Skip to main content

Full text of "The works of ... Daniel Waterland. To which is prefixed, a review of the ..."

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world’s books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work 15 expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book 15 still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at htip:/ / books: 

Digitized by Google 

pigitized v Google 

Digitized by Google 















CLar. Pueds 

/. «, 144. 

Digitized by Google 





DR CPURE ssl teeta oi de ees Page 1 


CONSIDERED  ........ cece reece eceeee eitteniancwdemel. eas gir 


AN ANSWER TO THE POSTSCRIPT ...........ccccceeceseos 765 






Containing Remarks upon two late Pamphlets: one entitled, “ Modest 

““ Plea, &c. Continued &c.” the other, ‘‘ Unity of God not inconsistent 
‘* with the Divinity of Christ, &c.” 


Digitized by Google 






My Lorp, 

THE following Sermons, drawn up and preached under your 
Lordship’s influence, in defence of that ancient faith which you 
have so seasonably and signally supported, have a natural claim 
and title to your Lordship’s patronage. Their design is to shew, 
that we follow not mere human decisions, or words of men, as 
hath been slanderously reported, but the infallible word of God ; 
to which we appeal from the sentence and determination of any 
fallible men whatsoever. Nevertheless, it is great satisfaction to 
us to observe, that the Scripture evidences of our doctrine have, 
in all ages of the Church, appeared so full and clear, that the 
generality of wise and good men could not fail of coming into 
them. We think it no discredit, but a great advantage to our 
doctrine, that it is ancient and Catholic. If this be all that some 
mean, by objecting to us human decisions, we do not only acknow- 
ledge it, but glory in it. It has been the method of the wisest 
and best men, since the date of Christianity, to prefer express 
Scripture, or certain consequences from Scripture, before merely 
human and philosophical conjectures. Human but well grounded 
decisions have served to beat down the pride and vanity of human 
and ill grounded conceit: and hence it is that the faith of the 
ever blessed Trinity has constantly, and will, I trust, finally pre- 
vail over all opposition from men, whose strength and confidence 
is not in Scripture, but in vain philosophy; not in the word of 
B 2 


God, but in I know not what dark and blind metaphysics, the 
words of men. 

I gladly embrace this opportunity of joining in the public 
thanks to your Lordship, for the late memorable instance of 
your truly primitive and episcopal zeal against the adversaries 
of our common faith. The attempt to introduce, by a private 
authority, new forms of doxology, in opposition to those now 
in use, which are of long standing and great authority in the 
Church of Christ, is justly abhorred by all that have the honour 
of our blessed Lord and of our common Christianity near at 
heart. To ascribe all glory to the Father, in contempt of those 
other forms which give glory to all the three Persons, is too 
plainly declaring in facts what is disowned in words; and is 
laying aside that modesty in practice which is pretended in prin- 
ciple. It was high time to give a check to such dangerous inno- 
vations; and to warn your faithful Clergy against such scandalous 
abuses. Present and future generations will be obliged to your 
Lordship for your pious cares and wise endeavours in this behalf; 
and for so eminent an example of an unshaken firmness in those 
principles which alone can make our Church glorious or kingdom 
happy. From which should we ever be so infatuated and aban- 
doned as to start or swerve, (which God forbid,) we should, from 
being the purest and most justly celebrated Church in the world, 
become the meanest and the most contemptible of any, (if we 
could still be called a Church ;) should expose ourselves inevitably 
to the just wrath and vengeance of Almighty God, and to the 
scorn and derision of all the Churches around us. That these 
and the like dangers and mischiefs may be effectually prevented 
or turned away from us, is the hearty prayer of, 

My Lord, 
Your Lordship’s most obedient 
and most humble Servant, 



THE following Sermons may be looked upon as a Supplement to my 
Vindication of Christ’s Divinity, before published. I intended them as 
such, avoiding repetition of the same things as much as I well could: 
or where I could not avoid bringing up again the same arguments, I 
have endeavoured to give them some further light or strength; for 
the most part, enlarging upon what had been before but briefly hinted. 
I have entirely omitted the argument from worship, because I had 
distinctly and fully treated of it under Queries sixteenth and seven- 
teenth. Some other arguments I have passed over, purely because I 
had not room for them. Those which I have taken and considered 
appear to me of as great weight as any; and more than sufficient to 
justify our belief in Christ Jesus as a Divine Person, coegual and co- 
eternal with God the Father. 

In my Vindication, &c. I was chiefly upon the offensive, against the 
adversaries of our common faith, demanding of them some clear and 
good proof of their pretensions in this momentous controversy ; since 
they had hitherto produced nothing considerable enough to move any 
wise and good man to forsake that faith which has so long and 80 
universally obtained, and with such visible marks of a Divine power 
accompanying it. They that undertake to alter the fundamental and 
universally received articles of the Christian faith, which may be traced 
up to the very infancy of Christianity, or as high as any records reach, 
ought to be well provided with reasons and arguments to make good 
euch big pretences: otherwise they do but render their cause ridiculous, 
and expose their own vanity. The presumption will always lie (espe- 
cially in a point of this moment, in which it can hardly be supposed 
that God would ever have suffered his Church to be so long, 80 univer- 
sally, and so lamentably deceived) on the side of prescription and Jong 
possession: and nothing less than clear and evident demonstration can 
have weight sufficient to bear up against it. This therefore is what I 
bad reason to insist upon, and what I still demand of our new guides, if 
they hope to prevail any thing with considering men. I may further 
demand of them to propose some other scheme opposite to the Catholic, 
and to clear it at least of all considerabje objections. For if it appears that 


there are but three schemes, in the main, Arian, Socinian, and Catholic, 
one of which must be true; and that the two former are utterly repug- 
nant to, or can neither of them be shewn to be consistent with, the 
whole Scripture taken together ; it will follow that the third is the true 
one, unless Scripture be inconsistent with itself; which is not to be 
supposed. This way of proving our point, though indirect, is notwith- 
standing just and solid; provided we can make it appear that neither 
the Arian nor Socinian (or what is nearly the same, Sabellian) hypo- 
thesis can tolerably account for several Scripture terts. But I have, in 
the following Sermons, chose, for the must part, to proceed more 
directly, giving the direct Scripture proofs of what has so long and so 
universally prevailed; that it may be seen that we have a great deal 
more than prescription or possession to plead for our principles. They 
are founded in the infallible word of God, fixed and riveted in the very 
frame and constitution of the Christian religion. If our proofs of this, 
merely from Scripture, appear but probable, they are yet more and 
better than can be produced, merely from Scripture, for the contrary 
persuasion: and if what appears but probably to be taught in Scripture 
itself appears certainly to have been taught by the prunitive and 
Catholic Church; such probability, so confirmed and strengthened, 
carries with it the force of demonstration. Not that I think our 
Scripture proofs to be barely probable, though our cause would not 
suffer even by that supposition. I think them as clear and as strong 
as should be expected or desired in any case of this nature: and I 
know not whether the Scripture proofs of the Divinity, even of God 
the Father, his eternal, immutable, necessary existence, his omniscience, 
omnipresence, and other Divine attributes, might not be eluded and 
frustrated by such subtilties and artifices as are used to elude the 
Scripture proofs of the Divinity of God the Son. 

