^uen to the End of this our earthly TH"
grim age.
This Confcjfonof Faith ^ which is upon ma-
ny Accounts remarkable, is in the Bibliotheca
Tatrum^ Printed at Far^s 1644, afcrib'd to Bi-
Ihop' Vicior : But whoever drew it up, it wa$
preiented by Eugenius Bifliop of Carthage^ as
the common Faith of all the Bifliops of thofe
Parts. And therefore I think M. Martin is
much in the Right_, in reprefenting this as
equivalent to a cloud of IVimeJJcs *. And there
is the lefs Reafon to wonder our Inquirer
Ihould be fo willing to get rid of it. He
fays. He cannot well telly what is the Credit of
VlcftorV Hlforyy as we have It f. He knows A
he
*■
DiPfertation fur ce Texte, pag. 77,]
I Emlyn\ TraCtS; png. 324, 3^5.
492 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
SeRM* ^^ fsySj i? has found little with many^ in relation
TT of grange Miracles^ not unlike thofe of Monklfl) Le-
^^.^1. (rends ^ WZ' of many who could fpeak freely and
'articulately y when their Tongues bad been cut out
by the Roots^ &c. *. But by the lame Rea-
fon
* Grotim was no very credulous Perfon, and yet he
thinks that the Report of the Men whofe Tongues were
cut our, comes to us well Confirm'd.Says he in his Notes
on Lib. I . de Ver. ^el. Chrijl. §.17. Vide ^ de iif qui, ex^
feBa ob religionem lijigun loquuti, tejies certijfimos, Ju-
sliniayium L. i. C. de Officio Pr^fccli Pretoria Africjc ^
Procopium, Va'ndalicorum i. Vi^orcm Vticcnfem, Libro
de Perfecutionibus ; j£neam Grt:{xum tbeophrnjlo.
The Emperour Juftininn fpeaking of the Vandals in
Jlfrica, fays, H^e ourfelves have feen the Venerable Me7i,
who /pake whe7z their Tongues were cut off from the roots,
Gothofrede in his Notes confirms it, and quotes alfo
'Marceirmus Ccmes, and Paulus Diaconus, in his Life of
Cdoacer ; Cuja. 19. Obferv. 6 3 Forcatulus in Cupidifte
juris per it. cap. ult. in fin.
The Werds of procopius Wfl. Vandal. Lib, 1. are
thefe. Speaking of Honorichus the Vandal King, he fays,
Multis ^ lijiguas cxfcindebat e faucibus, qui mea etiam
iCtate, By^antii amhulahant integro utcntes fermone,
nihilque de ^etcre pccna pcrfentifccntes : e quels duo poftr
quartife projiituti pudorls faminis mlfcuerunty loqui dcy
fiere. And this Procopius the Learned Dr. Qrabe tells
us deferves to be regarded. Splci/eg. Patr. Sec.i, pag.^.
■ /Eneas Ga:{deuSy who of a Platonick. Philofophcr be-
t^mt a Chriftian, and liv'd about the Ye:ir 485, in
the Reign of the Emperour ^7io^ wrote a Dialogue of
the Immortality of the Soul, and the Re urredion of
-the Body, which he call'd Thcophraftus. It was Print-
ed by C. Barthius with Notes at Leipfich, An. 1653,
In this Dialogue he declares, Thar he favo pertain Con^
fejjors who had their Tongues cut out, n^id yet fpaJ^ wcU
And articulately.
So that if we rejed and flight ViSlors Hiftory on the
Account of what he relates concerning thefe Coyifcjfors^
wcfiiake the Credit pf all Ancient Siiry, as unworrhy
,cf Credit,
r John V. 7. Vindicate i.
Ibn we muft que (lion the Credit of a great
many WricerS;, both of that and the following
Ages. And methinks, it is a very hard
Cafe, if fo many Bilhops when they were
fuiFering for their Rehgion^ ihould deferve
no Regard in their citing a Text of Scrip-
ture^ bccaule he that inferts their Confeljion
in his Hiftory^ gives an Account of fome
wonderful Thmgs which that Author knows
not how to believe. But I can't imagine
how it can be reprefented as a prhjate Lom-
fofttre *j when nothing of that Nature could
well be more publick. For it was prefented
in the Name of a confiderable Number^ to a
Prince that was fet againft them^ and dil-
pos'd to ufe 'em with great Severity. It
was fign d but by a Few^ but prefented in
the Name of the whole Body^ and many
were a<^ually upon the Spot when it was
delivered. It this deferves no more Regard,
than for it to be coldly faid_, That at the
latter End of the Vth Century^ fome pretended
this for Text f^ it would be hard to know
what might pafs for good Proof. I fliould
think this a ilrong and unanfwerable Evi-
dence, that thcfe Words were not inferted
without juft Authority ,♦ and that our Inquirer
was pretty far out of the Way^ when he
alTerts, That the Primitive Writersy Greeks and
Latins, knew nothing of this Tcxty dovm to the
yillth Century 4-
Our Countryman Dr. Thomas Smithy feemj^
to me to argue in this Cafe admirably well.
Can n>e imagine ^ fays he tf, that Eugenius of
Carthage^
t Ibid, pag.315. t lb. p. 326. 4- lb. p. 11%,
tt Def. Dijfert. de 1 job, \^ 7. Co7it.. except Simonil,
in Qrit. Hlft. N. T.
^erM, Carthage^ ^??i ?^^ other Orthodox Bijhops of
j^ ' the African Churchy who were fo ready to frffer
\^for their Faith ^ could ha-ve been fo fenfelefs^ as in
^"^^^y^^ fjjls Confeflloil ' of theirs^ which -they prefent-
ed to an Arian Prince y to have produced this Text
in exprefs Words ^ under the Name of the K'^jange^
iifi John^ // it either had been wanting in the
Sacred Books at that Time^ or had been newly ad^
ded or inferted an Jge' or two before? hoiu eafily
might they haiie been upbraided with the Crime of
falfifytng by their watchful Adver(arles ? And how
ill 7vould it hanje fvu?ided for Perfons in their Cir^
camftances to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures'? Certain-*
- ly thofe holy Conftffors had a greater Concern for
their oiim Reputation ^ and for the Truth of the Ca-
tholick DoBrine which they had undertake?t to
defend y than by itfing fuch e^vil Arts^ to bring down
Infamy upon themfelves^ and prejudice the Truth of
Chrif-ianity I Nor is this the Tef-i?nony of one Man^
hut of the whole African Churchy ayid that after a
careful Kxamination ^ repeated again and again :
So that he nmft feem dtfiitute of Chrifllan Alodefty
ttnd Charity^ that can charge fuch flagitious Crimes
its the fey upon Perfojjs fo venerable ^ and fo eminent
for their HoUnefs and Learnings who were at the
fame time fo horribly opprefs'd with the dreadful
Cruelty of the Arians. And to thisj it would
be no eafy Thing to return a pertinent
Anfwer.
And italfo defcrves to be obferv'dj as is
noted by Dr. Roger '^^ That a good deal of
Time pafs'd betvveen the prefenting of this
Qonfeffion of Faith to King Hunerlck^ and the
publiHiing the Works of Fulgentius, in which
it has before been obferv'd^ that this Paf-
fage was cited. And this is a plain Evidence
that
? Dijfertar, Crit. ThcoL in t ^ohn v. 7, p, 168.
I John V. 7. Vindicated.
^hat the Avians did not change this Citation
in the Conffffiov^ with being faife. If they had^
Ftiigentim could not have been a Stranger to
itj and therefore either would have forbore
to cite itj or have anfvver'd the ObjecSliofi
of the Avians.
But this Text is quoted a little earlier
in the fame Age^ and about 4^4^ by £«-
cherms of Lio7is ^. He fays_, As to the Trt-
NlTYj -ive read in St. Jolm'j Epifile^ Theve are
7'hree wh'ich hear Record in Heaven ^ the Father
the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft j and there ave
Three that bear Witnefs in Earthy the Spirit^ the
Water ^ and the Blood. This is above One thou^
fand two hundred and eighty Years ago ^
and if we are put to it^ we cannot give any
clear Evidence that the oldeft Manujcrlp we
have now remaining in the World^ reached
that Age. This is a plain and pofitive Te-
ftimony^ and no myftical Interpretation of the
Three TViincJjes on Earth f^ as the Inquirer pre-
tends. And if it fhould happen that Dr.
Mill here forgat himfelf f^ (to which the
greatelt Men are fometimes liable) it does
not follow^ that 'jE«c^fr/W cited the 8th Verfe
only^ if upon confulting him it is found^
that both the 7th and 8th Verfes are cited
exprefsly. It muft indeed be own'd^, that Eu-
cherius Ipeaking of the Spirit^ the Watev^ ani
the Bloody in the 8th Verfe^ fays^ Th^tfe-je-
ral by a myftical Intevpretarlon^ tmderftood that of
r^e Trinity. And fome have thought that
he herein referred to St. Aufiin In his Book a-
gainft Maxin7inus^3.nd Facundm Hermiancnfis^ow
v/hole
* Lib. Fornjularum Sprttatf! IntelHgentia, cap. xi,
§• 3, 4-
t Emlpi's TradS;^. 3:5. 4 Prohgom 938.
4p5 I John V, 7, Vindicated.
Serm. whofe Glofs^ our Jnojulrer lays to great a
JI^ Strefs : But that muft neeelTarily be a great
y^^y-^^ Miftake ; becaufe St. Auft'm and Facundus un-
derltood by the word Sfirlt^ the Perfon of
the Father y and by Water ^ the Perfon ol the
Sflrit j whereas they of whom EucherUfs fpeaks_,
(as he himfelf declares) by the word Sfirlty
underltood the Holy Ghcfi^ and by the Watery
the Perfon of the Father,
In the IVth Century^ which has therefore
been call'd Arlav^ becaufe then the Arians
turn'd all Things upfide-down^ it is un-
doubted^ that there was the moft Occafion
for this Text_, and 'tis one of the greateil
Prejudices againlt it^ that it was not' then
produc'd^ or ufed : But I mult own^ that I
cannot fee how its not being at that Time
citedj is a Proof of its not being genuine,
fince it was cited before_, even
In the Illd Century^ by St. Cyprian j who
more than once refers to this Text in his
Writings, about the Year of Christ 240. In.
his Epiftle to Jubaianus about Baptizing He-
reticksj he proves the Validity of their Bap-
tifin by this Argument : If^ lays he^ mty one
could he baftlzj^d among them^ he might aljb oh-
tarn the Rem}Jfion of his Sins. Jf he obtahis the
KemlJJion of his Slnsy and is fanbiiffdy and is
become the Temple of Go Dy J query of what God ?
If it be faidy of the Creator j I ^(^jly^ Th^t
cannot be^ becaufe of his not believing In Him,
If it be faidy of ChRIST , / ^^pljy Neither can
he be his Temple^ when he denies him to be
God. If It befaldy of the Holy Spirit ,• I re-
plyy Since thefe Three are One^ fjow can the Holy
Spirit be pleased n>lc*h him who is an Enemy ei-
ther to the Father or the Son ? Bifiiop Bull
gives it as hi? Opinion^ That St. Cyprian
here
I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^^7
here had a Reference to this Text *; and Serm«
fo alfo does Mr. SeUen-f^ Dv, Samuel Gardi- rr
ner I, Dr. Mill ft, M. De Blanc fit. and J^h^
other Learned Men. And I mufl: confefsj ^*^^^'
I think with good Reafon _, becaufe we
have not a Text to produce in which thefe
Three are exprefsly faid to be 0?iey but
this. But the fame celebrated Writer_, pro-
feffedly cites this Text^ in his Book of the
Unity of the Church *^ where (peaking before
of St. Johjj^ he has thefe Words : And agamy
It is written of the Father^ Son^ and Spirit^
thefe Three are One. Where when he exprefs-
ly fays_, It is written^ it is plain^ he means^
That this is inferted in fo many Words in
the holy Scripture. Now where is this exprefs-
ly written but in this Text ? To fuch as are
tree from Prejudice^ methinks nothing can
be plainer^ than that this is a free Appeal to
fome Paffage of Scripture^ in which it is
written of Father y Son^ and Sfirit^ that thefe Three
are One, And this is the more evident^ be-
caufe thefe Words being conneded with a
plain Citation of John x. 50. concerning Fa-
ther and Sons being One^ carry an Intimation
in them^ that this was as much and as truly
a Paffage of Scripture^ and written there, as
that which was mentioned and cited jult be-
fore. But Sandlus t:) and Father Simon 4.,
K k and
* Def.Fid, N/c. Sed. II, cap. x. pag. 131.
t De Synedriis. Lib. II. cap. iv. p. 93.
4. Cathol. circd. SS, Trinlt, Fid. Delin. ex Scr, Patr*
Antcnic. defumpta. p. 133.
ft Prolegom, in N. T. w«wj. 713.
tit Principes tontreles Sociniens. Se<fl. II. C ix. Art. 2-
* Cap. iv. ad finem.
f Append, interpretnt, Paradox, p. 38c,
i- m}^ Qrit. duTffXts du N. t/c. iS-
IL
498 I Jol^fi V- 7, Vindicated.
Sfrm. ^^^ ^f^^^ thtm our hiqiilrer fj have found
out Evalions. Sandius fays^ That this Epi-
ftle was ftrangely chang'd^ and had much
added to it^ and taken from it^ which he
endeavours to prove from the Confeffion of
ToJJ'eume^ (who compar'd Four MSS. Copies of
ity) and of Rl'vet^ and Per km s^ and Dr. James ;
and boldly concludes this Verfe to be an Inter-
polation^ and that St. Cyprian had no Know-
ledge of it. How eafily (fays he) might this
Verje alfi be inferted^ by thoje 'ivho were not
afraid to corrupt the [acred Scriptures ^ for Fear of
Heretlcks ? But this is a groundlefs Infmuation^
as our Dr. Smith has fufficiently prov'd f- ^^
is certain (fays he) that neither Pamelius nor
Rigaltius^ nor a^iy other publ/jher of the Works of
St. Cyprian_, has taken Notice of any various
Readings in this Place ^ which Is the fame In all
'Editions, Biity adds he^ vhat this Eplftle had
St. Cyprian for Its Author ^ and that this Read-
ing remain d In'varlable from his T'ime^ is ez>i-
dent from St. Fulgentius_, who ?20t only has brou^Jt
in this qth Ver(e^ in his Book of the Catholick
Faith^ again ft Pint a an Arian Bijhop^ in the
Tefiimonies he produces about the Trinity^ and In
his Book of the Trinity to Felix the Notary ^
hut alfo produces this I'cry Place of St. Cyprian In
his Book againjl the Objciliom of the ArianS-, &c,
Simon fays_, Thd.t Filler Vitcnfis was the fir ft who
producd this as St. John's Saying , and that it was
St. CyprianV own yjjjertion^ and not made ufe of
by him as a Teftimony of Scripture. But^ fays Bl-
lllOp Stiliingfleet^ they who can fay fuch Tnings as
tbefcy are not much to be trufted 4.. It is pleaded^
That
* Bmlyjh Trads, pag. 333.
t Vmdkice 1 '^oh. v. 7. a Suppofitioyiis nota, p. 1^1*^ &*
4 Vindlc. of the Dodnne.of the TRiNixr,/. 167
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 2}.pp
That Facundits Hermianenfis *_, who vvas of <5;eoiui
the t2imQ yifrlcm Chiirchj gives another Ac* ^tt
count of this Pailage of St. Cyprian^ and iaySj rJ^Lj
That St. John m his KfijHe, fays of the Father^ ^^^^y^**-
Son^ andWiA^ Spirit^ that there are Three nh'ich
hear Record on Earthy the Sprh^ and the Water ^ and
the Bloody and theje Tljvee are One : By th:. S:l*
rlt fignlfylng the Father^ and by the Water the
Holy Spirit^ and by the Blood the Son ; which
Teftimo?iy (fays he) St. Cyprian Bljl^op of Cd.r^
thage^ under flood of the Father^ Son_, and Holy
Spirit, when in an Eplftle or Book zrh'ch he ivrote
of the Trinity J he exprejjes himftlfthus : The
Lord falthy I aizd my Father are One: And
again y It Is written of the Father^, Scn^ and
Holy Spirit^ Thefe Jljree are One. From
whence it appears to. have been Facundus'%
Apprehenfion^ that Cjprlan had an Eye to
the Vqrfe that fpeaks of the Three Witnefjes on
Earthy which he expounded myftically. But
this was plainly Facundus"^ Ivliftake^ as ap-
pears by Fidgentlus; who not only himlelf
cites this Text^ but alfo certifies us^ that
St. Cyprian own'd it^ in the Citation men-
tion'd above. I ftiould think Fidgerttlus might
be allow'd to know St. Cyprians Mind better *
than Factmdusy becaufe he liv'd nearer him ;
and htfidQSy Factmdus miftook in the Tra^ft of
St. Cyprian^ which he referred to^ v/hich was
of the Unity of the Churchy as Fulgentlus inti-*
matesj and not about the Trinity ^ as Facundus
has it t- Facundus alfo updn this Suppofi-
tion^, reprefents St. Cyprian as varying from
the Order in which St. John mentions the
K k 2 ' Three
* Def. Tr. Caplt. lib. I.
t Voye::^ Vrlnclpes Qmtre Ics Sochi, pnr Thecd; ds BUiic]
pag. i37,» 13S, e^^^
^oo I John V. 7. T^indicated.