It must however be allowed, that in all manner of controversy which 
depends upon interpretation of dead writings, he that undertakes to 
prove a point, or to establish a doctrine, lies under this disadvantage ; 
that, as long as there appears any possibility of a different interpretation, 
an adversary may still demur, and demand further evidence. Now, 
considering the great latitude and ambiguity of words and phrases, in 
all languages, (if a man would search into all the senses they are 
possibly capable of,) and that even the most full and express words may 
be often eluded by having recourse to tropes and figures, or to some 
other artificial turn of wit and criticism; I say, considering this, there 
may be always something or other plausibly urged against any thing 
almost whatever: but more especially if the point to be proved be of a 
sublime, mysterious nature ; then, besides the advantage to be taken of 
words, there is further ground of sgruple or cavil from the thing itself. 


And here the objector has much the easier part, as it is always 
easier to puzzle than to clear any thing; to darken and perplex, than 
to set things in a good light; to ask questions, than to answer them; 
to start difficulties, than to solve them. In a word, it is easier for the 
objector to shew his own ignorance, and perhaps the other’s too, than it 
is for either of them to be perfectly knowing, and able to extricate a 
subject out of all perplexity and doubtfulness. Hence it is that both 
Arians and Socinians have, for the most part, been content to object 
against the Catholic scheme, having talents very proper for it, but 
they seldom undertake to defend and clear their own: or if they do, 
they soon see reason to repent it. When the Socinian is to prove that 
Christ is a man only, or an Arian that he is a creature, and that Scripture 
can bear no other possible interpretation, they come off so indifferently, 
and with such manifest marks of disadvantage, that they do but expose 
themselves to the pity or derision of their adversaries. 

It was proper to observe this, in order to give the common reader a 
jast idea of the state of the present controversy, and of the method and 
management of the controvertists, on either side. The way to judge 
rightly, either of it or them, is to compare things carefully together, 
and to observe how they perform their several parts; which are redu- 
cible to these three : 1. To prove and establish their own tenets; 2. To 
disprove those of the adversaries; 3. To object to, or weaken, the 
adversary’s proofs. 

For the purpose: what have the Catholics to produce from Scrip- 
ture in proof of their principles? And what has either an Arian or 
Socinian to produce in proof of his? Take their evidences together, set 
them fairly one against another, and then judge of them. What have 
the Catholics to urge in order to disprove the Arian or Socinian 
scheme? And what again has either Arian or Socinian to plead in 
order to confute the Catholic doctrine? Let these respectively be 
balanced one against another, and let the impartial examiner judge 
which has the advantage upon the comparison. Lastly, let it be 
observed what the Catholics have to say, to weaken the proofs brought 
either for the Arian or Socinian hypothesis; and again, what the Arian 
and Socinian has to plead, to invalidate the proofs brought for the 
Catholic persuasion. Upon the whole, I may remark, that the most 
difficult task of all is to establish a doctrine: the next hardest is to 
disprove or confute any tenet; because that, in some cases, (where one 
of the two must be true,) is establishing the contrary: the lowest and 
easiest part of all is to object against the adversary’s proofs, or to puzzle 
ἃ cause among weak readers. 

These things being premised, I may now proceed to take notice of 
two late pamphlets, wrote by way of Answer to my Vindication of 


Christ’s Divinity. The first of them, indeed, is very modestly and 
properly called, An Answer to Dr. Waterland’s Queries, otherwise, 
Modest Plea &c. Continued, by an anonymous hand. I was surprised 
at it, because the Queries had received an answer long ago; and the 
world expected an answer to my Defence, not a zew answer to the 
Queries. I will not say that the author was in hopes the common 
reader might not distinguish between an Answer to the Queries and an 
Answer to the Defence, but might be indifferently content with either ; 
nor that he thought he might the more easily triumph over the Queries, 
after he had exposed them again naked and stripped of their guards 
and fences: I am unwilling to believe an author of any name or cha- 
racter, (as this seems to be,) could have any such low aims and little 
views as those mentioned. But I must observe, that the author, in his 
performance, is religiously observant of his tite: for he brings up fre- 
quently the very same pretences which I had fully, largely, and dis- 
tinctly answered in my Defence, without taking the least notice of 
what I had said: for his intent was not to answer my Defence, it seems, 
but my Queries. Whether this be a proper method to clear a dispute, 
and to do justice to common readers, I leave to any man to judge. 
But I am promised, in an advertisement at the end, a large and par- 
ticular answer to my Defence, &c. which I shall wait for with great 
impatience, being desirous of nothing more than to see this controversy 
fairly and thoroughly discussed on both sides. In the meanwhile, I 
shall content myself with a few remarks upon this /ate Answer to my 
Queries, not thinking myself obliged to go so far out of my way, as to 
draw up any more particular reply to a nameless writer, and one who 
does not appear to have any desire or design to have the point dis- 
tinctly debated and cleared; but only to throw a mist before the 
readers, and to fence off all fair trial or examination. 

1. I must observe, that the author does not offer any particular 
scheme, for fear, I suppose, of being called upon to defend it. Yet if 
he at all knows what he is doing, or what he is aiming at, it is the 
Arian scheme or none he has taken up with. There are but three 
possible suppositions of God the Son, considered as a real distinct 
Person. Either he is a man only, which to say is Socinianism; or he 
is more than man, but yet a precarious dependent being, depending as 
much on the will of the Father as any creature whatever, and conse- 
quently a creature; which to say is Arianism, and the whole of 
Arianism, however variously expressed or differently disguised: the 
third supposition is, that the Son is necessarily existing, uncreated, and 
properly Divine, which is the Catholic doctrine. 