Shrm* Three Perfons in the Trlnhy. For the Apo-
TT ftie names the Water before the Blood. Now^
^-„^,^ according to Facundus^ St. Cyprian muft un-
derftand the i/o/y Ghofi by r^e Water ^ and fy^c
iSiJw by /^^e 5/<?(?^. So that St. Cyprian to follow
the Order of the 8th Verfe^ fhould have faid^
It is -ivritten of the Father^ the Holy Gholt,
and the Son. Not having done this^ but ra-
ther foUow'd the Order of the 7th Verfe^
it is to that he muft have a Reference ^
the Three Perfons of the Trinity being there
rang'd in the Order in which he had plac'd
Them. And after all_, I think Dr. Mill has
given fufficient Proof, that this myttical In-
terpretation of the Spirit^ the Water y and the
Bloody as meant of Father ^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^
was fir ft brought in by St. Aufiln,
The Inquirer asks_, Why may not St. Cypri*
^an father a weak Interpretation as well as St,
Auftin •*^? ^Tis eafily anfwer'd. That St. Cy-
frian was the greater Man by far of the Two,
and that fuch forc'd and jejune Interpretati-
ons are pretty common in the Writings of the
one^ but not of the other. If it be query'd^
Suppofing St. Cyprian did cite this Text_, what
• can we conclude from his doing fo ? I an-
fwer^ I think we may from thence con-
cludej. That this Text was in his Greek, Co-
py of the New Tefiament. And when it is
ask'd^ Doth Cyprian fay one Word of any fuch
Thlngy as his having had a better Copy thtun the
reft of the Churches had f ? I anfwer with Mai-
donate^ That St. Cyprian did not ufe to cite
any y'erfion of the New Tefiament ^ nor indeed
could he_, there being no common one a-
mong the Latins in his Time ; But as often
as he cited the Scripture,, he himfelf turn'd
it
«
EmlynsTr2idLSf fag. 337. f Trads, p. 542;
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 501
\t out of the Greek, And if he did fo as to Serm*
this Verfe^ then has this Text been in the jj^
New Tajjiamcnt^ ROW 'for upwards of One ^^/>Jm^
thoufand four hundred and fixty Years_, and
therefore can be no Modern Addition to it.
Simon reckons it incredible^ that Sr. Cyprian
ihould have this Text in his Copy of the Ntw
Tefiament^ and St. Auftln not have opposed it
to the Arlans of his Time "*. But I can't fee
why this fhould be at all incredible^ if (as
has before been hinted) he more ufed the
Irallck Verfion (which in his Time was cur-
rent) than the Greek Original
I fhall advance yet one Step farther^
and add. That I take this Text to have
been referred to by Terttdlian^ about the Year
of Chrlfi 200, which was but very little a-
bove One hundred Years after the Epiftle
it was in^ was firft written. Mr. TVhifton
fays^ this hrft Epiftle of St. John was writtea
ebout^. C. 73 t- Dr- ^'^^^ (^Y'o, 'twas about
the Year 91^, or 92. According to ,either
Calculation^ the Citation will come early
enough to be a good Evidence that the
Text is genuine ; efpecially confidering, that^
a.s is obferv'd by Dr. Mill 4.3 a variety of La-
tin Fer/lons were commonly read by the
Africans^ from the very Beginning of Chri-
Itianity among them, to the Time of St. Au-
filn. So that iz might happily fall out, that -
a Paffage wanting in the ItrMck Verfion^ thro*
the Defed of the Grc^k Copy from whicli
it was at firft taken, might be prcferv'd ia
other Latin Verfions^ that were made after
fuch Qreek Cqfies^ as were more perfe(5t.
K k 3 TiJR*
* Hlft. Crit. du N. r. cap. xviii.
t Eday on Apoft, Coriftitutions, p. 5^'
i Proh^om.irf N. T, ^, 6%^, i%A,
5o2 I John V. '7- Vindicated.
\y^v^^
Serm. Tertullian plainly alludes to this Text^
Tj ' in his Book againil B-axeas ^^ where he iays^
The Connexion of the Father In the Son^ and of
the Son in the Comforter^ makes Three jojii-
hig U'.gether^ the. One of which is from the Other :
Which Three .ar'e: onii TlAng • ?wt one Individual •
after the fame Manner as 'tis faid^ I and the Fa-
ther ar€ One^ 7vhh RefpeB to the Unity of Sub-
fiance^ and not the Slngtdarlty of Number. That^
this Text is here reterr'a to^ is the Judg-
ment.notonly cf Ri^alt'niSy2indi others that have
written and publim'd Notes upon his Works^
but alfo of Dr. Hammond ^ Bp. Bully Dr. Grabcy
Dr. Louis Roger y Dt. AiUl^ and feveral others
of Worth and Eminence. If it be faid^ as
it has beenbyfome. That Tertullian took the
Sayingj, j.nd thefe Tbree are One^ from Verfe
8 of the Chapter^ where we are toid of the
Watery and Sfirlt^ and Bloody that they are O?;^ ^
which feveral of the Ancients took to be a
Signiiication of the Trinity; 'tis aniwer'd_,
That that my fled Expofition was unknown
in TertuUian's Days^ and never heard of be-
fore the Year 418^ or thereabouts^ when
St. Anftln publirti'd his Becks againlt Maxi-
minufi^-f. Tertullian- he r^ plainly gives it as
his Senfc^ Opinion^ ^nd belief^ That the Fa^
thety Sony and Sfirlty are Of?ey -as much as Fa--
ther and5of? are Oney and in the very fameSenfe.
And when that- Writer^ v/hom St. Cyprian
own'd for his Mdftery does v/ith his Difci-
ple Cyprlany for a Proof of the peculiar Unity
of Father and Sony refer to the fame Say-
i-ng in St. Johns Goipel^ / and my Father are
One ; what more natural than to fuppofe he
fliould at the fame Time refer to the fame
Apoitle's firft Epilf le^ for a like Unity of all
i^f cap. 2.5. . t Millii Prolcg. in N, X pag, 60*
I John V. 7. Vindicated^ 503
the Three? efpecially' when he makes ufe Serm»
of the very fame Expreffion as we meet with jj^
there? He fpeaks of the Unity of all the ^^^.^1^
Three^ J as a Thing as well known^ as ge-
nerally believ'd^ as little doubted of^ and as
much proved from Scripture^ as the C/w/f^ of
Father and Scn^ of which^ (as has before been
hinted) this Text is the mofi: exprels Proof
we have in the whole Neji^ Tejtament. It is
indeed the great Dellgn of that Trad to
prove againft Vraxeas^ who confounded the
Perfbns of Father and Son^ that Father^ Son^
and Sfirlty are of one and the fame Suhfiance,
So that if we cannot gain by producing Ter^
tidlian^ that this Text was ni his Copy of
the Nev) Tejiamcnt^ we may at leaft gain thi's^
that that Tenet or Opinion^ to prove which
this Text has commonly been produc'd_j
iH-z^. That the Father ^ Son ^ and Spirit ^
are of one and the [a~me Snhjiance ^ was the
common Notion in thofe earh^ Days of the
Chf iltian Church. For tho' TertidUan% being
a Mont am fl^ affeded him with Refped to Difc»
cipline_, yet in his Doctrine^ and particular-
ly with Refped to the Trinhy., he kept to
the very fame Kule^ and the iame Faith with
the CathoUcks ^^ whofe common Sentiment it
was^ That Father^ Son^ and Splrh^ were of one
Subftancey and really Owe God. And thercr
fore^ Ihould it be granted^, that this Cita-
tion of Teriullian does not add much to the
Proof that this Text isgemme^ (which is yet
what^ when all Things are confider'd^ I car^
fee no Reafon to yield) it may however fat-
tisfy us_, that the Divines of the ^Veftmlnjhr AJ'^
femhly are no Innovators_, in aifertiag the
Three Terfons in the Godhead „ to be the Jame m
K k 4 Subfiavce^
^ See Serm. X. f^g- 311, 3^3'
r5cr
$o^ I John V. 7. Vindicated.
vor^
SfiRM, ^^^^^fi^^^^y tho' fome that are grown weary oi
jj^ Old Truths^ take the Liberty to reprefent it
as a Novelty.
I fliall clofe with this one Remark ; That
if thefe Words are real Scripture^ as I am
perfuaded they are^ upon fuch Grounds as
thofe foremention'd^ it will by a neceflary
Confequence follow^ That they that deny
the Trinity^ oppofe the plain Words of Sen-
pture_, which here declares^ that there are
Three that bear Record in Heaven : That they
that deny the Unity of the Father^ the Son^
and the Holy G^ofi^ diredly contradid the Af-
firmation of St. John^-whoidiySj That thefe Three
are One : That they that deny the proper Del-
ty of the Holy Ghojt^ tho' they may not hold
him a mere Creature^ do oppofe this Text^
which plainly diitinguifhes the Holy Ghofi as a
Tcfilfier^ from the PVord^ and from the Father •
as much and in the fame Manner as it does
diitinguifh the Word from the Father on one
Side^ or from the Holy Ghofi on the other.
And therefore I think we have not the leaft
Occafion to wonder^ that they that run in-
to Errors upon thele Heads^ fhould be fo
zealous as we find they are^ in contending
that thefe Words are fpurlous and fuppofiti-
tious^ and for that Reafon to be expungd
and difcarded.
S E RM,
1 John V. 7. Vindicated, $05
SERMON III.
I JOH^N V. 7,
For there are Three that hear
Record in Heaven^ the Fa-
THER, the WoRDj and the
Holy Ghost ; and thefe
Three are One.
E arc told by St. Aufim *^ That it Salrers-
was the ufual Way of the Admjichees y\^^\\,tu$f-
who in his Time made no fmalH^^ Lec^.
Noife and Stir_, when any one quoted upon ^^^^.f
them a Text of Scripture that appear'd to ^ '^*
thwart their Sentiments^ prefently to an-^^^^*
fwer^ That that Place was corrupted^ and in-
ferted by later Writers f ; or ^^^^j ^hat the
Book in which it was founds was drawn up
by fbme Impofior^ under the Name of the Jpo^
file:.
* Lib, XVI. Cent. Fnvji. cap. ii.
t Lik> J^XXllI, Qqrp, ^nujl. cap,, iu.
^05 I John V. 7. Vindicated^
Serm. /^'^^- A.^^ i^ ^^y Perfons are once gone that
jjj^ Lengthy and give themfelves fuch a Liberty
as that amounts to_, it is exceed hig difficult
to know how to deal with them to any
Purpofe. We alfo have had a like Spine
lately at work among us^ " that has been
Itirr'd up by thofe that are of the Avian or
y4rLmiz.ing Stamp. When this Text has beerj
either cited or preach'd upon^ it has been
freely declared, that it was not Scripture^ and
therefore fhould be fet afide. And I have it
from a Perfon of Worthy That upon a late
Converfation with one that was tor difcard-
ing the proper Di-vlnhj of ourS.AviouR^ when
he ur^'d the Beginning of St. Johns Gofpel^
he was -very pertly told^ That the firft
Verfes of that Book were not genuine. Should
tills Spirit fpread^ a general Confufion Vv^ould
be the Coniequence. And therefore I think
the checking it as far as may be^ fliouid be
the Aim and Endeavour of all that have
the Intereft of Religion truly at Heart.
F. Simon himfelf^ that celebrated French
Writer^ who has done fo much to propa-
gate Uncertainty^ in an Age of itfelf futfi-
ciently inclined to •Sccpticifmy has reprefent-
cd It as a Cullom v^ith many that has been
of a long ftanding. That when they have
found a Difference in the. Copies of the
Ne-2ij Tefiament y if that Difference was ob-
lerv'd to favour the Sentiments of any par-
ticular Party^ they have freely accus'd that
Party of corrupting the Sacred Books^ altho'
that Variation has commonly rilen from the
Iranjcrlhers only ^. And yet the very Per-
Ibns that are this Way given^ are commonly
inclined
^ Bift, Qrir. duTe^te dn N. X pag-. ^51,
I John V- 7. Vindicated^ ^07
inclin'd to cry out againft thofe who think
themfclves in Duty bound to oppole thcm^
for dealing hardly with them : As if they
had a Right to ingrofs the Liberty of fpeak-
ing their Thoughts freely^ to themfelv<^:
He that has read the Hiftory of yirlanlfm in
the IVth Century J won't be much furpriz'd
at any Thing of this Kind he may meet with.
'Tis the old Way of thofe innovating Tem-
pers : And indeed_, There's nothing mw under
the Sim.
The Inftance Simon has pitch'd upon to
exemplify his Obfcrvation in this Cafe^ is the
very Text I am upon. For he cries out^ Ho^if
many Divines are there at this Day^ ivho belle've
the Tcftlmony of Father^ Son^ and Holy Spirit^
fpoken of In i John v. 7. has been taken out of
the a-ncient Greek Copies to favour the Herefy of
the Arians 1 And he feems to admire at it.
But when the Matter is well confider'd^ 1
am apt to think it will be found a Thing
more to be admir'd at^ That tho' we have
fuch good Evidence that the Truth which
this Text holds forth^ has been firmly be-
liev'd in the Chriftian Church from the Be-
ginnings and carefully propagated from Age
to Age ,• as well as is fo agreeable to the
whole Current of the Writings of the Neiif
lejiament^ it fhould be thought worth v^^hile
to take fo much Pains as that Author has
donCj to expofe this Text as fpuriousy wdieii
at the very fame Time he declares for it as
authe72tJcky upon the Authority of the Church. For
my Part, 1 can't for my Life conceive how
any Church can have Authority to infert a
Paffage in a facred Book^ if that Paffagc
did not come originally from God ; An(i
yet I am by no Means for quitting this Texr^
(which Way foever it came to be left out of fo
many
John
V. 7. Vindicated.
many Copies) till it is plainly prov'd fpur Ions :
And for that Reafon 1 have been willing to
take fome Pains in inquiring into the Evi-
dence produc'd ; and have oiFer'd_, what
gives me Satisfaction that it is genuine ; and
fhall now take into Confideracion^ the Oh-
je^lons that are brought in againft the Proof
I have produc'd_, and then Ut before you
a brief Comparlfon of the Argument and Hvi:-
dence on the two oppofite Sides^ that you
may be the better able to judge_, which ought
to have the Preference.
The mofl material ObjeBmu I have met
with againft what has been ,advanc'd_, are
thefe that follow :
I. It is faid^ That fo great a Stir about
fiich a Text as this^ is needlefs^ and what
there is no Occafion for j becaufe the Do-
d:rine of the Trmlty does not depend upon
it. And I very readily grant (and have
done it already) that it does not fo depend
upon it^ as that it would ceaie to be credi-
bie_, tho' this Text was intirely wanting :
And yetj when many difcover fb little In-
clination to this Dojflrine^ that they fet
themielves to weaken the feveral Evidences
that fupport it one after another^ in feve-
ral different Ways^ I cannot perceive^ that
it is at all unbecoming thofe that are con-
vinc'd of the Truth of this Dodrine^ and
fenfible how much it is interwoven with
the whole Scheme of Chriltianity^ to be un-
willing to part with any of the ufual Sup-
ports of their Caufe^ with which they have
hitherto fo well ftood their Ground, not-
withftanding all the Attacks that have been
made upon them, unlefs they are forp'd
■^o it. To me therefore that of F. Simon
appears an odd Jnfmuation^ when l]e tells
1 John V. 7. J^tndicated. 509
U$y Thdit whether this Verfe be read in St. John*x Shrm.
Epifiky as it is read by all the Greeks ayid La- tt j
tins at prefentj or whether it be not ready we ^>-x^.-s^
may fiill prove the Senti?nent contrary to that of
the Antitrinicarians, (that is^ we can prove
a Trinity) becai/fe the Fathers from the fir ft Agc^
of the Churchy did apply to Fat her _, Son_, and
JHoly Spirit^ the Teftimony of the Spirit y the JVa^
ter^ and the Blood ^ and proved ^ that the Terfons
if the Trinity are one I'hi^gy by the Unity of
thefe Three fVitneJJes '*'. To me,, I confcfs^ this
looks more like Bantering than Reafoning.
Our falling in with him in this^ would be
a quitting a good and ftrong Argument
for one that is weak and trifling ; a leav-
ing an Argument that is natural^, for one
that is extremely forc'd_, and can do no
Servic#^ which is what I fhould think
no one that is a Friend to Truth could
yield to. We have an Infinuation much
like this_, from Mr. IVhifton^ who tells us^
That the proving this Text jpurioHs^ will not
ajfcti the reft of the New Teilament^ nor in-
deed of this Epiftle f. But tho' it won't_, I
can't perceive the Text debated_, is ever
the lels genume.