Now this writer is evidently no Socinian nor Sabellian; and from the 
whole tenor of his performance it is plain he is no Catholic, in the 


sense before given: it remains only that he is either an Arian, or else 
hangs between two, floating and fluctuating between Catholic and 
Arian; which is the most favourable opinion that can be conceived 
of him. 

2. As this writer pretends not to maintain any particular echeme 
opposite to the Catholic doctrine, so it may be obeerved, that he con- 
stantly avoids coming to the pinch of the question between Catholics 
and Arians. He never so much as attempts any the least proof of God 
the Son's being a creature ; never undertakes to justify creature worship; 
never endeavours to clear the Arian scheme of the difficulties which I 
had charged it with in several places of my Defence, vol. i. and par- 
ticularly in p. 556. where I summed up the principal of them under 
five heads. He is so far from this, that he commonly turns opponent, 
though he had undertaken the part of respondent; and by his deep 
silence, in respect of the most considerable difficulties, seems tacitly to 
allow that they are not capable of any just and solid answer. I had 
asked only a plain question, that I might come to the point in hand, 
‘‘ whether the same characteristics, especially such eminent ones, can 
““ reasonably be understood of two distinct beings, and of one infinite 
‘‘and independent; the other dependent and finite?’ Qu. 6. This 
gentleman desires to be excused from saying one word of dependent 
or independent ; and calls it an invidious insinuation, to mention a 
syllable of finite and infinite, p.13. This was coming to the question, 
and therefore the point was not to be touched. He runs off, and talks, 
somewhat confusedly, about some prime, greatest, incommunicable perfec- 
tion, (objecting only, when it was his business to respond,) not telling me 
whether he means it of xecessarily existing, or only of unbegotten. If 
he means it of the former, making necessary eristence and self-existence 
the same thing, then I shall tell him, that he has no manner of ground 
for supposing that that perfection is not common both to Father and 
Son: and if that be also Dr. Clarke’s notion of self-existence, I shall 
then observe, that the Doctor’s propositions (particularly his 5th, 12th, 
14th, 19th, 23rd,) are not so innocent as this writer would represent 
them, but are unscriptural, false, and dangerous. If he means it of 
unbegotter, I shall leave him to prove, at leisure, what real perfection, 
beyond a relation of order, or mode of existence, is contained in it. 
In the mean while, what becomes of the Query, which demanded a clear 
and determinate answer, whether the Son be finite or infinite, whether 
his existence be precarious, or independent on the will of any? A direct 
answer to this would soon have let our readers into the main debate, to 
be tried by Scripture, reason, and antiquity. I give this instance only 
for a specimen of the author’s manner of evading and shiftiag, whenever 
he comes to the pinch of the question: the reader will observe many 


more such, in the perusal of the whole pamphlet. It is very plain 
then, that this writer never means to give us an opportunity of confut- 
ing his principles, if they happen to be contrary to ours; because he 
cares not to own them, however invited or provoked to it. The most 
that he aims at is the safest, lowest, meanest part of a disputant, who 
happens to have a cause which he dares not confide in; and that is, to 
object, cavil, and find fault with something which he likes not, without 
ever so much as offering any thing better in its stead, or submitting what 
he has to propose to the examination and judgment of the learned. 

3. It is worth observing what this writer says to the two main points 
in debate between the Catholics and the Arians, viz.the consubstantiality 
and eternity of God the Son. He speaks indeed of Dr. Clarke; but 1 
suppose he, at the same time, gives us to understand what his own 
sentiments are. ‘‘ There is nothing in any of the Doctor’s assertions, 
“‘ but what holds equally true upon ail (the possible) hypotheses con- 
“ cerning either the metaphysical substunce or eternity of the Son,” p. 29. 
“ All his propositions are equally true and certain both from reason 
‘ and Scripture, whatever the substance, and how unlimited soever the 
‘« duration of the Son be,” p. 67. See also p. 23, 24, 27, 28, 43, 51. 

It is some satisfaction to us, that, as this gentleman pretends not to 
hold any scheme of his own, so neither does he attempt to confute ours. 
All that we insist on and contend for may be true and right, for any 
thing he has to say to the contrary ; which is very obliging, especially 
considering that he speaks both for Dr. Clarke and himself. For 
though we have no reason to apprehend any thing from the Doctor's 
arguments, yet his very name and character may do our cause harm, 
among many, if it be thought that he has declared plainly against us. 
This writer charges me with “ palpable and direct calumny,” p. 28, for 
saying that Dr. Clarke every where denies the consubstantiality. Softer 
words might have done as well, in one that professes “ not to render 
“6 evil for evil, nor railing for railing.” I had certainly no intention 
to calumniate the Doctor; I gave my reasons for what I said, which 
have not been answered; I did not lay any thing to his charge more 
than what the Country Clergyman, and Mr. Emlyn, and several others, 
who are thought the Doctor’s friends, believed of him as well as I. 
I will not say what may be pleaded to make good the charge, from 
the Doctor’s own books, from the whole drift and tenor of them, besides 
many particular passages, and what from this very piece wrote in his 
defence; nor how unaccountable hie whole conduct relating to this 
controversy is on any other supposition; nor how needless it is to 
prove what hardly friend or foe makes any doubt of. Let it be so, 
that the Doctor has neither directly nor by necessary consequence 
denied either the consudbstantiality or eternity. I am more willing to 


have it thought that the charge is false and groundless, than this author 
imagines ; and gladly take this opportunity of acquainting the world 
that the Doctor has less to say against the received doctrine than was 
once believed of him. I am always very averse to representing any 
man worse than he really is, especially such a man as Dr. Clarke, who 
may be a credit to our cause, as soon as it appears that he does not 
really differ from us. 

I am very unwilling that any man of sense and learning should be 
thought an Arian, (Arians generally have been men of a different cha- 
racter ;) and if it can be made appear either that the Doctor never was 
such, or has ceased to be such, upon further views, (his own good 
sense leading him at length out of it,) I shall very heartily rejoice at it, 
and acknowledge my mistakes or misrepresentations with infinitely 
greater pleasure than I could ever be supposed to make them. If the 
Doctor has really denied no consubstantiality that either the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers or the Council of Nice intended, (as this author says 
he has not, p. 27, 28.) I am very glad of it, and desire no more than 
that the Doctor do sincerely acknowledge the same, and abide by it: 
and I hope that those who pretend to have the Doctor’s authority to 
countenance them in their opposition to the received doctrine, (the same 
which the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Council of Nice taught,) will 
take special notice of it. What is it then that the Doctor and we differ 
about ? This author will tell us: the Doctor’s “ three hundred texts 
‘* were brought to prove a subordination, not in mere position or order 
“ of words,” &c. p. 40. ‘ The Son must be subordinate to the Father 
** in real order of nature and dignity, and not in mere position of words,” 
p-29. ‘‘ The subordination of the Son is not a subordination merely 
“ nominal, consisting (according to Dr. Waterland) in mere posttion or 
“* order of words but it is a real subordination of the Son to the Father, 
“in point of axthority and dominion over the universe. This is the 
‘* main, the true and only point,” &c. p. 57,58. Let us see then, if 
this main, this true and only point can be any way adjusted between us: 
for we are very desirous to have the learned Doctor on our side, as 
nearly as possible; or if he must be against us at last, the less the 
better, both for him and us. Perhaps the Doctor is with us m the 
main, only has happened unfortunately to mistake our principles ; 
which is a very usual thing with disputants in most controversies. 
If he has the same notion which this author has, that Dr. Waterland 
makes the subordination to consist in “a mere position or order of 
‘“‘ words,” it is a mistake indeed ; and I cannot but wonder at his pecu- 
har fancy. I always intended, always spoke of a real subordination : 
bat then I considered the strict force and propriety of the word subor- 
dination, implying a difference of order only, while the nature is supposed 


equal. We do not say that things of a lower kind are subordinate, but 
inferior, to those of an higher. Brutes are not subordinate, but inferior 
to man; and creatures are not (in strict propriety) subordinate, but 
inferior to God. I allow all that is really, truly, and strictly sudor- 
dination; excepting against nothing but inferiority, (which is more 
than subordination,) and division of substance, such as is between two 
human persons acting subordinately one to the other. But of this 
matter I had declared my mind fully and distinctly in my Defence, 
vol. i. p. 442, and therefore wonder the more, how I came to be so 
strangely misunderstood by this writer. If the Doctor will be contented 
with a real subordination, (admitting no inferiority, no inequality of 
nature,) he and I need not differ. But if he carries the point one tittle 
further, I desire to know what sense or meaning he can possibly have 
in it, without making the Son of God a creature: which if he does, I 
hope I shall no longer be charged with calumny; and that the Doctor 
will think himself obliged, not to say, or to insinuate it only, bat to 
prove it (if possible) from Scripture, reason, or antiquity. There will 
be no occasion to stand upon any nicety of expression. We shall 
apprehend his meaning, if he pleases only to say plainly, that the Son 
is not necessarily existing ; which may be a softer way of saying, that 
he is a precarious being; which is another phrase for creature. The 
Modest Pleader, indeed, has spoke out®; and a certain gentleman that 
calls himself a seeker after truth, and pretends to be in Dr. Clarke’s 
interest, says, in the name of the whole party, that they are not back- 
ward to express their denial of Christ’s necessary existence; but that 
they avowedly maintain, with the most ancient Fathers, (that is, so far 
as he knows any thing of the Fathers,) that the Son is not necessarily 
existing®. Had Dr. Clarke not been backward in saying this, or had he 
avowedly and plainly maintained it, it would have saved us some trouble : 
and I must then have insisted upon it, from that single consideration, 
that every tittle of what I charged him with was just and undeniable. 
He does indeed drop something very like it, (Reply, p. 230, 231.) but 
if that be really his meaning, (which however I charge him not with,) 
and if his propositions are to be interpreted accordingly ; this author 
does very ill in pretending, that I have not attempted to refute the 
Doctor’s principal propositions, when my whole book is directly 
levelled against that very tenet; and is (if I do not too much flatter 
myself) a full confutation of the Doctor's principal propositions, sup- 
posing he meant necessarily existent by self-existent. I was once of 
opinion (but let it pass for conjecture only) that the Doctor, having a 
mind to introduce the Arian heresy, thought to do it obliquely ; not by 
calling the Son a creature, which is gross, but by denying his necessary 
8 Modest Plea, &c. p. 17, 317. b Second Letter to Dr. Mangey, p. 27. 


eristencec, which comes to the same thing: and yet this was to be done 
covertly, under the name of self-existence ; ἃ word with two faces, one 
to oblige friends, the other to keep off adversaries. But this may be 
my fancy only. One thing however I must observe, that if the Doctor 
has any design against the necessary existence of the Son, he has not 
so much as one single text of Scripture to help him in it. He must 
be obliged to the Fathers, (whose verdict nevertheless he will not stand 
to,) even for so much as a colour to his pretences; as appears by his 
seventeenth proposition, which stands only on the authority of Fathers; 
though it is the most to his purpose of any that he hus, and seems to 
come the nearest to the point in question. It will not be difficult to 
disable him from doing any thing with the Fathers: I have, in a great 
measure, obviated his pretences that way in my Defence of Query the 
eighth. It will be easy to shew, that none of the Fathers looked upon 
God the Son as a precarious being, but asserted his necessary existence. 
This is certain and manifest even of those very Fathers who speak of 
a voluntary generation. We are not indeed to expect the word neces- 
sary existence, (a school term, and none of the most proper,) but the 
thing we shall find, in other words, fully and clearly asserted. This 
writer tells me (p. 15.) that I have not been able to produce one single 
passage out of any one Ante-Nicene Father, wherein the Son is affirmed 
to have emaned, or been emitied by necessity of nature. He might have 
said likewise, that I could not produce any one Post-Nicene Father 
affirming the Son to have emaned, or been emitted by necessity of 
nature: that is, they never express it in those terms. ᾿Ανάγκη in the 
Greek, and necessitas in the Latin, had not the same sense which the 
word necessily bears, when we say that God exists by necessity of nature. 
It shews but small acquaintance with ecclesiastical language, for Dr. 
Clarke to understand by ἀνάγκη φυσικὴ, and φύσεως ἀνάγκη, (Script. 
Doctr. p. 252, 253.) the same that we understand by necessity of 
nature. The Fathers understood by it outward coaction, force, or com- 
pulsion ; and what we express by necessity of nature, they expressed by 
the word nature: e.g. God is by nature good, he exists, or is God, by 
nature, (φύσει, or κατὰ φύσιν, generates a Son by nature, and so on, 
in opposition to xecessity, which (in their sense) could not be ascribed 
to God at all4. Such as denied the Son’s existing by necessity of nature, 

ς This very artifice was made use of by 
the ancient Arians, who being ashamed to 
call the Son a creature, contrived to say 
the same thing, in other words, by deny- 
ing his necessary existence. Tiss ot δεί- 
κνυται τούτων ἡ πολυκέφαλος πανουργία; 
ὅτι καταισχυνθέντες én) τῷ λέγειν ποίημα 
καὶ κτίσμα, καὶ οὐκ ἦν πρὶν ἢ ὁ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ Λόγος, ἄλλως πάλιν κτίσμα λέγονσιν 

αὑτὸν εἶναι, βούλησιν προβαλλόμενοι, δια. 
Athanas, Orat. iii. p. 610. 