2. 'Tis objeded by Zegerus 4-^ That he
could not find that as to this Text^ any
of the Ancients did in all Things agree
with our Reading. Father Simon alfo ob-
ferves^ That in the later Copies of St. Jc-
Tom's Bible^ where this Text is added in the
Margin^ the Order of the Words^ and the
Three IFitnejJks is various and diverfe; which
he
* H//?. Crit. du Texte du N, T. pag- 215.
t Eflay on th« Af oltolical Conftitudons, fag. 4ii."
I Cajligat. in N, T. a^ E£. I Jok, cap, v. 7.
^lo I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Sbrm. 1"^^ reckons a good Proof that they were
III ' ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ Copies. And he obferves^
ijr^r-^*^ That leveral Copies ilrangely differ^ both
in the nianmr of placing this Text^ and in
the maimer of Reading it. They diifer in
the inamicr , of flachg it. For in the Vulgar
Tranflation^ this Verfe that fpeaks of the
Witnefs of Father ^ Son^ and Holy Spirit ^ goes
before that which mentions the Teitimony of
the 6p/r/>^ and tht Water ^ and the Blood : But
in fever al A^SS, the latter goes before
the former. They differ alfo in the man-
72er of Reading. For in fbme Copies ''tis
Teflmonhm dant^ and in Others Teftlmonium dl-
cunt. And at the End of the 8th Verfe^
which contains the Witnefs of the Sfirlt^ the
V/ater^ and the Bloody in fome Copies, thofe
Words^ ii^ hi tres imum funt^ and thefe wbree are
Ojie^ are omitted '^. Our late Inquirer alfo
joyns in the fame Complaint^ and objeds^
That this Text IS in 'variom Shapes. In ^omey
the Words in Heaven are n^antifig ; In others^
thefe Three are One : Sometimes the Sth Verfe
comes before it^ and fometlmes ^tis as In our pre--
fent prhited Books : Somethnes ^tis in the Text^
fo?netimes In the Margin f,- From hence it is
intimated^ that whatever may be faid in Fa-
vour of itj it cannot be genuine. But if
this is a good and fubilantial Reafon for
difcarding this Text^ I am afraid we fhall
be forc'd to expunge feveral other Texts
at the fame Time^ for the fame Reafon -^ and
of thisj any Man that with Care runs over
the Various Readings of Dr. Mill's Teftament^
and F. Simons Critical Volumes^ will foon
and
* Bift. Crh. des Verfions du N. X pag. 113.
t Bmi^ns Trads, J?4^. 4780
I John V. 7. Vindicated. ^ r i
and cafily be convinc'd. This perhaps may Sp.KMi
be agreeable enough to thof'e that being ttt
weary of our Did Scripture 7ext and Dctir'me^
hope to ferve their Turn by 7icw moulding
both : But we that are not tor quitting the
Old Scheme^ till we are well aiTur'd we' have
found a better^ mufi: be excused if we are
not for expunging^ till we are forc'd to it.
If the Certainty of this Text be to be this
Way overthrcwn_, I doubt it will fare hard
with the Beginning of St. John's Gofpel^,
where Simon obferves_, That one flvgU Verfe^
that does not conta'm above fix or ftvtn JVords^
may he read in four different jVIanncrs^ iifbicW
makes as many different Senfes^ as they are dffe-
re7Jtly pointed-^ ivhich dff'ere7Jt Readings are all
defended by ancient Authors "*^. iNiay^ if different
Readings will jultify expunging^ we fliall have
fo much Work upon our Hands^ that it will
be hard to know when we have done. I
doubt we muft then be content to part with
the Twelve laft Verfes of St. A/^r/e's Gofpel ,•
as to which Simon obierves tj that they are
not to be found in many Greek MSS. Cajeta^i
doubted of them : And Simon fays^ He might
doubt of\m Pfpon the bare Authority of St. Jerom^
before the Cotmal of Trent had dctermm'd any
thing of that Matter-^ becanfe that Father bottom' d
his Judgment upon many Copies that he had
read |. "That Father fays ttj> That the lafi
Chapter of St. Mark "juas wanting In almofi all
the Greek Copies. Euthymlus alfo in his Com-
ment on Verfe 8^ of this i6th of St, Afark
faysj that fome Interpreters fay_, that the
Gofpel
* Hiff Crit. du Ccmmcnt.du N, T. en p. iii. p,.5 2,
t Hiji. Crit, duTexte du N. T. pag. 114.
4- Ibid. pag. 117. . ,
tt lihroji. fij Hcdib, Quarft. iiL Tom, IIL ^^H'^-
5 1 2 1 John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. Gofpel of St, Mark is here at an End^ and
III* ^^^^ ^^^^^ foiiows is a later Addition. And
\^y->,^^^ yet here_, ^/wo?^ himfelf could fay^ That lyg
ought not to doubt of the Truth of this Chapter y
Tvhich is as ancient as the Gofpel of St. Mark
ttfelf ■*'. And he gives this as the Reafon of
ir^ Becaufe the Greeks generally read them at this
T>ay in their Churches ^ as appears from their Le-
d:ionaries or Service-Books. And if this is
a good Argument for the retaining thole
Verfes_, I cannot fee why it fhould not e-
qually hold for the Verfe I am upon^ which
is read to the full as generally^ as that or
€ny other Portion of Scripture whatever.
And the Cafe is much the fame as to
Twelve Verfes in St. Johns Gofpel^ from
Chap. vii. ^5^ to Chap. viii. 11. containing
the Hiftory of the Woman taken in Adultery^
which Verfes have much the fame OhjeBion
made againit them with this Text. For Si-
mon obfervesj that they are not in many
Greek Copies in the Gofpel of St. John^ nor in
fome Verfions of the Eafiern Church f. They
are not in the Alexandrian MSS, any more
than this Verfe 4.^ nor in the Syrlack Ver-
fion tt- And yet they are own'd^ while this
Verfe is difcarded.
'Tis the like alfo_, as to the Clofe of St.
John's Gofpel f+tj ^^ which he does not fail
to take Notice. But I fuppofe a main Rea-
fon of the different Cenfures pafs'd by that
Writer^ upon fuch Paffages as thefe men-
tion'd^, and the Text I am upon_, was this ;
That he did not find that thofe Places flood
fo
* Hifi, Crit. du Texte du N, T. pag. iii.
t Hijl Crk. du Texts du N. T. pug. 141, HB^
i Ibid. rag. 147* tt i^'- P- 150. tit lh» p. »5 ^'
John
V. 7. Vindicated.
fo much in his Way_, as this Text^ and there-
fore he was more favourable there than
here.
However^ it well deferves our Obferva-
tion_, That if different Readmgs in feveral Co-
piesj be an Argument of Spurwufnefs ^ we
mult not only part with Verle 7^ of this ift
of St. John^ which I would fo willingly pre-
ferve^ but with the 8th alfo^ that comes
next to \ty as fond as thefe Critical Gentlemen
are of retaining the one^ while they are fo
warm for difcarding the other. This is plain
from hence 3* becauie our Copies are not
much better agreed as to the 8th Verfe 0^
this Chapter^ tnan they areas to the 7th. For
in one of M. Colberts MSS. the Three that
hear iVitnefs on Earthy are faid tO be Bloody
mid Water ^ and FleOj ^ not Spirit y IFater^ and
Bloody as we commonly exprefs them *. In
fome Copies alfo^ thofe Words^ And thefe
Three agree in One^ or are One^ are wanthig,
after the Tellimony of the Spirit ^ the IVater'^
and the Blood f. I myfelf have feen a Latin
MSS. of this Sort. And we are alfo told^
That in Bede's Copy, the Words are ; Ther^
ure Thr&e that bear Record^ the IVater^ the Bloody
and tin Spirit ^ initead of Toree that bear Record
on Earth |. This lait Remark as to Bede,
has before been obferv'd to be a Miftake,
However, 'tis plain enough, that if this
7th Verfe is to be expung'd becaufe of
the 'various Readings ^ fo alfo muft the 8th for
much the fame Reafon. And if we go on at
this Rate^ we Ihall at length make the New
L 1 Tefiament
* Bljl. Crit. dti Texts dii N, T. pag, 210.
t Hift. Crit. desVerfions du N, T. |pag, 113,
i Emljni Tra(^s, ffig. 49a.
I John V. 7* Vindicated^
Tefiament 3. weu' one indeed. But if the 8th
Verfe here might h^ genuine ^ and is own'd for
fuch^ notwithftanding thefe feveral parlous
Readings^ I cannot fee why this 7th Verfe
alfo^ may not both be^ and be own'd to be
genuincy notwithitanding all the Varieties men-
tioned^ which are only a few more. For
why fhould fuch different Readlvgs be a great-
er Proof of Sfurloujnefs in the one Cafe than
in the other? Again^
3. It is objeded^ That fuch Evidence as
is brought againlt this Verfe^ would be
|udg'd efficient againll any Paifage in any
Claffick Author whatever. Would not^ fays our
Inquirer^ fuch a Taffage prefently be fronouncd
fpuriousy and be brought under a Deleatur by the
unanimous Folce of the Crltlcks^ when they had no
Concern in ity but to judge jvhat is true and ge*
nulne^ and what not ? Nay^ would a Court of Ju-
dicature allow any Paragraph to be good^ in a Wri"
tmg of Confequence^ for which no more^ and a-
p-ainfi which fo much can be fairly fat d } And will
not the fame Sincerity and Impartiality well become
us in thlsy which we cannot oitly well juflify ^ but
commend in the Examination of other Writings ?
Shall we prefs Men to take that for Evidence here y
7vhlch will pafs no where elfe * ? I anfwer^
Crltlclfm^ when we make the very bell of it
that we can^ or that it will bear^ is a very
frecarlous Art ; and ifwe may judge of it by the
Practice of the greatell and moft plaufible
Pretenders to it^ it leaves as much Room for
Fancy^ and Prejudice^ and PrepolTeffion^ as
any Art whatever. Tho' there are many
that pretend to give ftrid Rules^ there are
few Crlticks can be found that keep to them.
Nay>
* Emlpii Trads, ^n^. 34^,
/•"Vs*^
I John V- 7. T^indicated. 5 r C
Nay^ the belt of 'em ftiil have fuch Efcapes_, Sfrm.
as plainly fhevv tiiat m the midft cf all their t.tt
Pretences to Exadnefs^ they could either
find or make Room for Favour and AfTedi-
on. Father Simon himfelf, who is by Ibme
made the Standard of ficred Criticlf???^ tells us^
That the Defign of thoje that ufe the Art of Critl-
ciz.h'gy IS not to defiroy^ but to ejfablijli * ; And
yet I am apt to think that any Man that
runs over his Writings_, will readily con-
clude^ that he wa^ too forgetful of this Dc-
fign^ and that he was one to whom fettling
and cftablijlnngy was not any thing near fa
agreeable_, as overthrowing^ unfettiing^ and.
dejhoylng. And he that takes a conhderate
View of the Cenfures of our Crltkh upon
Clajfick Authorsy and obferves^ how inconfi-
ftent and contradictory they often are^ and
how full of fanciful Cavils^ and iil-natur'd
Reflections^ will hardly think th?m remark-
able for tlie Certainty A zhnr M^afures :
Nor is it an eaiy Thing to mention a Cafe
of Importance^ in which their Voice is r/;^ :;//-^
mous. And therefore their Methods afford
but a poor Foundation for a fblid Argu-
ment.. The Proceedings indeed of Courts of
Judicature^ are a little more regular : And
jret even they in many Cafes are of Necef-
lity fway'd and govern "d '^y B-obalUUles^ and
fuch Probabilities too^ as leave i plain Pof-
fibility of Miftake and Deceit^ when they
have done their bell^ and gone the farthelt
they are able. Thus with Refped to the
lall Wills and Teftaments of deceased Perfons^
which molt certainly are IVrltlngs of Confe-
quence^ a Paragraph that gives away Hun-
L 1 2 dreds
Preface a PHifi, Crit. du Tcxte dii K T.
5i6 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Seem, dreds and Thoufands^ fliall be allow'd to be
III. good and authentkk^ if credible Perlbns^ ac-
^^/-y^ quainted with the Hand of the Tefiator ^
make Oath t hat they believe it to be his own
Hand Writing. And yet fuch a Paragraph
(as it may fall out) may have lefs that can
be fairly laid for the Reafonablenefs of it^
than is alledg'd in the Cafe under Confi-
deration. I am far therefore from thinking
this Argument conclufive. Perfons may Hill
be fincere and impartial^ and yet hold this
Text to ht genuine. Simon himfelf owns^ that
this Verfe is at trefent read m all the Latin Co-
pes *. And tnis I Ihould think^ might well
be allow'd to pais for inconteltible Evidence^
in the Cafe of thofe that own tht Aathen^
tlcknefs of the Latin Verfion. And tho' it is
not altogether fo good an Evidence^ in the
Cafe of thofe that are of another Opini-
on^ it may yet be fairly allow'd to have its
Weight with Refped to them alfo^ till bet-
ter Evidence is produc'd than has yet been
given^ that it is a Corruption. And when all
IS done_, Dr. Roger f^ and fome others^ as
good Judges perhaps as our Inquirer^ are
of Opinion^ That the Genulnenefs of this
Text may he jufilffd^ by the ftrl^ Laws of Oi-
ticlfm. Again_,
4. Whereas from Dr. Grahe and others^
it has been cfFer'd sls no improbable Thing,
That fome of the firil Tranfcribers of this
EpiitlCj might overlook this 7th Verfe^ and
that might be the Occafion of its being omit-
ted in thofe that were copy'd after 'em ,* and
hintedj that the Silence of the Greek Father*
as to this Textj and its not being found in
Creek Copies, might in a great Meafure he
this
* Hifl. Crit. des Verfions du N. T. pag. 109.
i Vide DJJferi^t. Crit. IhsologicJn i John v, 7,
p. 4,
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 517
this Way accounted for ; it is objeded^ That Seri^.
we may reafonably fuppofej that the firll jjj^
Jranfcrlbers ot St. Johns Epiftle^ knowing how v/^*^^
much was depending^ would be more care-
ful in viewing and examining their Tran^
fcriptSy than to have omitted fuch a Paflage
as this '*'. This is reprefented as the more
Probable^ becaufe of a foleran Adjuration
which Irenausy who was one of the oldeft Fa^
thers of the Chriftian Church 3 has added
to his own Writings^ in order to the Itriking
an Awe upon fuch as fhould tranfcribe them.
For in his Works we meet with thefe very
folemn Words f • ^ adjure thee who Jlialt tran-
fcribe this Book J by the Lord Jesus Christ,
and by his glorious Appearance to judge the ^ilck
and the Dead^ that thou compare after thou hafi
tranfcrib'^dy and amend it by the Original 'very carir'
fully. And we are told^ That thefe aivful Words
of this Father y Jljew us what Senfe they had In thofe
early Times ^ of the NeceJJity of comparing their Trarif-
firipts with the Originals. And it is leTt to be ga-
ther'dj that if they took fuch Care of the Tranfcripts
of their own Works ^ they could not but be much more
careful of thofe of the facred Volumes ^ '• which were
fo much more 'valuable and important. But to
this 'tis eafily anfwcr'd^ That notwithftand-
ing fuch a folemn Adjuration as this^, hard-
ly any Thing was more common than 7f^«-
fcribing without exacSl Collatings aye^ and thaq
mangling^ changing^ and altering too^ the
Works that were tranfcrib'd : And hardly
any Works have in this Refped fuffer'd
more than thofe of Irenaus ^ fo little Force
had his Adjuration to reftrain. And if in thi^
Refped: cur facred Volumes have fufFer'd lef$
than other Writings^ (which is what he tha^t
J-. I 3 carefully
^ Bmlyn\ Trads, fag. 340c
t Inn, 0^, ex ^dit, fjuafdfntli. pag.- 5.?? |>^
I John V. 7- Vindicated.
carefully ccmpares^ will lind Reafon to own)
it mull be afcrib'd to the fpecial Providence
of Almighty Go D3 in Favour of his Church
and PeopL^3 who had a great deal more de-
pending on thefcj than on any other Wri-
tings v/hatever. A Man might certainly be
very hcneft^ and yet in too much Haite
to be exac^tj at the Tiaie when he tranjcrlb^d
St. John's Epifliej and might unhappily omit
this Verfe^ while another Tranfcrlba infei ted
it : And the Original might be fent away to
Tarthla^ before there was an exact Collation of
fome of the Tranfcripts with it ; and it might
be at too great a Diftance to leave Room for
it afterwards^ in fuch hazardous Times as
thofe in which the Primitive Chriftians
iiv'd.