ἃ Vid. Athan. p. 611. Ambros. de Fid. 
lib. iv. cap. 9. p. 540. Damasc. de Fid. Or- 
thod. lib. iii. cap. 14. p. 221. Hilar. de Syn- 
od. p. 1184. Basil. contr. Eun. ii. p. 56, 57: 
Cyrill. Thesaur. p. 3. August. de Trin 
lib. xv. p. 993. Epiph. Ancorat. n. §1. 

See some other references in Petavius 


would, for the same reason, have denied likewise that God exists by 
necessity of nature. Necessary generation, (as we call it,) they expressed 
generally by Christ’s being God by nature, or a Son by nature. Upon 
the whole, we may leave the Doctor either to give up the Fathers, or 
to abide by their authority, just as he pleases. If he gives them up, 
he has not one text of Scripture for his main position, (supposing it 
his, that the Son is not necessarily existent: if he abides by the author- 
tty of the Fathers, they are, when rightly understood, plainly against 
him, (as may be easily made appear,) and can do him no service. But 
IT return to the writer of the pamphlet. 

4. He is pleased, in his Preface, to condemn the method which I 
have taken in this controversy. But, I suppose, little regard is to be 
had to the judgment of an adversary, who will be apt to condemn such 
a method as he was most afraid of, and commend such as might be 
most advantageous to his own cause. The method which he has 
chalked out for me is as follows. Either, 

τ. “To shew that Dr. Clarke had mistaken or misinterpreted ail, or 
at least the principal texts of Scripture which he has cited.” Or, 

2. “ To examine the truth of all, or the principal of his propositions.” 

T have, in effect, done this, though in my own method. But, 
however, the gentleman should consider, that many of the Doctor’s 
comments and propositions are purely wide and foreign to the dispute ; 
excepting only that the more pernicious an error is, so much the more 
necessary is it to mix a great deal of truth with it, to make it go down 
with the readers. Many more of the Doctor's comments and propo- 
sitions are general or ambiguous, looking two ways; having properly 
no one meaning, because no determinate meaning. Such being the 
case, I took the short and plain way, which is always the best when a 
man has a cause he can confide in: and that was, to cut off im- 
pertinences, and to come to the main question, laying all the stress 
there. Whatever I met with, in the Doctor’s books, that appeared to 
make the Son of God a creature, or a precarious being, or not neces- 
sarily existing, (for these are all the same, without any difference, more 
than lies in the syllables,) I endeavoured to confute; and I hope I 

»,», ee done it. The learned Doctor may now open himself; or he may 
| let it alone if he pleases: it matters not what his tenets are, provided 
the true Catholic tenets be preserved and maintained. If he had any 
ill meaning in his comments or propositions, I have used my best en- 
deavours to prevent any ili effects it might have among some readers: 

de Trin. lib. vi. cap. 8. p. 343. As to 
Ante-Nicene Fathers, if some of them 
supposed the generation, or προέλευσις, of 
the Son to be properly voluntary, yet all 

of them supposed his e#istence to be neoes- 
sary, (as we call it,) and expressed it in 
such terms as they expressed the necessary 
existence of the Father by. 


if he had not, I am very glad of it, and have done no more than 
explained his doctrine for him to an orthodox sense; which he ought 
himeelf to have done long ago, if he really had no design against the 
Catholic received doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity. But enough 
of this. 

I must here take notice of this gentleman’s doctrine about worship ; 
though it be rather obscurely intimated, than plainly expressed : the 
innuendo way of writing, as I take it, is the art of imposing upon the 
vulgar, at the same time preventing, as much as possible, the examina- 
tion of the learned. All worship, he says, should ‘‘ be to the glory of 
‘God the Father,” (p. 57.) Who doubts it? I hope the worship of the 
Son is to the “glory of God the Father :” why then does this writer 
find fault? or what is it he has a mind to say, and is afraid to speak 
out, “to the glory of God the Father?” Has he some secret and 
reserved meaning? So it seems, or else it will be very hard to make 
out the pertinency or consistency of his observations. He directs us 
(p. 64.) ““ἴο worship uniformly the one God, the Father Almighty, even 
“ our Father which is in heaven, through the intercession of his only 
‘Son our Lord Jesus Christ, in the marner the Scripture directs.” 
Do not all Churches, and our own in particular, do it uniformly and in 
the manner the Scripture directs? What is it then that the writer aims 
at? I could perhaps point out what it is that offends him. Is it not 
either that direct worship is paid to the Son at all; or that the Son is 
worshipped as God ? But sure the author is not so rash or inconsiderate, 
as to advise us to any such daxgerous innovation in worship, either to 
leave out the Son entirely, or not to worship him as God. What could 
a professed Eunomian or the rankeat Socinian desire more? Can Dr. 
Clarke, (for, I suppose, he speaks for the Doctor and himself too,) 
can Dr. Clarke desire this? He that has not yet determined either 
against the consubstantiality or eternity of God the Son: he that has 
only a few scruples about subordination, (owing to his mistake of 
Catholic principles, and his not attending to strict propriety of lan- 
guage,) hardly in the main differing from us, if this writer’s pretences 
be real and sincere; would he have us uagod the Son in our practice, 
even before we see reason to alter our principles? or must we strike 
Christ's Divinity out of our public service, before we do it out of our 
articles of faith? It will be time enongh for the Doctor to give this 
advice, after he has declared plainly against the eternity and consub- 
stantiality of the Son; after he has not only declared against them, but 
disproved them, which he can never do; after he has made it as clear 
as the sun, that the Christian world have been in an error, have been 
idolaiers, from the beginning downwards to this day. It is poor 
pretence to say that we are ‘not to build any practices, wherein the 