And when its added^ That V// not -very
likely J that all the Tranfcrihers^ or many of them^
jlwuld make the fame Mlftake '^ \ 'Tis eafily re-
ply'd^ That one Tranfcriher's making this Mi-
llakCj might (as Circumftances flood) be
fufficient to affecl the ' feveral Co;?/Vj of the
Greek Fathers that were taken from it^ which
could not have it, if they were taken from a
Tranfcript that Omitted it^ any more than the
Copies of the African Fathers could be fuppcs'd
to omit itj if they were taken uom a^Trarjfcr/pt
that inferted it. But the:n farther^
5". WHf.REASj, borrowing M. il/^r/i;^'s Ex-
preffionj I mention d a Cloud. of M^lt7iej]es in,
Africa^ in the Confcjfion of Faith that was pre-
tinted hy .Eugenlus Bifhop of Carthage ^ to Hm-r
nerlck- the. Vandal King^ An. 484^ on which I
have laid a conilderable Strefs^ and 1 think
no: undefervedly ^ it is objeded by our In-
Emlyn\,Tx2^<^%y fag. 341.
I John V. 7. Vindicated, 5 1 9
^tnrer^ That this Cloud of WltneJJes^ for what
appears_, may be but an Hand's Breadth^ Jlrree
or Four only^ without any Warrant from the ^uhllck
Copies *. But methinks_, he that can take
the Liberty to lay this^ may fay e'en jufl
what he pleafes. As for that Confefflon^ we
have as good Evidence as need to be defir'd^
that- it was prefented by a confiderable Num-
ber^ and that in very critical Circumllances.
They that prelented it were expos'd to the
utrnolt Hardfhips^ on the account of their ad-
hering to it. At fuch a Time^ if ever^ one
would exped that Men fhould be in Earneft,
and fo careful in Searching into Matters^ as
to be fully fatisfy^d they went upon good
Grounds in adhering to it^ before they of--
fer'd to concurr. No Man that met up*
on that Occafionj, or had any Concern in
Drawing up_, Prelenting^ or Spreading that
ConfeJJion^ could tell but it might colt him his
Life. And there is very little Likelihood
they would be io Fool-hardy^ if they were
not very clear as to the Truth of what was
declar d with fuch an Appearance of Solem-
nity. It v/as not Three or Four only that
were ingag'd in this Affair ^ but all the 77-/-
nltarlan Bifhops in and about Africa^ appear
Xo have counted it a common Concern. And
(as has been already obferv'd) Gennadlus of
MarfelUeSy who liv'd and flourifli'd about the
Year 495-3 and drew up, and publifh'd a
Book of Ecclefiafilcal Writers ^ or Catalogue of
Famous Men, in which he began where St.
Jtrom left off, tells us in fb many Words^
That this ConfeJJion was drawn up with the
(^ommon Conient of ail the Bifhops and Con-
I. I 4 feflbr§
? Emlyns Trads, f^g^ 490^
^20 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
ShRM» feffors of Africa^ Mauritania ^ Sardinia and Cor--
III. fi^'^y ^^^ were more likely to be Three or
^^,^Y'>^ Four Score (not to fay Hundreds) than but
Three or Four. And I think I may venture
to fay^ that thefe all togetherj make a Cloud
much too large to be blown away with the
Breathy or Affirmation^ of any one that in-
clines to reduce and leflen their Number^ out
of Diflike of their Trlnclples. And for any
Man to infmuate^ that in. fuch a Cafe as
theirs^ they would venture to infert this
Text in their CoJifcJJiov,, 'without any Warrant
from the fubllck Copies ^ is a wilder Suppofition
ty far^ than any the Inquirer can juftiy charge
on thofe whom he moll warmly oppofes ;
for it is a fuppofmg them to take a Method
to ferve their Caufe^ which they might ea-
fily be able to forefee was likely to bring
effectual Ruin both upon that and themfelves
too_, if it was once difcover'd. And I don't
fee how they could expeift to prevent a Dif-
ccvery^ when the collating their Affertion
with the fuhllck Copies^ was a Thing fo far
from having any Difficulty in it^ that no-
thing could be more natural or eafy. St.
Jtifiin its true, feems to have been a Stranger
to this Textj but that (as has been obferv'd)
was owing tp the old Itallck Verfion^ in which
it was not to be found^ tho' that was not
the only publick Copy that was us'd m Africa,
And our not hearing of any thing like an
Ohje^hn ftarted againft thefe African Fathers
upon this Occailon^ as if they went about
to impofe a fpurlous Text^ is to me a better
Evidence that they were warranted by the
fuhlick Copies^ than any that hag yet been of-
fer'd by our Inquirers or Cavillers to the con-
trary. And tho' lome may perhaps take the
J^iberty to grace this Tcxt^, upon this Ooca-
I John V. 7. Vindicated^ 52 1
iiOHj, with the Title of an African MonfieTy Serm.
(which is a molt unfeemly and undecent ttt \
Expreflion in a Cafe of this nature) yet I v,^,.^^^
can't fee any likelyhocd of their this way^'^"^*'^^
doing the leait Service to the Caufe they
are ingag'd in^ be it what it will. For no
Weaknels can be greater^ in the Judgment
of Men of fenfe^ than to fuppofe the giv-
ing hard Names will fupply the Place of
Trutfi? Once more^ we are told in the^
Vlth place^ that there are three Things
that are fatal to our caufe ^ three great Jifad-*
"vantages y under which 7ie labour and fink ^ •
and they are thefe : That we cannot pro-
duce one Genuine Greek Writer that ever cited
this Text ^ nor any one Manufcript Greek
Copy where this Text is at this Day to be
found 5' nor one credible Witnefs that ever
diredly faid he had at any time feen ai;iy
one particular Greek Manufcript in which this
Text was ^ or defcrib'd it by any Mark of
Diitindion^, by^which it may be known up-
on inquiry after it. And with this it feems
to be expected that we fliould be for ever
filenc'd. But as much as our Inquirer here
triumphs^ I cannot perceive that we are
deftitute of a fufficient Reply to each of
thefe three Articles. For_,
I. As to a Greek Writer citing this Text^
I have before inltanc'd in Maximus^ who is
generally held to be the Author of the Dis-
pute at the Council of iV7c^^ which bears
the Name of Athanafius^ which is much at
one with a Genuine Greek ^Writer in the
7th Century j and in the Lateran Council
in which there were fo many Greeks^ i<i
the
* l^mlpis Trn^s, pag, 473, 47^,
5 22 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. the Time of Imocent III, at the Beginning c;
III. ^^^ ^3^^-^ Century^ which in Effed fuppiies
C'^VVJ ^s with a good Number of Greek Writers
citing it at once : And the inferting the
Text by the Greeks in their Book of LeJJons^
and in their Confe/Jlo?! of Faith ^ heightens the
Proof in this Caie. But whatever vv^e can
do as to Greek Writers that have cited this
Text_, we are able to produce a genuine Greek
JVrher^ and he an ancient one tod; that
tells us of Hereticks who left out of this
Iipiilic^ Paffages that made againft 'em ;
and that is Socrates the Ecclefialtical Hiifo-
rian "*'. And if they took out other Paffa-
ges_, they might as well rafe out this^ out
of any Copies that came in their Way, in
which it was left by the Tranfcribers. They
that were for feparating pkrifis Dt^vlnity from
his Humanity y (which was the Principle and
View of thofe concern'd and aim'd at) would
be as likely to be againlt this Text^ as any
other in ail this Epiftie. And if it came
at all in their Way^ we have lo much the
lefs Reafon (befides what has been before
alledg'd) to be lurpriz'd^ that they lhoul4
take fuch Methods with it^ as contributed
to prevent its being fb commonly cited by
Greek Writers^ as ic might otherv/ife have
.been. And then^
2. As to a Manufcript Greek Copy^ where
this Text is at this Day to be tound^ I
can't for my Part pretend to have had that
x:onverfe with Ancient MSS^ as could, ena-
ble me to fatisfy the Objector upon my
own certain Knowledge : But I can referr
him to what I take to be vaftly preferable
XO
* Lib. 7. cap, 32..
III.
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 523
to any Tingle Greek MS^ and that is the Serm
/^^?y7(?w of the New Teilament into Modem
Greeks which has been twice Printed j once
at Geneva^ and a fecond Time here at Lo7t-
don ,• and this Verfe is to be found in both
Editions. I know indeed that F. Simon re-
prefents that Verpon as the Work of fome
Greeks y that were Friends of the Cal'vlnlfis ^
and as undertaken at the Solicitation of the*
Dutch Embaffador at the Von ^ : But we
have no Reafon to regard or depend upon
all his AlTertions. Nor have we any Rea-
fon to fuppofe^ that either Maximus the
Tranflator^ or Cyrlllus Lucarls^ who was at
that Time Patriarch of Confiantlnople (who al-
fo prefix'd a Preface to it) would have in-
ferted this Text^ if it was not to have
been found in any of their Greek MSS. And
i add farther^ that if Father Simon is to be
believ'dj the Greek Text is in many places
lefs exad than the Vulgar Latin. This is
what he endeavours to prove m his Wri-
tings by a great many Inftances. And it
fo_, its being wanting in Greek Copies^ can
be nO Argument of its being y^/^r/^?///^ as long
as it is fo generally in the Latin Copies.
But fmce after all^ the Inquirer is fo par-
ticularly fond of a Greek MS^ Mr. Martin
has referr'd him to one in the Library at
VMln^ and has given a very particular Ac-
count of it f. And whereas^
3. It is alfo poiitively alTerted^ that no
one credible Witncfs can be produced that
ever directly laid^ he had at any Time feen
any
* Hiji. Crit. des Veyfjons du N. T. c. %, fng. 7.
"t LnVerite du Jexte dsSx. '^enrtj Ch. V. 7. ?(irt IL
^24 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
S£RM. ^^y ^^^ particular Greek Manufcript^ in
jjj^ which this Text was to be found ; I de-
\y-y^^ fire it may be coniider'd^ how vain a thing
h is to exped to convince or fatisfy^ fuch
as are not difpos'd to believe any thing but
what makes for them^ and will fervc their
Purpofe^ and that will allow no WitnelTes
to be credible but what are of their own
fide. Father Simon who has in a particular
manner fignaliz'd himfelf in Oppofition to
this Textj and who is the Man whom all
that are againft it borrow from_, feems
fcarce to have allow'd any Man to have
been a competent Judge of Manufcrlpts but
himfelf; Nor will he allow any to be cre-
dible 14^it?iej]es y if they teftify any tiding that
croffes his Scheme of Notions, And they that
have fallen in with him in vehemently fet-
ting themfelves againft this Text^ feem here-
in to have imbib'd his Spirit^ and to be
ambitious of treading in his Steps. There is
no doubt at all to be made of it_, but
that one Critick making it fo much his
Bufmefs^ and having fuch Accefs to well fur-
niflit Libraries^ faw more MSS. oitliQ-New
'Xefiament than moft Men: And yet it does
not follow^ that none had to do with them
or were capable of judging of them^ or
were to be believ'd in their Report con-
cerning them^ but himfelf, as he would feem
to infinuate by his affuming Airs, He fpeaks
of Morhus and Amelote^ who he fays talk'd
much of Auguft and Venerable MSS^ but
he charges them with giving the Name of
true and Apoftolick Copies^ to Books that
were altered. They tell the World they faw
Greek MSS. that had this. Text^ but this
Gentleman tells us they did not know what
i\ity favy themfelves. He owns that Eraf-
mm
I John V. 7. Vindicated, t^^i^
mm had read enow of thefe MSS. to be a- Serm.
ble to judge of them^ and yet fell into great uf, *
Faults^ and one of them it fliould feem was (^^^-^o
the inferting of this Text^ which he knew
not how to forgive him. Another was that
'Erasmus acciis'd the Greeks of altering their
Copies in fome Places after the Council of
Florefjce: By which Slmo?} fays^ /je Jhew'd he
had hut little Knowledge of the ^ality of the
MS Cofies he had confulted. Bez>a he owns
had in his Hands^ (which by the Way de-
ferves that Gcntlemans notice^who will Icarce
allow him to have had any in his Hands st
all) more MSS. of the New Teftament than
Erafmusy and he acknowledges he was af-
fiited with the Pains of the two Ste^hens's^
Robert and Henry ^ and yet he fays^, he did net
know the equalities of his Copies ^ and therefore
was miftaken. And whereas our Bifliop Bur-
mt tells us in his Account of his Travels,
that he took fome Pains to examine all the
ancient MSS. of the Ne7iJ Teftament that came
in his way^ concerning this Text^ our Prag-
matical father fets himfelf down in liis
Dictators Chair^ and like an Inthro^ied Cricick
prefently reads his Doom^ and declares that
by his 'i2;orksy that Ft elate whofe Memory is
{0 celebrated among us^ daes not appear ei^
tber to ha-ve been a Ciitlck or an able Dlz':?ie *,
And the Refult of the whole feenis to be
tliis^ that he could better judge what other
Men faw, than they themfelves ; and thac
tho* others might lee a Variety of MSS. as
well as he ^ yet he only was fit to judge
concerning them. And is not this intolera-
ble I Is fo Worthy an ancient Protcitant
Divine
* Hijl. Crip, dss Vyrfions du N, T. c. Ix, p. 104, 105
52(^ I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. Divine as M. Martin^ when grown old m the
III. Service of God and his Church according
\y,^>^>^ to th^ Purity of his Gofpel^ to be infulted^
for being fo bold as to fet himfelf to con-
front fuch a Champion of the Fhilifilncs as this^
who has bid open Defiance to the Armies of
the Living God ! But I forbear.
I mult confefsj I reckon it no very diffi-
cult Thing to name feveral credible Wit-
neffes _, that have own'd they have feea
this Text in feveral Greek MSS. Nay^ I have
nam'd feveral already. I cannot but reckon
Erafm74s for one_, tho' cur Inquirer denies it^
and falls out even with his belov'd Friend
Simon for owning it '^. For when Simon fays_,
That Erafmus faw the Codex BrUannlcu; ^ from
whence he inferted this Verfe in the third
Edition of his Greek Te/ament^ he asks^ fV/jere
does Erafmus fay fo ? I anfwer^ Tho' in his
Annotations he only fays^ There is found oite
Greek MS. amo^ig the Englifli ovh'ich has it;
yet that is in effed the lame v/ith declar*
ing that he himfelf had feen it : Which I
take to be plain enough from Simons, Ac-
count of Erafmtis's Anfwer to Titelman^s Obje-
d:ions againlt his New Teframent.. For that
Friar objetling againil his Way of rendring
Rom, V. 12. where he ufed peccaz^imus inltead
of fecca^erunty Erafmus anfwer s^ That It '^vas
fo In the Greek yliS. which he hud read In
England. This in all Probability was the ve-
ry fame MS. as that Author referrs to^ up-
on this Text of St. John : And I Ihall con-
tinue of this Mind^ till I fee good Reafon
to the contrary.
I take Robert Stephens for another that faw
this Text in a Greek MS, if not in feveral.
And
Emlynh Tradts, png. 327.
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 527
And not to lay my Strefs on what our Incjuirer
has fo much objeded againitj, I give this
good Reafon for my being of thisMind_, That
that celebrated Printer (vvhofe Veracity in
the Cafe I fee no Reafon to call in queftion)
m his Account of his fine Edition of the
Greek Tefiament in i$*49j declared that he had
gotten fome Copies^ that were almofi to be
adored for their Antiquity ^ from which he did ?iot
"vary Co much as In a Letter. Now fhould he af-
ter iuch a Declaration in his fhort Treface^
add a whole Yerfe that he did not find in
any of them^ he muft not only 'vary confi-
derably^ but muft be a downright Falfifier,
and guilty of (iich grofs Forgery^ as that no-
thing that came from him could afterwards
deferve the leaft Regard or Notice.
Nor can I help reckoning Laurentlus Valla
SLndBez,a of the Number ot thofe that faw
this Text in Greek A£SS\ whatever our Inquirer
has objeded to the contrary. And Dr. Ro-
ger '*' has pubhfii'd it to the World^ that the
celebrated Father le Long had alTur'd him^That
Dr Tcard an Injh Dean had given it him un-
der his Hand^ that this Text was in a Dub-
lin MS. And at length M. Martin has print-
ed an Atteltation under the Hand of Mr.
Lewis the Library Keeper^ that it is in the
MS. aforefaidj that is in his Cuftody^ and
an exad Extracl of it. And if our hiqulrer
will ftill complain^ That ?io one credible Wit-
nefs can be froduc\l that e^ver dlreEily fald^ he
had at any Time jeen any one particular Greek
Manufcript^ in which this Text was to be found y
it will be hard to know what will give him
Satisfadion.
He
* DiJJemt, Qrit, Theolog. de \ John V. 7. §. XXIIL
tag. UQ,
528 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. He referrs us indeed to Dr Bentkys de-
III ^gii'^ Edition of the New Tefiamcnt^ for
^^^^^i^J, clearer Light, in this Matter *^ and Com-
pliments him with the Title of the tranfcendevt
Critical Genlm of this Age ,• of which Title he
may eafily happen to be Itrip'd again^ if it
Ihould fo fall out that he fliould crofs our Inquirer
in his Scheme : And by what as yet appears^
he is likely more to dilFcr from him^ than
agree with him. For my part^ I fliall be
very thankful for the additional Light that
comes this Way^ and very ready to make the
belt Ufe of it that may be. In the mean
Time from what of the Dodor's is already
publiih'd about this Matter^^ it appears
that he reckons the Fate of this Verfe to be
a mere ^efilon of Faci^ Whether or no it was
known in the IVth Century ? Perhaps it may
be fo : And yet I can't tell whether the Way
which the Dc6tor propcfes_, will give the
Inquifitive all the Satisfaction that is defir'd.
He has given us to underftand that he in-
tends to make St. Jerome true Latin Exem-
plar_, which he has adjufted to the belt Greek
Copies^ the Standard by which to judge whe-
ther this Text be genuine or [furious. And if
we make St. Jerom the Standard^ 'twill be a
Refledion on our Inquirers Friend Simon^ who
affures US_, That that Fathei' either a^proi;es or
difapproves a Way of Readings in different Places^
according as he needs it in the Matter he is treat-^
hjg of f. If St. Jerom's true Latin Exemplar
can be come at, it muft be own'd it will de-
ferve to be well confider'd : But I don't know
that we are under any Obligation to allow,
that
* EmlyrCs Trads, fag, 483, 484.
t Bifi, CriP, dffjprfmsdH iV. T. pag. 59, 6gl
I John V. 7. Vindicated. 529
v-^V^
the Text fliould fiand or fall by that alone. Serm.
For fome Latin MSS, as Simon himfelf ob- ttt
ferves *_, have been correded from Greek
Copies very diiferent from that which was
ufed by St. Jerom. Thus we find MSS. in
which as well as cur common Copies^ this
Claufe is added at the End of the Lord's Fraj-
cr ^ For Thine is the Kingdom^ and the Tower ^ and
the Glory y for e'uer and e'ver * and yet it is cer-
tain that thefe Words are not in St. Jerom\
Edition^ nor were they in the moft ancient
and corred Gr^e^ Copies^ and particularly not
in that of Orlgen^ which he commonly fol-
lows. And perhaps upon ftrid Search^ it
might not be very Difficult to pick up fe-
veral Inftances of the fame Kind. But itill
how it fliould come about that this Inquirer
Ihould be fo fond of the Learned Dodor^ is
hard to fay^ feeing he frankly adds at the
End of his Letter^ That let the FaH prove ho7i/
it wllly the DoBrine Is unjlmken. For my Part
I muft own it beyond my Skill to difcern how
there can be any great Harmony between
Two Perfons^ where One Itands firm to the
common Dodrine of the Trinity^ whatever be-
comes of the FijB^ with Refped to this par-
ticular Text ; while the other therefore fets
himfelf to difprove the F/2<^' as to this Text,
on Purpofe that he may be able with the
more Advantage to fliake the commonly re-
ceiv'd Doctrine, That Father ^ Son^ and Holj
Spirit y are but 0;?e God. But I cannot per-
ceive but for any Thing that has been hi-
therto offered, both Fad and Do^rlne may be
allowed to remain unihaken.
M m And
:^ DiferUP. Crif, fur Us ^^S. du N. T. p. 74.
^30 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm* And now^ that I may bring the Matter
withia a, narrow Compafs^ I fhail a httlq
compare, the Argument and Evidence on the-
two oppolke Sides together^ which may be
worth ourwhile^ becaufe it may the better
Help us to pafs a Judgment. And here we
may make fuch Remarks as thefe :
If they that are againll this Text have
fame Advantages that favour thenij fa have^
we. If they plead the general Unacquaint-
ednefs of the earlieit Ages with theie Words j
we may plead the Connexion is for us_, ani
tliat there is a plain Chafm leftj fuppofi ng
this Verie to be wanting. If it be a Difad-
vantage on our Side3 that this Text has been
fo little own'd by Greek Writers , I think it
cannot fairly be difown d to be no fmall Dif-
advantage on their Side^ that whatever it was
formerly ^ this Text has been generally
own'd both among Greeks and Latins^ now
for fever al Hundred Years^ with very little
Oppofition. If their ylccoimt of the coming In of
this Text he itatural and eafy ^3 I think our Ac-
count of the fo great Silence about this Text
15 very poffible and pl^in. If we are not
without our Difficulties ; neither muft they
pretend to it. If it be difficult on our Side^,
to anfwer Objections from its not being ufed
where it was much needed, and might have
been very uleful^ and where the very next
Verfe is cited ^ it is not a Jot lefs difficult
on their Side^ to give any tolerable Account
how fuch a Text as this Ihould (lip in with-
out Obfervation and Oppofition. If the
Confequences of either retaining or quit--
ting this Text be put in the Balance toge-
ther^
* Bnljni,uTi:z,di^,fdg, 3,1 1,
I John V. 7. Vindicated.
ther^ I cannot fee but we muft keep our
Bibles in this Refped unalter'd. For if we
retain this Text^ the worft that can follow
is this j That we own for Scripture^ what
leveral that liv'd in the Ages before us leem
to have known nothing of; Whereas if we
quit it^ we fhall be in no fniall Danger of
being at length drawn to fall in with Simons
darling Principle^ of ecjuallhg TradHlon imth
Scriftnrey and making the Certainty of the
latter^ depend upon the former. The Evi-
dence which they that are againft this Text
infiit molt upon is more Negati^ve ; while
ours that is for this Text^ is more Tojitlve,
'Tis not; (fay they) alledg'd by the Greek Fa-
thers, 'tis not in the Old f'^erfamy 'tis not in
the Greek MSSy and therefore Ws not gemihie.
This Confequence, fiy we^ is far from be-
ing certain. It might ftill he genuine ^ and at
ftrit inlerted^ tho- afterwards undeiignedly
omitted by one of the firft Tranfcrlbers, \n
the mean time (as we have feen) 'twas quo-
ted by fome of the firft Latin Fathers^ and
when it was openly alledg'd^ pafs'd current^
and was readily receiv'd. 'Tis pleaded how-
ever^ That their Evidence is as good as
we can well require for a Negative 3- and
that there muft be great Weight to caufe
an ^yEquUlhrlum y and much more to turn'
the Scales *. And that greater Weight we
think we have ; becaufe they that firmly ad-
hered to the Docftrine of the Trinity^ could
not well add this Text if they would; and
we have no Reafon to think they would if
they could; becaufe they did not need it,
aad could gain nothing by it^ which they
M m 2 might
\ Eml)n\ Tradb, fag, 3x7.
532 I John V. 7. Vindicated.
Serm. might not reach without it j which I think
TTT * may be allow'd more than juft to turn the
^^r-Ji^ Scale. If they charge us with making nn-
reafonahle Suffofitlcns in the Profecution of this
Argument ; we have as much Reafon or
more^ to charge them with unaccountable E-va-
fans. Thus when we plead^ That this Text
was quoted by a Number of grave Suffer ere
for the Truth of the Gofpel^ upon as Ib-
lemn an Occalion as could well be fuppos'd^
in Oppofition to the raging Arlans^ all the
Return -made is this ; That a Is no Wonder If
this Text creeping into private Books in Ages of
Darknefs and Corfufion^ we jljould find no lAottce
remaining of any Ofpoftion of theirs y to what did
not offend 'em '*. Than which nothing could
be more jejune and precarious ,* efpecially
when it is known that nothing could offend
them more.
And finally^ The Enemies of this Text
fet up one Man in Oppofition to the
» reft of the Learned Worlds and he as unfit
a Perfon as could be pitch'd upon to be a
Guide to Trotefiants^ and that is^ Father Simon ;
who had fo great an Averfion to VroteftantSy
as fuch^ that he not only takes all Occafions
to expofe and cenfure tiiem^ and run them
down_, but could difficultly prevail with him-
felf in any of his Writings to give a tole-
rable Character of any Learned Man they
had amongft them^ wnen they came in his
Way.
As Archbifhop Tlllotfon gives it as a juft
Charader of our Countryman Mr. Hobbcsy
That he did ?nore by his Writings to debauch the
Age with Athelftlcal Principle Sy than any Man that
liv'd
* £ml)ifs Trads- £/ig, 47.5,
I John y. 7. Vindicated. 5^^
Uvd hi it befides : So may I upon as good
Grounds_, give it as a true Character orthat
French Father^ That he has done more towards
the 'iveakn'ing and undermining the Authority of
the Holy Scriptures^ than any ti'riter of the Age.
He fiaciy denies^ that Mofes wrote the ?e»-
tatetich. He makes the Authority of our
Pivinely infpired Writings^ to depend up-
on the Church ,• and boldly equals Tradi-
tion with them : And this Principle runs
through all his Writings. It appears to have
been the grand Deiign of all his Critical
Works_, to weaken the Certainty of Scrip-
ture_, on the Account of its having been
fo much -altered. And if our Rule once comes
10 fail uSj our Religion which is to be regu-
lated by that Rule, vv'ill Toon become the ni^c-ft
wild and looie^ and precarious and uncer-
tain Thing in the World. And yet this Man
is admir'd^ applauded^ and adher'd to by
the Enemies of this Text^ in Oppoiition to
the Body of Men of Letters^ ever fmce the
Revival of Learning in thefe Parts of the
World ; the Wifdom cf which I cannot un-
derlland.
After all^ our Injuirer hopes 770 candid Man
7plll fay, he is Lnmodft, in pronouncing this Text
doubtful ^ : Nor fliould I have done it, if that
would have contented him,, and he had gone
no farther : But for him to infinuate^ That
there is 7iot one toUrahle Rrettnce of any ancient
Authority for it f y ^^d that fuch as ftill adhere
to this Textj facrifice Truth and Yiety to the Ig^
norance and Ver^erjtpefs of Min ; and appear fo
take more Care of themjil^'cs, than of the Inter efi
c/' Christ and his Religion 4.^ and are guilty
M m 5 ^ of
— ■ ' '•■ -■-■ ■ - " • ■ ' ■ -t - " - "■ " ' ' t»
* Emly7is Trads, fag. 516.
s^V^O
53^ I John V. 7. Vindicated.
SeRM» o{ flitting falfe Colours upon Tvhat they know they
TTi"^ cannot jt^fi'^fys ^^d fe eking to deceive Men In fa-
cred Matters *: This is a fort of Carriage
that can hardly be reconcil'd with Decency
and Modefty^ or even common Juftice. 'Tis
perfedly outragious.
I hope what 1 have ofFer'd^ may convince
feme others^ as it does me^ That it is much
more frchahle that this Paffage came from
St. John:, than that it did not ,• which is fut-
iicient in a Cafe of this Nature^ where there
js no Room for Demonfiratlon^ and all that can
be expected is a preponderating TrohchUlty. Who-
ever is convinced of this^ ought in my Ap-
prehenfion^ to receive and detend {his Text
as genume^ againft all Gainfayers j whom I
ihould think however^, it became to be mo-
deft in their Oppofition^ confidering what a
Stream of Witneifes they have running a-
gainft them.
An d now I take the Liberty to repeat a for-
mer Motion t) "t^^*^- That fmce it is ib evident
we mufl be forc'd to take Pains for this Text^
if well keep and defend it^ we fliould hearti-
ly blefs God that it is not fo with a
great many other Texts. We might have had
a great many as much contefted as this^ and
lb been under a Neceffity of clearing them
from being fpurloiu^ before we could argue
from them^ Tor the Proving of Truth or the
Refuting of Error ; and we ought to be
thankful that it is otherwife. This^ conii-
dering our Diftance from the Time when
the lacred Writings of the New Tcfiament
were drawn up^ and the many Defigns that
have been againlt 'em^ and the many Acci-
dents
Emlyns Traces, fng. 349. \ See Serm. I. p.4H«
I John V- 7. Vindicated, 53^
dents they have been expos'd to^ in the
Ages they have fince pafs'd through^ is ve-
ry wonderful_, and therefore well deferves
our Notice. It was not poflible but that
in io large a Book as the New Ttflamenty there
fiiould ill fo many Years as have pafs'd fince
it was finifli'd^ be a great many Various Read-
ingSy through the Negligence^ Carelefsnefs
and Hafte^ and fometimes alfo the Defign of
th^Travfcrlbers. But all has been lo over-
rul'd by our Good God^ that we need not
upon tliis account be Ihaken in any Thing
of Moment. The more we turn this in our
Thoughts^ the more Reafbn we fhall hnd to
admire it. The Faplfis very commonly tell
us. That unlefs we believe the infallible Aui-
thority of their Churchy vye can't be alTur'^
that any Parcel of Scripture vyas written
by Dh'lne Injplrat/on; and this principle of
theirs runs through all Simons Critical Wri-
tings. But this Principle is impious^ and
would leave no Ground for the Belief of the
Divinity of Scripture. For there neither is
nor can be any Ground for believing their
Church infalllhle, unlefs wq firft believe the
Scripture Dix;/?;^. Let us blefs Go d^ that we
have been otherwife initruded ,• and that tho'
UfaUlhilhy IS defervedly difcarded^ we yet up-
on confidering all Circumftances_, can find fb
much Reafon to adhere to the Scriptures^ as
they have been delivered down to us by thofe
that have gone before us^ and that in this
particular Text as well as others : And let us
take Care to improve it^ as it \s profitable for ^ j^^^^^-
Dothine, for Reproof, for Corr^cflon^ for Inftru- ^j^ ^^
^lo7} In R'lghteoufnefs, *
M i^ 4 Hi^u
537
S E R M O N IV
I John V. 7.
For there are Three that hear
Record in Heaven^ the Fa-
THERj theWoKDj and the
Holy Ghost ; and thefe
Three are One.
^SAVING ofFer'd what I take to be Salters"
^|H fufficient to prove this Text to be hall, T^^/
genuine and autbentlck^ in Oppofition to ^^y Lec-
thofe who would willingly have it expung'd ^^^^\
! out of the Bible ^ I now proceed to the true ^^^' ^^^
and proper Senfe, Intention^, and Inter- ^^^^'
pretation of the Words^ that we may be the
better able to under ftand and improve them.
And here I propofe,
I. T o confider what the Wltnejjtng or bear^
ing Record^ that is here mention'd_, in«»
timates and carries in it.
I|T9
538 I John V- 7.
SerM. .v,Mr|'
IV. 11- To inquire^ Who the Wh^efes ;^^cth2Lt
x.x->^^»-^ are declar'd to I^ear Record-? •->'■. rj^,,^ ..
in. To. ihevvwh^t we are Pointed to by
being told ^ That thefe Witnelles are
Three.
IV. To confider what it is tliit thefe Jf^it^
7tc.j]es* d.6 attefi joy ntly or fever ally
y. To inquire^ What we are to undcr-
ftand by their being faid to be WitjKJjes,^
or to hear Record m Heaz^^en.
.. VI- To fhew how^ and in- what Sen^
.fhefe Jhhe are One.
And by that Time we have gone through
thefe Heads^ I hope we ill all find no. Dif-
ficuity as to the true Senfe of thefe Words
remaining.
I. I begin with confidering what the7f7^r-
neJJiTig or bearing Record^ that is here raen-
tion'd^ intimates and carries in it. t^^^ hatv
0/ ^JLAfTvo^vn^ ; There are T^hrce Witfie\Jes' vr T'efih
fiers. When there is a Caufe depending in
any Court_, and Proof is to be given in or-
der to the clearing it^ Witneffis are produced ;
and if they are credible^ and liable to no
juft Objedion^ the Caufe is determin'd ac:-
cording to the Evidence they give_, unleft
they to whom it belongs to determine the
Matter_, are partial and byafs'd. Now St.
John aiming at eftabhfliing and fettling thofe
to whom he wrote this his firlt Epiflle^ re-
prefents the Caufe depending before them as
very weighty ; a Caufe of fuch Confequence,
that it highly concerned them to weieh ali
Efcplain'd and Opend.
Matters well^ before they came to a Deter-
mination. It was really no lefs a Matter
than whether Chriftianity was a Truth or a
Forgery : And he intimates to them, that
they had very good Evidence to affiil them
in determining. There were Two Setts of
U^it77ej]esy the One above, and the Other be-
low ,• and both of them unexceptionable.