“‘ worship of God is immediately concerned, upon metaphysical specu- 
** lations, not mentioned in Scripture,” p. 64. The Divinity of Christ 
is a Scripture truth, as much as the Divinity of the Father; and one is 
no more a metaphysical speculation than the other. Besides that it is 
strangely improper and absurd to call these principles pure speculations, 
which are of so great importance for the regulating our worship, that 
we can neither omit to worship Christ, if they are true, without the 
greatest impiety; nor perform it, if they are false, without being guilty 
of idolatry. In short, there is no sense in what this writer here says, 
but upon the supposition that Christ is really a creature; and that the 
dispute only were whether a creature might, in any forced improper 
sense, be said to be eternal, or consubstantial ; which indeed would be 
both a fruitless and an impertinent speculation, after giving up the 
whole point in debate. But it is farther pretended (p. 65.), that we 
‘‘ should confine ourselves to the clear and uncontroverted expressions 
““ of Scripture concerning them (the Son and Holy Spirit) and the 
‘‘ honour due unto them; and this is undoubtedly, upon all possible 
““ hypotheses, right and sofficient in practice.” But Jet this writer tell 
us, whether, in his opinion, every thing controverted is to be set aside, 
or only what is justly controverted. The former would come properly 
enough from a Deist, who will make Scripture itself a controverted 
point; and an Atheist would still go further. Let this gentleman shew 
that the Divinity, or direct worship of Christ is justly controverted : till 
he has done this, he has said nothing. It is ridiculous to tell us, (if 
that be his meaning,) that to worship the Father only, leaving out the 
Son and Holy Ghost, is sufficient, ‘upon all possible hypotheses ;” 
when upon the hypothesis that all the three Persons are one God, 
(which is something more than an hypothesis,) no one of the Persons 
can be entirely omitted without manifest iniquity and impiety. It is in 
vain to think of any expedients in this affair, while our doctrine stands 
unconfuted. There is no room left so much as for a neutrality, in the 
present case. For I will be bold to say, and bound to make it good, 
that, all circumstances considered, there can be no reasons sufficient to 
make a man neufer in this point, but what would be sufficient to deter- 
mine him on the opposite side. 

I shall here take leave of this writer, having occasionally remarked 
upon some passages of his, by way of sote to my Sermons; and 
designing, God willing, to consider every thing material (if I have here 
omitted any thing) hereafter; when I am favoured with a large and 
particular answer to my Defence of some Queries. 

There is another writer who, in a sixpenny pamphlet, has drawn his 
pen against me. It is entitled, The Unity of God not inconsistent with 
the Divinity of Christ: (nominal Divinity he means:) being Remarks 


on the Passages in Dr. Waterland’s Vindication &c. relating to the 
Unity of God, and to the Object of Worship. 

The author is a grave, sober writer; and ingenuously speaks his 
mind, without any doublings or disguises. It is a satisfaction to any 
man, who has no concern for any thing but truth, to have such an 
adversary to deal with; for then it is soon seen what we have to do. 
Much time, much trouble, much wrangling is saved : we presently enter 
into the merits of the cause, for the ease and benefit of the reader. 
This writer takes the Arian hypothesis : for he supposes the Son to have 
been a distinct Spirit (p. 7.); to have been God's instrument in the 
creation (p. 26.); not to be true God (p. 34.); to have been ignorant 
of the day of judgment, considered in his highest capacity, ¢. 6. as the 
second Person of the Trinity (p. 8.) Having seen his drift and design, 
let us next examine his performance. He does not undertake to shew 
that the received doctrine cannot be true; or that his own (i. 6. the 
Arian) must be true ; one of which I might reasonably have expected of 
him, since he pretends to have drawn up an answer to the main parts of 
my Vindication &c. But he is content to shew (so far as he is able) 
that his doctrine may be true, notwithstanding one or two arguments 
which I have made use of against it. In a word, he undertakes to 
prove that some of my arguments against Arianism are not conclusive. 
With what success, I come now to shew; after taking notice to the 
reader, that, supposing he had really done what he intended, it does 
not follow that the Arian doctrine must be true, nor that there are not 
arguments enough to prove it cannot be true ; but only that I have used 
an argument or two, which alone are not sufficient for my purpose. 
One considerable objection against the Arian scheme is, that it stands 
im opposition to the first and great commandment ; introducing two Gods, 
and two objects of worship ; not only against Scripture, but also against 
the unanimous sense of the Christian Church from the beginning, and 
of the Jewish Church before; which together are the safest and best 
comment we can have upon Scripture. This is one considerable 
objection, among many, against Arianism ; and is what this writer has 
undertook to answer. He applies himself particularly to the Exglish 
and unlearned reader, (p. 4.) whom he hopes to satisfy; the rather, I 
suppose, because the argument is learned, and must lose much of its 
force and strength on our side, when stripped of its additional advan- 
tages from history and antiquity : besides that the unlearned reader (espe- 
cially in this controversy) may be easily imposed upon by little turns and 
fallacies ; sach as have been tried, and examined, and despised, long 
ago, by those that have been thoroughly read and conversant in these 
matters. But to proeeed to what I design, by way of remark upon 



this writer and his performance: the sum of what he pretends to is 
contained in the following particulars : 

τ. That we have no sufficient grounds for charging the Arian doc- 
trine with the belief or worship of two Gods. 

ἃ. Nor for our own doctrine that Father and Son are one God. 

4. That we have no certain warrant for appropriating every kind and 
degree of religious worship to God alone. 

4. That mediatorial worship may be due to Christ, though not true 
God, or supreme God. 

gs. That Dr. Waterland has, in effect, given up the mam of what the 
Arians contend for. 

These several particulars (containing his sense, though, for brevity 
and perspicuity, expressed in my own words) must be examined in their 

1. He pretends, first, that we have no sufficient grounds for charging 
the Arian doctrine with the belief or worship of two Gods. He has a 
particular fancy of his own, that the phrase two Gods signifies two 
supreme independent Gods, p. 32. And that a supreme God and a sub- 
ordinate God are not two Gods, p. 34. I shall, first, examine his reasons 
for this; and, next, endeavour to convince him that it is neither true 
in itzelf, nor would answer his purpose, if it really were true. 