The One was of Perfons, and the Other
of Things, which by a Figure are reprefcnt-
ed as WitneJJes. And he calls upon them to
confider well and weigh their E'vldenccy as
they would not be juftly chargeable with a
grols Miilake in the Determination of the
Caufe, which might be fatal to them. The
Wltncjjing then, or bearing Record^ here men-
tion'd, is the giving Evidence in this great
Caufe, in order to the full Satisfac^iion of all
concern'd in it : And the Evidence is repre-
fented to be as full, and clear, and inconte-
liable, as could reafonably be defir'd, even in
as weighty a Caufe as could fall under Con-
fideration. Let us then,
2. Consider who thek PFitneJJes are that
are declar'd to heat- Record^ or give their Te-
ftimony. Thefe are no lefs Perfons than
tbe Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghdit :
Perfons with whom none that had the leaft
Knowledge of Chr'ifilanhj ^coxAdi be unacquain-
ted. The mentioning them as IVitneJjes^ is
apt to Itrike us at the firft Hearing : For
thefe are the very Perfons in whofe Na7'ne we
were h0ptiz,\l^ and to whom we have been
moil folemnly demoted. There is this only
Difference to be obferv'd. That the lecona
If^/tnefs mentioned, has another N^?ne here gi-
ven him, from that which He has in the pre-
fcribed Fojm of Baptijm. There He is calfd
the Son^ but here the W^rd : a Name or Title
which
^4-3 I John r. 7.
gERM, which St. Jofm feems to have taken a parti-
JY^ Gular Pleafure in givmg to Christ Jesus.
v^^,^^^^ He begins with it in the very firft Verfc
of his Gofpel^, where he declares. That m the
Beginning was the VVord_, and the Word 3Z'^j with
GoD^ and the Word.a^/?/ GoD. And he re-
b peats it again, Verfe 14, of the fame Chap-
ter, faying^ Tbe Word was made Flejh^ and
dwelt -among tis. He alfo enters upon this E^
piftle with It, faying. We declare unto you that
ovhich was from the Beginnings which we have
l^card^ which we have Jcen with our Eyesy which
we have looked upon^ and our Hands have handled
cf the Word of Life, And he mentions it
again in his Apocalypfe^ where he fays^ He oi'as
Rev. XIX. cloathed with a Vefiure difd In Bloody and his ]S!^ame
3f3. is called the Wo]:do^ GoD: That ijS, of God
the Father, So that we cannot be at a Lofs,
who it is the Apovtle here means by the fe-
cond WltJiefs^ whom he calls the Word^ any
niore than by the firfl, whom he calls the Fa-
ther» And tlien as for the third IVitnefsy the
Holy Ghofiy He would not be mention'd fepa-
rately from the other Two, if He was not
diftinct from Both : And He is fo reprefent-
ed, both in the Account we have given us
in the Gofpel Hiflory of cur Saviour's ^^/?-
tlfm^ and in that Order alfo that is given us
about our Baptlfm. Let us then go on and
confider,
g. What we are pointed to by their be-
ing declared to be Three in Number. We
may obferve, the Apoftle does not only nam<^
but count the Witnelles. There are Three ^ fays
he, that h^>' Record in Heaveiij^ the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghoft, We are thereby
pointed to their certain DlfilnHlon from eacU
other^ how ftrai.t and clofe foever the Unity
or Agreeincnt raay be that thei^is between
' Theml
Explain d andOpen^d^
Them : And to the Fulnels of the Evidence
given^ which is llich as is fiitficient to carry
the Cj^ufc depending. 'Tis not Three AW/?d'j
that bear Record/biit Three (UjHnH Perfons^
adi ng different Ways^ and in different Ca-
pacities. 'Tis h-^iTeby alfo intimated^, That
the Evidence given in order to the carrynig
the great Cauie depending^ is very full. For
it was a ftanding Maxim among Go d's ancient
People the Jeips^ That in the Mmith of Two or MiUtiv
Turee IVitnelJes ei'crj IVord was to he cfiabrijhed^yiMiii. \6,
and every Gaufe determin'd^ as our Lord
himfelt alio obierv'd. Now^ fays the Apo-
ttle^ in this Cafe^ there are Three IflrncJ/cs
bearing Teftlmonj^ and no One of Them is
hable to any jult Objedion ; And therefore
the Caufe mult be carry 'd^ and Chr'ifliamtj ^
the'Truth of which is fo well attefted^ mult
neceffarily have a hrm Foundation. But that
we may be yet the more clear in this_, let us
go on^ and
4. Consider what it is*thefe ^nr;?fj/7e/ are
reprefented as atteftivg^ both joyntly and fe-
parately. It is no other than this^ That the
Lord JesVs Is the Son of God ^ the YQTJ Adejfafj-
that was promis d^ and that had been fo long^
expeded ,• and that He is not only a God hy
Ojjice^ but by Nature ,* as truly GoD as his Father ^
as He is often reprefented by this Apoftle as
well as the relt : and that therefore no-
thing in the World could be more reafonable,
than Faith and Hope in Him. This is plain
from the Context^ That whofoe^ver belieuethVer. \.
that }estjs Is the Christ_, // ^orn of GoB : And
th^ity H'^hofoe'L'er Is born ofGoD^ overcometh ?/^c Ver. 4, 5,
JVorld. And then 'tis dedar'd^ that this Faith
is a believing that Jesus is the Son of GoD :
That He is'^o in Deed and in Truth, and in
the highelt md the nobleft Senle. This be-
ing
John
1'
ing a Truth of the lafl Importance^ and ne-
ceffarily to be clear'd^ in order to the jufti-
fying our Dependence upon Him^ and our
Expectations from Him^ the Apoftle fets
himfelf to give full Proof of it^ and declares^
that Jesus did not only pofitively affirm^ that
He was the Son of God^ and Om with his Fa-
thtr^wt that He came with with fufficient Wit-
Stx, 6 neffes of it^ ^Iz.. The Water ^ the Bloody and the
Spirit, which fully clear 'd this Truth to all that
would confider and weigh their Tefiimoity.
Where by Mater ^ (which is what we com^
monly make ufe of in Cleanfmg from bodily
Defilements^) we may underftand the Furity
of Christ's DoBrine and Llfe^ which was
v^ery confpicuous_, and was a great Argu-
ment of his Divinity • and the Baptifm which
was brought in by Jo/jn^ and continu'd by
our Saviour as a Profeffion of^ and Obli-
gation to_, a peculiar Furity^ becoming the
Followers of fuch a Leader^ and the Ex-
pedants of an Happinefs that was to lie
in the Perfection of Holinefs. And by the
Blood we may underftand the Sufferings
and Death of our Lord J e s u s ^ whole
Blood was fhed upon the Crofs in an igno-
minious Manner_, when He offered up him-
felf a Sacrifice ^ to make Atonement for
the Sins of Mankind ,- which was a great
Evidence that he was in Truth the Son of
<J0D^ as he pretended. For had he not been.
fOj 'tis inconceivable he would have loft his
Life in defence of it. And by the Spirh
we may underftand^ the many Miracles^Won^
ders and Signs which Jesus wrought^ toge-
ther with his wonderful Refurredlion to Life
again^ after he was Crucified^ Dead and Bu-
ried ; which fully prov'd him to be in reality
the Son of GoD ; It not being p^ble that it
He
Explmn'd and Opened. ^^^
Her was not ioy He iliould either work fuch Sr^i^i.
Miracles as v/e have an Account of^ or be io jy
highly and gloriouily advanced^ after fuch ^^^-v^sj
ignominious Treatment as he met with. It
\y as notorious that there were fuch JVhneJJ'es
as thele that prov'd our Saviour's Divinity •
and the proving that thefe were Ib^ is pafs'd
by as needlefs. And then the Apoftle pro-
ceeds in the Words of the Text^ to add three
farther JVancJ]es in the Cafe^ in order to the
more abundant Confirmation ; and intimates
that t/je Fathtr^ the Word^ and the Holy Ghoft-,
both together and afunder^ JVItneJJid the very
lame Thing,
The Father teilify'd of Jesus^ and by His
Voice from Heaven declared him to be His
So7f^ and that at three feveral Times.
1. Upon his being Baptiz,\l oi John at Jor-
dan,, when the Hea^uens were opmd over his w --
Headj d^nA there came a Voice from thence faying^ ^^ \^
Tt:H'S U my belo-imd Son^ in 'whom I am well plea^
fed. And^
2. A T his Tra7isfLgurat'iony when He being
ozrerjiuidowd by a bright Cloud from above_, there
came a Voice which faid^ Tim is my beloved Sony Jvlaf .x\ i?«
in whom I am well pkafed : hear ye him. And 5,
the
5. Third time was after his raifmg oi Laz.a-^
rtis . from the Dead^ vi^hen many flock'd out of
Jcrifalem to meet and applaud him j in whole
Company he leenis to have been^ when he
lent up that Requeft to Heaven^ Father glorify t^j^^^ ^-j^
thy Name ; And there came a Voice from Heaven i, 28.
f^y'i^gy I have both glorify d ity and will glorify it
again. For he was then Ihortly to receive
Glory at the Right Hand of God^ to which
he .was to be advanc'd. So that we mult
either disbelieve the Eternal God^, or elfe
muft belie ve^in Jesus^ and receive and own
him
544 ^ John V. 7.
Serm. ^^^ ^^ ^^'^^ ^^^^ ^^^ proper Son of GoD, in th«
jy * higheft Senfe.
y^^^^-yj.^ The Word alfo tellify'd of Jesus that
was born of the Virgin Marj^ and aded the
part of the Saviour of the World^ and the
promised Meffiah. Nor is there any inconfi-
llency in the Word's being a Witnefs in the
Cafe. For why might not Christ as God
bear Witnefs to himfelf as Incarnate ? That
Word then who was by this Apoftle declared
in the Entrance on his Gofpel to have been
a Divine Beings which had a Subfiftence in
the Beginning of all Things^ Qr before that any
Thing was ^ this Word bore Record or Wttnejs^
that Jesus "ivas the Son of GoTi^hy his Perfo-
nal appearing after his going to Heavenj and
^fcending to the Throne of his Glory there i
and that upon thefe federal Occafions.
., i". At the Martyrdom of St. Stephen^ when
A^s vil. \^Q fliewed himfelf in fenfible Majeity, fland-
55* 5 ^» ing at the Right Hand of God ^ in the Iplen-
dour of the Divine Glory.
2. At St. Paurs Converfion^ when he ap-
pear'd to him as he was upon the Road to
At^s IX. Damafcusy and fhewed himfelf to him in his
i, 4. ^c, Glory^ and told him plainly^ that he was
that very Jesus whom he was purfuing as
a Blafphemer, for affirming himfelf to be that
which he now law him to be with his own
Eyes. And
J. To the Apoltle John^ the Writer of this
Epiftle^who being banifh'd to thelfleofP^rw^?;
for the Teftimony of Jesus Christ^ fell in-
to a Rapture on the LordVDay_, and heard
one fpeaK behind him with a Voice as loud as
Revel, i. a Trumpet^ frying, 7 am before and after all
*°> "• things ; that is^ Go D blelTed for ev^er. The
Apoltle upon this Occafion defcribeshim par-
ticularly, and intimac^^s to U5^ tlfet the fight
was
Explained and Opend. 54^
was fo glorious, that he was not able to bear Serm.
it, but when he faiv him^ he fell at his Feet as jy^
J^ad. And he afterwards relates a variety of u^vvj
Virions which he had of his peculiar Glory, ver. 17.
All thefc are irrefragable Proofs that the Word
gave, of the Dl^ulnitj of our Jesus.
And the Holy Ghost agrees perfectly
in the fame thing, declaring Jesus to be the
Son of God. This he attefted
1. By his defcending upon Him immediate-
ly after his Baptlfm , and in an illuftrious
Manner remaining on him, as St. John gives J^^" ^*
us an Account. 32,, 33.
2. By his coming down on the Apollles_,
Ten Days after our Saviour lett this Earth,
publickly declaring to all that were prefent,
and to all to whom a well attefted Report of
his Defcent fhould come, that he really was
the Son of GoD, exalted to fit on the Right
Hand of the Majesty on High. Andfhe
Apoftles being fiU'd with the Light, and
warm'd with the Heat, of the Divine Fire in
which He came down upon them, boldly
publifti'd from that Day forward in Judea,
and all the World over. That Jesus was
the Christ, the Son of God, God Bleffed
for ever. And therefore is it that St. Fatd
^o freely declares, that God manlfeft in r-^e i TuBJil
i^lefljy was jttfiif/d in the Spirit. And ' 16.
5. By his defcending on other Per Ions af-
terwards, tho' not in that vifible Form as
on the Day of Ventecofi. In fo much, that
ivhenfoe-uer the ^pofiies laid their Hands upon any
Perfons that believ'd in Jesus, and were bap-
tized, the Holy Ghoft fell upon them, and they Adls \m,
ffake with Tongues, and Tropheficd, Which was ^5> ^7'
a plain and irrefragable Proof of the Great-
nefs, and Power, and Benignity of the Blei-
fed JesuSj, and indeed of his Divinity, with^
N n out
54-<J
V.7:
v^^'V^*-'
Serm. ^^^ which the Holj Ghojt could not in fuch a
jY Manner have been fubfervient to him.
Thus tho' the Father^ the Word^ and the
Holy Gholl hear 7vitne[s diftind:ly_, it. is yet
plain that they all agree in this^ That Jesus
IS the Son of Go D ; which alfo is the Thing at-
tefted by the other Three WitnefTes^ the Wa-
ter^ the Bloody and the Spirit : All agree in una-
iiimouHy^ plainly^ and clearly pronouncing
him fuch a Divine p£rfon^ that if we don't
hear Him^ fubmit to^ and obey Him^ and
depend upon Him^ we are altogether in-
exciifable ; we can give no Account of our
Conduct 5 we fliall be juitly chargeable as
Shutting out Lights and refuling to be fa-
tisfy'd ox convinc'dj tho' all proper Methods
are taken with us to give us right Notions^
that w,e may ad agreeably. And now^
f. J.E.T us confider what the Apqftle means,
when he fays of the father^ tie \Vordj and the
Holy Ghoit^ that they hear Rtcordy or are
Witnelresj m Heaven, This'js plainly added
by Way of Diilindion from the other Three
jfltnejj'es that are In Earth. The meaning is
jiot^ that they hear Record to the Angels
and blelTed Spiritsthat are Above : But all
that is intended to be thereby intimated,
as to theie fir ft WitncJ/ef^ is, that they fpeak
^om Jhove; while 'tis from below that the
others fpeak. Thefe two Sorts oilVuneJJes are
in very diltant Places, and give their Te-
ftimony from two feveral Regions j the one
from Aboue^ the other here beneath. When
Father y Sony and Holj Ghofiy are fa id to bear Re-
cord hi Hea^vevy the meaning is that there they
are while they do hear Record and give forth
their Teftlmonj : Whereas the other Three ff^It"
7iejjes are on Earthy and give their Tefilmony there
0|}ly. The Words might be rendred thus ^Ilme
' ' ' are
^•'Y^
Explain'^ an^ Opend. ^^j
are Three In Heaven that hear Record : And this Serm
Soclnus agrees to in his Comment on this Text, jy
^Tis from Hea^jen that thefe Three Wit7teJ]h , ^^^
give their Tefilmony^ and therefore it is the
more to be regarded. They whmfs while
they are In Heaven^ and notvvithflanding that
they are fo much above us^ and fo tar di-
itant from us. And the more we confidcr
their Excellence^ and Dignity^ and Eminence
above us^ the more Reafon fhall we fee to
admire at it^ that they will fo much con-
cern themfelves about uSj as to ad the Part
of lVit72eJ]esy in order to our full Satisfa(5tion_,
in a Matter that is evidently of the laft Im-
portance to us : And the more inexcufable
lliall we be^ if we do not acquiefce in^ and
improve their Teftlmony.
6. The laft Thing which I ofFer'd here
to confider^ is^ How and in what fenfe thefe
three are faid to be Qne^ which is the molt
important Inquiry of all^ and the moft em-
barrafs'dj and that about which Commen-
tators have been the molt divided. Often
has the Doctrine of the Trinity been inferf 'd
from the remarkable diiterence there is be-
tween thofe words by which the Apoltle
here expreffes the Unity of the firlt Three
WttneJJes^ and thofe words whereby he ^ex-
preffes the Ufilty of the laft Three. Of 'the
lirit Three he lays^ that they are One : And
of the laft Three^ that they agree in One.
Nor as far as I can perceive can any -la-
tisfadory account be given_, why the Apo-
ltle Ihould not ufe the fame Forna of Speech
of the firft Three Wltnef/esy as he does of
the Three laft^ if the Three JVitnejjh in Hea-
njen were no otherwife One^ than the Three
WitneJJ'es m Earth are. The Three Heavenly
Wicneffis are ons Thing, which cannot be
N n 3 faid
54-8 I John V. 7.
S-ERM. fai^ ^^ ^^^ Three IVineJJcs on EartJj : For
jy^ they are diiFerent Things. The Three Hea-
\^/'>yl.s^ venly Witneffes are one In Ejjence^ and have
all the fame ElTential Perfections belonging
to them : Whereas the Three JVitnejJes on Earthy
tho' of a different Nature^ concurr in their
Tellimony ,- and that is the utmoit that can
be faid of them. And if the Tm-ee WitneJ]cx
in Hea'ven are one in their Fjmce^ then are
there Three diftin& Perfons whofe E/jlnce is
6ne and the fame ; For elfe there would not
be T^ee Witnej]is In Heaven^ but only One,
which v/ould crofs the deiign of the Apo-
Ifle^ whofe aim it was to fhew that our
Faith doth not rely upon a fingle Teitimo-
ny. When St. John here fpeaks^ of the Spi-
rit^ the Water and the Bloody which are the
Three Wltnejjes on Earthy the expreffion he
ufes_, and thefe Three agree in OnCy cannot pof-
fibly be fo conftrued as to intimate an U-
Ttity of Nature ; they only fignify an Unity of
Teftimonyy which is very confiiient with a
difference in their Nature. And therefore
we may very well conclude that the Apo-
ftle would not have made fuch a difference
in his way of fpeaking of the Earthly and
Heavenly IVitnejJesy had he not defign'd there*
by to intimate^ that the U^jity of the lat-
ter docs not lie barely in their Teftimonyy
but alfo in their Nature and Effence.
Against this it has been oft objeded.
That in one Copy inftead of thefe Three are
One, the Words are thefe^ V^efe Three agree
in One ; thofe Words which with us belong.
to the 8th VerfCj and the Three Wltnefes on
Earthy being transferred to the 7th Verfe^
and the Three Wltnejfes in Hea'ven. But this
admits of an eafy Anfwer : Tho' it is thus
in the Om^kte^lim Copy^ yet it muft be
own'd
Explained and Open'd.
Ofwn'd a Faulty becanfe that therein varies
from moil other Copies ^. And this is
therefore the Icls to be regarded^ becaufe
thofe VV0rds_, and thefe Three agree m One^
wRich in ether Copies belong to the 8th
Verfe^ are there wholly wanting^ there be-
ing no more there in that Verfe than this^
and there are Three that hear IVitnefs on Earthy
the Spirit y the Water ^ and the Blood,
Father Simon teils us f^ That he cant Ima-
gine what Ad'uantage It can be to the Antitri-^
nitarianSj that this Text be left out^ fince the
mofi kno7i,'lng Interpreters of the New Tejlament
do not explain It of the Trinity. Which is a
fuggeftion^ with a fuppofition to inforce it^
that deferves (as far as I can judge) but
little regard. That that Suppofition has but
a poor Foundation^ we fliall lee prefently.
And as for the Suggeftion in order to the fup-
porting which it k propos'd^ ^nx,. That it
would be little to the Advantage of the Anti-
trlnltarlans for this Text to be left out_, it
comes from one that appears upon all Oc-
calions to have been fo much inclined to be
their Friend^ that fcarce any that know the
Man_, can allow him to have been a proper'
Judge.
However^ that our thoughts may take the
wider Compafs^ and we may fee the whole
Matter the more clearly and diftindly^ in
explaining this laft Clauie of my Text^ And
thefe three are one^ I ihall take in both an-
Unity ofTeflmony^ and an Unity of Nature too ;
And uponfedately weighing the whole mat-
ter_, I mull confels^ I can fee no reafon_, why
N n 3* we
* See VmnQ. Turrctird Dec, Difput, Mifc. Difp. ^:
tyihus Tejl. Ccclefi. r. 107.
■ \ Hip. Crit, du Texts du N. T. v. 214,
^^o I John V. 7.
v-O/*^
Serm, we fiiould fo confine ourfelvcs to the one^ as
jy to exclude the other.
I. Then^ the Father y the JVord^ and the Holy
Ghofi are one in their Ttfilmony. They all
unanimoufly agree and joyn in attefting th!s^
that Jesxjs is the SonefGoBj, and to be Re-
lped:ed_, Lov'd^ Honour'd^ and Ador'd as
luch. There is not the leaft difference be-
tv/een them_, or doubtfulnels in their Tefilmo-
ny m this refped. This is what the Father
bore wltnefs to^ as well as the JVord and Holy
Ghofi: And to this did the Word alfo bear
Oi^ltnefs as well as the Father and the Holy Ghofi :
Nor was the Holy Ghofi lefs ready or forward
to bear witnefs to this^ than either the Father y
or the Word. In this_, all that have written
upon this Text agree^ Soclnm himfelf not ex-
cepted. But then the Queltion iZp whether
this be ail that is here intended ? This is
what fome have yielded. Nay we have had
fome that have gone fo farr that way^ that
they have imagined that theie Words^, ayid thefe
three are ^w^^were added by the Ariansf^ to ftiew
that the Unity of the Perfons of the Tr'mltyy
was. not an Unity of Efience^ but ofCcnfent. Thi$
was the mind of the Learned Grotiusy tho' he
therein Hands pretty much alone^ and has
but few Followers. I know none but Father
Simon that abetts that Fancy of his : AncJ
He fpeaking * of a Noble MSS, of the Latin
Bible in the Hands of the Dominicans of Varls^
takes notice that thefe words^ and thefe three
tire one^ are there mark'd_, as not truly belong-
ing to the Text of St John ; for which he
gives this Reafbn^ That it was th^ Opinion
' ' of
? Noiivel. Ohfcnr.t, fur le Te,xtc i3 hi vcrfions du N^
T. p. 140. • ■
Explain d and Opened.
of fome Divines of that Time^ that thofe
Words were not to be read^ becaufe they fa-
vour'd the Avian Herefy. However^ nothing
can be plainer^ than that In the Cafe of the
Three JVitncJJes in Heaven^ there is an Unity of
Confcnt. They agree mod harmonioufly; and
there is nothing like clafhing m their 7f/?/-
777onjy either in this Cafe or any other. But
then^
2. The Father j the Word^ and the Holy
Ghoftj are One in their Nature alfo^ as- well as in
their Teftlmony ; and herein they differ from
the other Three WitneJJes^ the Spirit ^ the Water ^a7id
the Blood. They in fome Senfe are One ; for
they look the fame Way^ point to one and
the fame Things and atreil one and the fame
Truth : But when we have faid all we can of
them^ they are not fo One^ as the Father^ the
Wordy and the Holy Ghcfi are. Tliefe are fo
One^ that all the Three have but oj^e and the
fame Subfiance. Tho' they teilify diftin(ftly^
yet they are One^ not only mCcnJent and Will_,
but in EjJ'ence tco^ in the very fame Senfe as /
our Lord faid^ I and my Father are One, 'Tis John x,
true^ Believers alfo are faid to be One, Our 90.
Lord Jesus fays^ I tray for them, that ihey all lb. x\n.
may he One^ asTbou^ Father^ art in wc^ and JZO, ir,
in Thee^ that they alfo may be One in U>\ But
all Unity is not of the lame Sort and Kind :
Nor does the Greek Particle y-ct9fi;V whfch we
tranflate as^ always fignify an Ef^uaUty ; it
fometimes denotes any Sort of Analogy or
Likenefs ^ and it is fo to be underftood in the
Places cited in the Margin f- Believers are
not reprefented as properly one with God,
It is faidj they are One Spirit : Not refer- i Cor. vl,
N n 4 ing 17-
t I Pec. i. i^. Macth. v. 48.
I John V. 7.
ring to any ejjcntid^ but only to a myfikd^
fpiritual Union, To h^ one Spirit , in their
CafCj is the fame with being one In Spirit : It
being one and the fame Spirit that worketh
in the Head and in the Members. So that
when it is here declar'd^ of the Father^ the
Word^ and the Holy Ghofi^ that thefe Three are
One J we have an exprefs 7'efilmony given us
of the Triune Deity. The Three Teftifiers
fyom Heaven not only agree in Atteiting the
fame Truth^ but in One Dl'vme Nature,
But it is pleaded by fome^ That this Claufe^
are One, which belongs to the Three YiQi2i"
venlylVitneJJesy ought to be interpreted by
the^ other Phraie Verfe 8th^ Jgree in One^
which is fpoken of the Wltnejjes in Earth, But
to that^ Dr. Hammond has in my Apprehen-
fion given a fufficient Anlwer. For (fays he)
the Parallel here held hetiveen thofe in Hea'rjeny
and thofe on Earthy being only in RefpeB of the Te-
fiimonlesy and of the Number of the Tefilfiers^ there
is no Necejfity that the Apoftle or we Jlwuld extend
it to all other Circumjlances : Or If there were^
it would be as reafojtahle to interpret the latter Ex-
frejfion by the former y they agree in One_, by
they are One_, (which were abfurd^ and is not-
imagind) as the former by the latter. There i^
not indeed any Reafon for either of them.
But on the other Side^ having to the men-,
tion of the Three WitneJJls in Hea^ven^ an--
nex'd out of the Chriitian Doclrine^ that
thefe Three are One^ it was reafonable when
he came to the other Three^ of whom that
could not be affirm'd^ to fay as much of them
to the fame Purpofe^ as the Matter would
bear^ that is, that they agree in One^ and are
Teftifiers of the fame Thing, tho' they are
Hot oi one and the fame Nature. And fince thefe
Thee are Oney their Ttjilwony mult neceffarily
agreed
Explained and Opened. ^55
agree ,• tho' the according of the Tefiimonks^ Serm.
will not prove the Unity^ of the Teftifiers. jy
There are Two Things which I defire
may be here obferv'd.
1. That when F^ither^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^
arc mention'd as Witnejjes^ the Unity of their
El]e72ce much fortifies the Unity of their Tefti^
mony. And this I think may be fufficient in
anlwer to fuch as inquire^ To what Purpofe
it could be^ for the Apoftle to lay any Thing
of an Unity of Ejjence^ when he was aiming at
ftrengthning a Truth, by proving the Tefil-
mony by which it was evidenced, to be infalli-
ble. It from hence appears there was very
good Reafon for his taking this Method,
luppofmg that to have been his Aim. For he
could not give a better Confirmation of their
intire agreeing in their Tefiimony^ than by af-
firming they were One In Ejjhice. Having but
one Ejjence^ their Tefilmony could not be cppo-
fite : Nay, it could not be different. I think
alfo I may venture to go yet farther, and fay
That the Unity of their Tefilmony in this Cafe,
luppofes the Unity of their Nature and Efience,
And therefore our Divines that explain this
of a Confenty are not to be underftood as
excluding, but rather as fuppofing their Unl-
ty of Nature, For whoever is not truly Go d ^
he being mutable, and fallible, and capable
a failing, his Teftimony cannox be faid to
be Divine, or o«e with God's. And then,
2. It is farther alfo obfervable. That as
many of the Ancients as have cited this Text,-
have been for underftanding this Claufe of
an Uilty of Effence and Nature. The Greek Au-
thor who in the Vth or Vlth Century com-
posed the Dialogue under the feign'd Names
of Athanafim and Arlus^ (who is by the Learn-
ed generally fuppos'd to be Maxmm^J cites
thefe
5S4 I John V. 7.
Serm. thefe Words^ Thefe Three are One^ to fliew
jy^ that the Father^ Son^ and Hdy Ghofi^ are but
y,^-^y^ One only^ and the fame God. And among the
Latins^ FulgentluSy who was an African Bilhop,
an<i all thole Bifliops who in the Time of K.
Humierlck to the Number of Three or four
hundred^ drew up zCanfcjfion of FaM in the
Name of all the Churches of Africa^ do alfo
explain the fame Claufe^ Thefe Three are Onc^
of an Unity of Efjence^ and not barely of an
Unity of Tefiimony. And Two or three hun-
dred Years before that^ St. Cyprian and Tertul-
Uan explain it the fame Way. And it was
the fame alfo with thofe that came after
them^ that took any Notice at all of this
Text3 down to .the Time of the Refor-
mation.
And tho' fince then^ Calvin and Be^a^
and BuIUnger^ and fome others after them,
have explain'd thefe Words as meant of an
Unity of Confenty rather than of Ejjenee^ yet
have the Generality of our Commentators run
the other Way. Dlodatiy who was as Judi-
cious a Commentator as molt we have had
among the Proteitants, was for underitand-
ing thefe Words of an Unity of Efjence^ as
well as an Unity of Confent or Tefiimony. And
^juflnianus ^ who is as much to be valu'd as
any I know among the Faftfs that have
written on the EpilUes^ goes the fame Way :
And Zanchy, and mcit that have handled
this Argument fince, are of the fam.e Mind.
' Soclnus indeed and Effcomm argue againfl:
it very ftrenuoufly^- but when they have
done their utmoft, I can't find they offer
any Thing that is folid, againft the Ape-
itle's here hinting a pccuhar Onemfs^ \\\
the peculiar Witmffes that he mentions- -m
this fpecial Cafe, in which there was fo
mash
Explained and Opn'd. 55^
much depending. I don't here argue from Serm.
Authority^ las if I thought the difcover'd jy
Senfe of thofe that have gone before us^ as
to the true Meaning of fucn a Claufe of Scri-
pture as this^ ought to have any Force
upon us^ if upon confidering and compa-
ringj as far as we can judge^ we find Rea-
fon to be of a different Opinion : But that
you may fee, that the taking the Ejjentlal Unity
of the Three Perfons in the Godhead to be
here referr'd to, is a Notion that is far from
being fingular or new.
Our late Inquirer^ or Determiner rather^
fays "*'_, That he is fully fatlsfy'd^ that if thejs
Words are genuine^ they are asfa'vourabk to thofe
caird Arians, as to any. And Sandlm faid
much the lame before him. But our Dr.
Smith faid very well. That this is much the
fame, as for a Man to pretend, that'/^
Ariltoteiian Notion of the Eternity of the World ^
might he defended from the firfi Words of the Book of
Genefis f. But I fhould hardly think that they
that really imagin'd this Text favoured the
Arlansy fhould, while they themfelves are pret-
ty warmly inclin'd to favour thofe Senti-
ments, reckon it worth their while to fpend
fo much Heat and Zeal in Oppofition to
this Text, as has been done both by San-
dius and our Inquirer^ were they in Earnefl
in this Suggeftion. How can thefe Words
be favourable to the Arlans^ when they
pkinly and pofitively declare, that the la-
ther^ th^ Word^ and the Holy Ghojt are really
Three^ and yet but One ? Is that reconcilea-
tle with the Arlan Scheme ? If it be, the
Learned
? Emlyns Tradls, ^ag. 474.
\ Vindic. 1 'John v. 7. ^^g. 15c,
50 I John V. 7.
Serm. Learned World has been quite miftaken ia
jy^ that Scheme unto this Day. 'Tis here inti-
C^V^NJ "^^^^dj> That they are not fo Three ^ but that
they ftill are One : Nor fo One^ as to hin-
der them from being Three, Will any Arian
own this ? If he will^ I'll thank him : And
Jliall not think him to diifer fb much in
his Notions^ from the Scriptural Account of
the Dodrkie of the Trinity^ as I have done
hitherto.
But the fame Author adds^ That the uh"
dtrfiandlng an Unity of EJJence as meant when
its faldy that thefe Three are One^ tvouU
tyiake the Three Witneffes to dwindle again into
One^ and fo lofe much of the Argument from
Three, But the Argument is fufhciently fe-
cur'd by the Tlurallty of Ferfbns exprefs'd ,
while the Uiiity that is added^ guards a-
gainft zFltirallty of Gods, A Plurality ofTefii-
monies given by one and the fame Perfbn_^
does not its true make a Tlurallty of Witnejles:
But 'tis here declar'd^ and is therefore' to
be believ'dj that the Vritnejfes are Three^ and
the diftind Way and Manner of their
tefilfying argues them to be Three^ tho' the
Thing attelted by all of them is the fame,,
and all the Three are but One Govi^
And upon the Whole, I think I may ve-
ry fafely fay,
1. That v^e may m this noted Text
plainly fee, there is a Trinity m the*DEiTY,
which may be fafely acknowledg'd by us,
whoever Jet themfeivcs to cppole it. Wc
have a great many Texts tliat difcover this
Trinity to us , of which no Senfe can.be
made, unlefs that Dodrine be own'd SiS »
Part of the Chrlfilan Scheme : And sye have
Explained and Opened ^ 5 '5 7
good Reafon to reckon this of that Nam- Serm*
ber. We had as good^ once for all^ fhuc jy^
this Text out of our Bibles ^ as pretend to
it keep there^ and refufe to own that Do-
<5tnne : And I am afraid 'tis an Inclina-
tion to the one^ that makes fome Perfons
fo ■ eager for the other. Here are Three
diftlnct IVitneJJes mentioned and referr'd to i
And why fhould we be either afraid or
aftiam'd to own them? Should one and the
fame Man come into Court^ and give Evi-
dence in three different Capacities^ it would
ftill all be but one Witnels : But here there
are Three Wimefjes. It was a common Say-
ing among Chri ilia ns in old Times^ Go to
Jordan^ and you II fee a Trinity : Refer-
ring to the Voice of the ¥ather from Hea-
ven^ and the vifible Defcent of the Holy
Splrh upon our Bleffid Saviour^ who was
with Solemnity own'd for the Son of God^
at the Time when He was haplz^'d. This
was reckoned a Proof of that Nature^ that
there could be no refilting or ft&nding
out againft it. So may I lay to all that
defire Satisfaction in this Matter^ Look to
this Textj and you may fee a Trinity.
You may fee here_, not a bare Trinity of
J^^ames or Relations^ but of Terfons Tefilfy^
tng\ And they are diftinguiflfd by their
Names ,* in Oppofition to the Soclnlans^ who
not being content^ with the Arlms of Old;
to deny the Son and Holy Spirit's being Con-
fuhftayitlal with the Father^ are for quite
ftiuttin^; out the Diftindion of Perfons ,
and joyning together the Error both of 6"^-
belilus and j4rlus\ to the overthrowing the
whole Myftery.