He obeerves, from Matt. vi. 24. that two masters do not there mean 
a supreme and a subordinate master, but two coordinate or independent 
masters, ἢ. 32. He could not have pitched upon an instance less to 
his purpose. It may appear somewhat harsh to put God and mammon 
so much upon the level, as to suppose them two coordinate or inde. 
pendent masters: but, waving that, it is very plain that the text is 
meant of two opposite or disagreeing masters, whether coordinate or 
subordinate. If two coordinate masters agreed perfectly together, it 
would be as easy to serve both as one. If this text be any rule for the 
common way of speaking, two coordinate or independent masters (pro- 
vided they were but wise enough and good enough to agree constantly 
in every thing) could not be justly called two masters. The Trinitarian 
Tritheists, if there be any such, will, I suppose, be very thankful to 
our author for this discovery. Upon the hardest supposition that can 
be made, the doctrine of the Trinity, upon these principles, will stand 
perfectly clear of Tritheism: so that if the author has any way served 
his own cause, he has at the same time been extremely kind to his ad- 
versaries. But what hinders this text from being at all serviceable 
either to one or the other is, that the erpression here, in St. Matthew, 
is somewhat particular and unusual; and can by no means be made 
a rule of speech, against the more general and current use of language. 


This writer endeavours, next, to find some instances of a sovereign 
and a subordinate king, which together were not, or are not, two kings. 
He instances in David and Solomon; who were not, that I know of, 
each of them a king at the same time. He proceeds farther to the in- 
stance of Pharach and Joseph; that is, of a king and no king: and he 
inetances in a king of Great Britain and a lord lieutenant of Ireland ; 
that is, again, a king and no king: so hard a matter is it any where to 
meet with two that are kings, and yet are not iwo kings. 

He observes, next, that ‘“‘one Saviour, one Master, one Potentate, 
“‘ one Father, one Lord, one Shepherd, &c. signify one supreme Saviour, 
“‘ Potentate, Master, &c. and s0 two Gods must necessarily signify two 
‘“‘ supreme Gods,” p. 33. But, for any thing he knows, ‘‘ one Saviour, 
“‘one Master, one Potentate, &c.” may as well signify one heavenly, or 
one adorable, or one necessarily existent Saviour, Master, Potentate, &c. 
one, in some distinguishing, emphatical sense, whatever it be; yet not 
excluding what essentially belongs to that one. Our blessed Lord is one 
Lord, (1 Cor. viii.6.) and yet I hardly believe our author will construe it 
one supreme Lord, or one Lord in the highest sense. He is aleo ow 
Saviour, emphatically and eminently so styled; yet this writer will not 
from thence conclude that he is supreme Saviour, and all others (suppose 
the Father himself) subordinate to him. This author therefore has 
taken a very uncertain and fallible rule for the interpreting of emphatical 
appellations. Besides that if one God signifies one supreme God; then, 
since all but the supreme God are excluded from being Gods, in any 
religious sense, the consequence is, that an inferior God is no God; not 
that a supreme and an inferior God (were they really each of them a 
God) are not twe Gods. This gentleman then, we see, is very far from 
proving his point. We may, in the next place, consider, whether it be 
not capable of a clear confutation. 

I had before argued that one God and axother God make éwo Gods, or 
elee one of them is so God, contrary to the supposition: which reason- 
ing is so plain and strong, that I thought it might be trusted with the 
meanest reader. But this serious gentleman (1 know not why, except it 
be that he is not used to consider this controversy) suspects it all to be 
banter, p.36. I will offer one argument more, which perhaps mey take 
with him. The Pagans, though they professed generally (as is well 
known to the learned) one only supreme God, looking upon all the reat 
as subordinate ministers of the one supreme, yet stand charged with Poly- 
theism by the Jews, by the ancient Christians, by the common consent 
of mankind. Thus Jupiter and Mercury (though one was sapposed a 
subordinate minister of the other) were, by the Lycaonians, spoken of in 
the plural number as gods; that is, two gods, Acts xiv.11,12- And this 



has been the common way of speaking in all writers I have met with, 
sacred or profane, ancient or modern. 

Bat what if the customary usage of language had been otherwise ? 
does this writer imagine that the dispute is only about a name? If the 
changing of a same would set all right, I do not know any man of sense 
that would contend about such a trifle. To extricate this matter, Poly- 
theism raay be considered either in a stricter or a larger sense: it may 
either signify the belief of more Gods than one, in the proper sense of 
necessarily existing, supreme, &c. (in which sense there have been few, 
very few Polytheists; the Pagans themselves, generally, were not Poly- 
theists in this sense;) or it may signify the receiving more Gods than 
one, in respect of religious worship, whatever opinion of those Gods 
they may otherwise have. It is this kind of Polytheism which the first 
commandment has chiefly respect to: and it is the same that Pagans, 
_ Arians, and Socinians, stand justly charged with. Should any man 

alter the xame, the thing would be the same still. For suppose we 
should not call it Polytheism, it would not appear at all the better 
under the name of idelatry ; which it really is, as well as Polytheism. 
I must observe farther, that though the Arians or Socinians, or other 
such Polytheists, do not believe in two supreme Gods, and 80, in that 
respect, are not speculative Tritheists, or Ditheiste; yet by paying wor- 
ship, religious worship, (the tncommunicable honour due to the supreme 
God. only,) to two Gods, they do by construction and implication, though 
not in intention, make (wo supreme Gods; and consequently are practical 
Ditheists, at least, even in the highest and strictest sense of Ditheism.— 
Thus much may suffice for the first particular. This author has not 
eleared the Arian doctrine from the charge of receiving two Gods: nor, 
δ he had, would his cause be at all the better by changing the name 
from Polytheism, or Ditheism, to that of idolatry. Not to mention that, 
upon his principles, it is the easiest thing in the world for the Catholics, 
admitting a subordination of order, to get perfectly clear of Tritheism, 
which is the grand objection ®: besides that, in his way of explaining 
the exclusive terms, the Catholics will easily answer every text he can 
bring to prove the Father only to be the true God: for it is only saying 
that he is 20 emphatically, or unoriginately, and the Son may be true God 
and necessarily existing notwithstanding : so that if this writer has at all 
weakened one of our arguments against the Arians, he has, at the same 

9 Just and wise is the reflection of a μῶν καὶ Oedriyra, σοὶ δὲ παρέμεινε 
judicious Father on this head, in the θε nS, καὶ εἰ ὃ λόγος ἠσθένησε, κρεῖσσον 
following words: Μήτε τὸ τῆς τριθεΐας καμεῖν ἐν τοῖς λογισμοῖς μετὰ τῆς ὁδηγίας 
ἔγκλη μα αἰσχανθῆ, ἕως: ἂν καὶ ἄλλος κιν- τοῦ πνεύματος, ἣ προσχείρως ἀσεβῆσαι, τὴν 
Surety τὴν διθεΐαν. ἢ γὰρ συνέλυσας, A ῥαστώνην διώκοντα, Greg. Nasians. Oral. 
συνηπόρησα:, ἣ ὁ μὲν ἐνανάγησο μετὰ τῶν xxiii. p. 422. 


time, very kindly cut the sinews of al/, or however of the most con- 
siderable arguments of the Arians against us ; and so has really disserved 
his own cause, more than he has served it. 