2. I
$$8 I John V. 7.
ly * 1. I TAKE it to be from hence veryevi-
• dent^ that the F^?^^r^ Son^ and Holy Ghofi^
^"'"^^"^ are fo Three ^ as yet to be One: One in
all Effential Perfections^ and all their ex-
ternal Operations. Their Unity is as pecu-
liar as their Excellence. Let us therefore
form Notions of 'em fo Dlfi'mB as not to con-
found them ; and yet let us hold 'em to be fo
United^ as not to be capable of acting fepa*
rately out of themfelves.
5. Since the Father ^ the /^r^ and the Hb-
}y Ghofi joyntly concur in attefting the Deity
of Our Bleffed' Saviour^, which is the Mat-
ter that is reprefented as here depending^
let us be incourag'd the more firmly to adhere
to that Dodrine. Let us conclude it neceffa-
ry for us to believe it^ or clfe we may be
alTur'd thefe Three would not have born
Wltnefs to it as they have done. Let no-
thing therefore draw us off from ad^
miring and raifed Thoughts of our Bleffed
Saviour's Divinity^ on which we depend
both for Our Safety ^nd Our Comfort.
And
4. Since the Father ^ the Wbrd^ and the Holy
Ghojl are Whnefjes in order to our Confir-
mation^ let us readily beheve the Truth of
whatever :they Tefiify^ provided we have but
good Reafon to believe that they have le-
ftlfyd^ iCj tho' it feem ever fo much ' to
thwart our natural Sentiments or our Inclina-
tions. This is a thing that highly becomes fuch
. clofely dependent,, and fuch dark and dim-
fighted Creatures as we are ; and it is what
we cannot have any occafion to be afliam'd
of. Where Father, ^^ iVord^ and Holy Sprit have
gone
Explained and Opened.
gone before^ let us readily follow. What
Light they are pleas'd to give us^ let u$
thankfully receive^ and carefully improve 5-
and from them jointly let us take our
Meafures : And then if Father^ Son, and Holy
Spirit can help us to Happinefs^ we need not
be apprehenfive that we fhall mifs of it^
either in the Life that now xSy or in that
which is to come.
FINIS.
^n Index o/'Texts ojT Scrip-
ture, that art either ex^lain^d^ or re-
ferr^d to in thefe Di3COURSES.
Genesis.
foSHUA.
Chap. Vcrfe.
Pag.
Chap.
Verfe.
Fag.
}: ^'
189.
v.
H,i5
14^.
xxviii. i6,
146.
XXXV. I,
146.
I.
Samuel.
acHx. 17,
7-
ii.
^f
a34*
Exodus.
II.
Samuel
,
ili. 5,
,46.
XIV. 31,
169.
xxiii.
a,3,
186.
xvii. 7,
184.
XKxiv. 34,
185.
I.
Kings.
LEViTictrs
vili.
39, ^
^;47;
xxi.
ll,li.
4,x<:>»
xxvi. 3,
16.
xxvi. 11,
17.
II.
Kings.
jcxvi. 11,
17.
xlx.
«5,^
54-
Numbers.
N|
iHEMIA?*
xl. 21,
367,
(368.
ijc.
^,
«5'
Deuteronomy.
Job.
iv. 39,
234.
xi.
7.
J79.^
VI. 4,
i34>
xij.
*,
341;
(i53.
Xxii.
t3,
369,
vi. 13,
16.
xxiio
i5>
»9X.
X, 11,
16.
xxvi.
u,
379-
XXIX. 19,
387.
xxxlii.
4»
189^
P^? 3f?.
,^34-
xxxvij.
i3.
579-
Pi
C*"*?'
Thei
TS D E X.
Chap;
yerfe.
Pag:
Chap:
Verfe.
Pag:
xxxviii.
^' ,
271:
Isaiah*
XXXV iii.
6,C^c.
381.
xxxviii.
7,
18.
ii.
17,
t2.
xxxix.
19,
381.
VI.
?,
I9i,
vi. .
9,.
184.
vii.
^4,
37.
Psalms*
ix.
^,
36,49-
xxvii.
16,
*35'
11,
165.
xl.
16,
. 54.
xviii-
3i»
i35'
xlii.
8,
53.
^x^ciii.
<5,
aoi.
. xliii.
10,
235-
xlv.
7,
83.
xliv.
6,
235'
xlvui,
^4»
^54-
xliv.
8,
10:
I
5»
158.
xliv.
15,16,
II.
Ixili,
I,
3^53-
xlv.
5,
10.
Ixvii.
6,
254.
xlv.
5,6,7.
' 54,
IxviiiL
^9,
253.
fi35.
Ixxiii.
11,.
369.
xlvi.
9,
, 10,
Ixxiij.
^h
2t53.
xlix.
9,10,
15:
Ixxviii.
t9.
367.
Ii.
13,
15
Ixxxvi.
*c>f
i35-
xc.
^f
14.
J
EREMIAH.
xcyi.
4.5;
43.
,ciii.
i3»
29.
vi.
14,15;
'288;
ciii.
19.
15-
vi.
16, 287,{^c.
cii.
»,
364.
(335,C?c.
'czxnx.
7,
188.
X.
io,€^c.
54-
.'
xvii.
^0,
14.
: .
xxiii
23,24:
14.
Proverbs.
xxxi]
I. 17,
14.
mil.
zyyi6.
'^9.
Daniel:
ix.
i,*,3-
1019,
ivr
34,
?5^
-x.
i^,
405.
iv. ^
35,
M«
3cix:
II,
^9«.
,ii^
^:.
11,
15.
Hosjea:
■ T »t
i^.
16,
i. :
^7,
4a;
ECGLESIASTES.
MiCAH.
li
5;
3$i,
: 'W
h
■'1^'
. ,*.'""C
H/«-
The Ind e X.
•.Cbap: Verfe. Pag.
Habakkuk.
ii- 2o> z'^\.
Zechariah.
I Chap: Verfe; Pag?
^xii.
lo.
1.
ii.
iii.
Malachi.
lo,
Matthew.
42.
29.
18.
1;
iii.
iv.
V.
yii.
ix.
X.
xi.
xi.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xviii.
xix.
XX.
xxii.
xxiv.
xxvi.
s:xviu.
I, 110.
II, 208.
16,17, 2r62.
C265,42o, 543.
54,252.
551.
29.
46.
143,
(155.
276.
lS,85.
144.
186.
393
51
(107
262
155
J08
t35,
■ (J37
65,66
10,
48,
37,
19,
*?,
3^9,
31,3^
44>45,
20,
17,
28,
•■37,
36,
XXV 111.
19, 54.144,'
(l67,C?r.
20,
51
XXVUl.
xviii. 16,1,4,5, 541
xviii. 6, 542
Mark.
i. 35,
via. 4,
xiii. 52,
xvi. 9, GJic.
xvi. 16,
xvii. 5,
xvii. 29,
xvii. 34,
Luke.
t6,
5i,35,
35,
i. 76,
ii. II,
iii. 38,
vi. 12,
vi. 35,
ix. 54,
X. 30, (sc,
X. 33,
xi. ^3,
xiii. 29,
xiii. 32,
xiv. 26,
xvii. 3,
xxiv. 27,
xxir. 49,
135
369
io8,C^c**
17 1
545
23<^
236
3^
240
189;
(20^
4Q
4^
18
135
240
398
39^
78
218
419
7
14?
iS
292
O o 2
JOHK?
The I N 0 E x:-
€hap:
Vcrfc, Pag.
John.
5.
1, %^.^^^
i.
i,x, ii,i6x
•
1.
i, 354
i.
3, 43
i
11,13,' \n
i.
14, 67,261,
.
(34^
i.
t8, 161
3M3, 545
II.
11, 105
ij.
14,15, \6
iii.
4, ^77
iii.
9, z6^,(3c
iii.
^3, 51
iii.
16, 358
V.
10, 70
V.
17, 4<^»7o
V.
18, 71
V,
i9,C^c. 71,79
V.
11, 46
w
11, 18,158
y»
23, 69,^r.
(135,356
T,
27, 86
V.
30, 104,105
V.
37, 4^"^
V.
31, 170
V.
43, 85
*vi.
38,e]^c. (368
vi.
54» 46
vi.
63, 191
vii.
17, J 33,36 1
vii.
39, ao7
yii.
53,G?c. 511
viii.
18, 410
viii.
19, 60
.viii.
54, S5
X.
18, 139
X,
26, 77
Chap. Vtrfc. Pag^
X.
X.
X.
xi.
xii.
xii.
xri.
xiii.
xiv.
xiv.
xiv.
xiv.
xiv.
xiv.
xiv.
xiv.-
xiv,
xiv.
xiv,
xiv.
xiv.
xiv.
XV.
xvi.
xvi^
xvi.
xvi.
XVI.
xvi.
xvi-
xvii.
'xvii.
icVii.
xvii.
xvii.
18,
30,
30,
15,
18,
45,
49,
^5,
I,
6,
7,
9,
61
18,43,
(78,410
55t
6t
543
60,79
139
394
74,H3,
(155
6x,i4t
77
60
18
43,378
77,80
105
74
110,
(170
186
210
78
^39
16, 210,165,
(170,410
9,10,
II,
10,11,
15,
16,
17,
16,
18,
31,
7,
8,
13,
15,
13,
3<',
33,
3,
5,
II,
20,21,
108
210
• 188
51,77,
(79,1^5
153
47,154
141
60
136,
(35©
121
6t,i53
55 1
Chap.
The Index.
Chap.
Verfe.
Pag.
Chap.
Verfe.
•Pag;
xvlii.
33
391
Romans
.
xix.
37,
42
XX.
13,
370
i.
4,
57
XX.
17,
19
i.
7,
144
XX.
2S,
32,33,
i.
18,19,
234
(152
i.
i&.
395
XX.
29,
370
i.
20,
45
xxi.
17,
(47,118
iii.
4^
126,383
xxi.
22,
387
V.
10,
35S
vlil.
16,
199
Acts.
vlii.
27,
18S
viii.
32,
262
•
I.
If
378
viii.
37,38,
174
i.
i6,
189
viii.
38,39,
360
il.
22,23,
353
ix.
I,
54,192
ii.
30,
120
ix.
5,
38,152
iv.
7,xo,
24
X.
2,
415
iv.
24,25,
189,
X.
12,13,
52,53
(
192,221
X.
13,14,
143
V.
3,4,
185
X.
J 4,
207
vii.
48,
240
xi.
33,
372.
vii.
59,<^o,
144
xii.
3, 373,401
vii.
55,5<5,
544
xii.
9,
390
viil.
»5,i7.
(545
xii.
3^1,
399
viii.
16,
- 24
xiii.
1^
403
ix.
" '^'^
H3
xiii.
19,
406
ix.
3,4,^?''^
• 544
XV.
13,
186
X.
36,
41
XV.
16,
191
X.
48,
24
XV.
19,
189
xii*.
23,
8
XV.
30,
220
xlli.
2,
190
XV.
28,
190
I Cor.
XV i.
31,
24
i.
2,
143
xvii.
25,
^53
i.
3,
144
XV ii.
27,
379
i.
10,
397
xix.
2,
207
i.
13,
169
xix.
3,
175
i.
23.
276
XX.
28,
33,157,
ii.
^,
24
(190,
344,353
ii'
4,
X91
xxvi.
25,
?92
ii.
7,
129
:jxvii}.
• 25.26
184
ii.
8,
41
Chap.
Thi
In d£^
Ghap. Vcrfe, Pag.
. 31.
h ' iiL
^ > iv,
..vj.
vi.
vi.
• viii.
viii.
viii-
Vlll.
viii.
^,. X.
.^ xi.
xii.
xli.
xii.
xii.
xii.
3cii.
xlii.
xlii.
xiii.
" xiii.
XV.
XV.
10, 188
10,11, 122
?6,i7, 185,
(i88,az6
6, 418
11, 191
'7, 55'
19.10, 581
1, 409
. a, 186
3, 394
4» , 5/,
(i27,C2?c.
5, 9
6, r
2, 1 68
3, 82,83
4, 190,210
4»5A 257,^c
10.11, 189,
(190
xi; 188
12, 202
18, 258
4,c^c. 209,398
(399,400
$, 4oi,M
6, 4.04
7, 404,5 »6
24,C^c. 83,84
90
Ghap. Verfe. Pag.
28,
II Cor.
I.
2, 144
ii.
ii, 201, C5C
•••
111.
«, 187
iii.
I3,I4,C?<:. 187
iii.
17, 185,185
iv.
4, 11,57
Y.
;5i 144
V.
11, 344
vi.
16, J 86
xii:
7,8,9, i44»*5o
xii.
8, 351
xiii.
2, 409
xiii.
14, 192,220,
(263,387
Galat.
I.
3>
H4
iii.
>o.
i3T
iv.
8,
9,57
iv.
18,
417
iv.
16,
398
V-
22,
409
vi.
Ephes,
276
i.
^y
H4
i.
1 7,1 8,
19 188,
(191
i.
13,
51
ii*
7,
358
ii.
18,
141,188,
(191
,220,263
iii.
4,
129
iii.
16,
191
iv.
3,
252
iv.
4>5A
^37,
[l<^3,3«9
Iv:
6,
54
iv.
»3,
39<?
iv.
*5,
389
iv.
26,
40}
iv.
30,
I9N
(262
vi.
^,
'45
Philip.
The I
N DEX.
Phap. Verfe. Pag,
Chap; Verfe; Pag,
Philip,
iii.
9,
M9
^■■- i.
i.
144
iii.
16,
36,129,
; ii.
5,
409
(34*>35^
ii.
<5,7,
34,78
iii.
I^,
545
ij.
8,
139
vL
3,
35^
ii.
^o,
74
vi.
*5,
40
iii.
">
95
iii.
'».
401
II Tim.
iii.
• «4f
408
i.
2,
;g
iii.
2^
49
i.
J 2,
. iii.
H»
144
i.
13,
392,420;
i^*
. -8,
401
i.
16,
'5C>
'f.?..'
■^
ii.
2,
392
Tw.
COLOSS.
ii.
8,
120
^rt
^,
144
ii.
13,
416
i;
16,
43,i«^5
ii.
a4»25.
399
i.
17,
45,50
ii.
25,18,
419
ii.
3^,
I0I,<^C.
iii.
8,
39^5
ij.
a>3.
30
iv.
4,
39^
ii.
5,<^,
132
.. ii;
9>
38,118
TiTtrs,
iv.
3»
119
1.
4,
144^
ii.
'3,
37
I Thess,
ii.
14,
'4lS^
i.
^
144
iii.
5,
i9^i
i.
9»
237
iii.
i»,
399
Philem
•
iv.
9>
2X6
Veife 3.
144
[I Thess.
' ■
Hebrews
'• . .
5.
144
1.
3, 46,49,75^
*ii.
8,
9,
201
18
i.
i.
6,
10^,12,
5J^
44,49
'iii.
*',
J 30
i.
12,
50
I Tim.
il
14,
18,
187
3S^
'1,
!.
2,
"144
: iii.
/ 4,
44
5,
^37
iii.
7,9,
184
■i.-
<5*
417
iv;
«3,
47
ii.
v.-/ 5*
5^
y.
.7,
58,13^
*"* V
•- -^ -
Chap.
The Index.
I^hap
; Verfe.
Pag.
Cliap.
Verfe.
Pag.
vi.
9»
362
V.
<^,
54i
vii.
^
\z
' v.
7,
423,e^c.
Tii.
3>
49
(457,^<^-
vii.
'7,
•138
V.
8,
5»3
vii.
25,
i4X,26z
V.
11,12,
61
x«
7,
89
V.
2fo,
31,5^,^8
xlr-
9*
18,28
II John
,
James,
3,
221
1.
17,
14,18
7,
58
i.
19,
399
10,11
420
J.
20,
410
•
il.
8,
395
JUDE.
iii.
I7>
406
3,
4>
413
40
I Peter.
H,^5,
3(52
i.
K
359
i-
17,
'28
Revelation.
i.
ai,
141.^5
i.
i»
48
i.
J9» -
, 551
i.
4>
192,
ill.
i3,
344
(210,219
ivv
14»
186
1.
4,5,
- -2-63
V.
i^.
M4
i.
8,
41,48,
(5o,iP5
.-
II Pbtek
.
i.
10,11
544
i.
I,
41
i.
17,
545
i.
7,
408
ii.
^3,
47
;-i-
af>
'9^
ill
%1>
85
ii.
I,
41
iii.
1>
57,60
ill.
17,18
388
iii.
t9,
:j8
iii.
i8,
144,152
iv.
9,
53
I John
V-
'»,
75
i.
J,
(^i
y.
13,
144
ii.
2P,
188
3d.
17,
50
ji.
i^v
63,1^3,
xvii.
U,
4°
(356
xix.
13,
43
iii.
1^,
344
xxi.
1*,
43
iiii
l3,
390
xxi.
^^y
43
iv.
9»
357
xxiio
I,
43
iv.
|o,
358
xxii.
<5.i6.
4«
v.
I, I
11, 541
xxii.
^8,19
4^4
Vo
4»5r
541
xxii?
3^?
i^.54l
■7
1
I
]
"''■''' Jm
K&
■el
if
*l
K
Lic-.L
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