2. The second particular which I propose to examine is, his pretence 
that “‘ we have not sufficient grounds to conclude that Father and Son 
‘‘are one God.” He does not undertake to examine or confute all we - 
have to urge upon that head: but so much only as we urge by way 
of proof! of Christ’s Divinity. We are used to plead thus: the Father 
is God, and the Son God, and yet God is one: therefore Father and Son 
are one God. This is the argument (though rather too briefly expressed) 
which he labours to confute for many pages together. We are now to 
see how he has performed. 

He observes that God is the only Saviour, Othniel also a Saviour ; 
and yet God and Othniel are not one Saviour, p.17. Again, God only 
is holy, a Bishop must be holy ; and yet God and a Bishop are not one 
holy being, p.19. God only is Master, some men are masters, and yet 
God and an earthly master are not one master. These things he delivers 
seriously, without the least air of banter ; and goes on, in the simplicity 
of his heart, with the like instances to the number of twenty-eight, as he 
observes, p. 30. I am very willing to take his word without counting 
them ; nay, and to add two or three more to the number. For God is one, 
and Moses was God; and yet God and Moses were not one God. God 
is one, and the Devil is God, (2 Cor. iv. 4.) and yet God and the Devil 
are not one being. Angels are gods, and magistrates gods; and yet God 
with his angels, or with magistrates, does not make one being. This 1s 
so plain, that even the Trinitarians (blind as they are thought) both see 
and confess it: which had the author considered, he might have saved 
himself some trouble, and as much waste of time. The short of the case 
is this: Though there be gods many, and lords many, yet there is but 
one God and Lord to be honoured with religious worship: now Christ 
is God and Lord, in such a sense as to be honoured with religious 
worship ; therefore Christ is the one God. The premises I have proved 
in my Defence, vol. i. Qu. 16,17. The conclusion makes itself. This 
is the Catholic argument, which I leave the gentleman once more to 
exercise his thoughts upon; desiring him, particularly, to answer my 
reasons against any inferior or subordinate, but adorableGods. I easily 
perceive now, why he did not understand a plain question which I asked : 
Where did the Scripture give any intimation of two true Gods ? See what 
he says to it, p.34. I know but one God that is to be worshipped ; 

{ N.B. Every argument which proves God inferred afterwards. The argument 
Christ to be God in the strict sense, from worship proceeds differently, prov- 
proves him to be the one God, since God ing Christ to be God in the strict sense, 
is one. But in that way Christ’s Divinity because he is the one true aderable 
is presupposed ; and his being the one God. 


that one God is the true God; more adorable Gods than one are, by 
necessary coustruction and implication, more true Gods. 

4. The third particular which this writer insists upon (in sense, I 
mean, not in ¢erms) is, that we have no sufficient warrant for appro- 
priating all kinds and degrees of religious or divine worship to the true 
God only. Here indeed lies the very pinch of the argument. For if 
all religious worship be not appropriate to the one true God, the Arians 
(so far as I apprehend) are not justly chargeable with idolatry or Poly- 
theism for worshipping a creature; neither is our argument from 
worship alone sufficient to prove that Father and Son are ore God. I 
have (in my Defence, vol. i. Qu. 16.) shewn at large, that all acts of 
religious worship are, in Scripture, appropriated to the one true God, 
in opposition to creature-worship. I have to Scripture added the con- 
curring sentiments of the primitive Christians. I might have added 
the sentiments likewise of the ancient and later Jews to the same 
purpose ; which, however, the reader may find collected in Dr. Cud- 
worths. This argument has been learnedly and accurately handled 
by many great men (particularly by Bp. Stillingfleet) against the 
Papists. As the point is of great concernment, so the evidence appears 
every way answerable to it. Greater or stronger proofs cannot be 
expected, or reasonably desired, in a thing of this nature, than express 
Scripiure, confirmed by the concurring sentiments both of the Jews 
before Christianity, and the Christian Church from the beginning ; 
not to mention what may be farther pleaded from the nature and 
reason of the thing itself. This writer, on the other hand, has little 
or nothing of weight to oppose to such a cloud of witnesses. He does 
indeed give us his own sentiments, or rather wishes: for if you ask for 
proof, he has none. He first falls to conjecture (p. 39.), how he thinks 
this matter of worship might stand: that is, supposing he had had the 
direction of an affair, which an all-wise God has took into his own 
hands. He tells us how it might be reasonable (that is, supposing 
he is wise enough to dictate to God) to ask pardon of Christ, or any 
other blessings, and to thank him for them upon his hypothesis, i.e. 
supposing Christ to be no more than a creature. All this is only 
guessing, presumptuous guessing. P. 52. he lays down his whole 
doctrine concerning worship in these three particulars: 1. That all our 
worship terminate upon the one supreme God. 4. That it be not 
offered to other Gods; any farther than our worshipping of them is 
really a worshipping of Aim, as redounding to his glory. 3. That it be 
not offered to other Gods, (that is his sense,) any farther than the 
supreme God has commanded. 

1, As to the first rule, it is groundless and insignificant. Groundless, 

© Cudworth, Intellect, Syst. p. 465, διά. 


because he can produce no Scripture proof of it. We can easily shew 
that God alone is to be worshipped: where is it said that all worship, 
whether offered to God or creatures, must terninate upon God? He 
pleads (p. 51.) that the priests serve the tabernacle, (Heb. xiii. 10.) 
which service of theirs terminated upon God. But let him shew that 
serving there bears such a sense, as when we are said to serve God; or 
that the priests worshipped the tabernacle; and then the instance may 
appear more to the purpose. He pleads farther, that though we are 
to serve God only, yet we are allowed to serve others also, p. 51. 
Therefore, I suppoee, though we are to worship God only, yet we may 
be allowed to worship others also. But when we are ordered to serve 
God only, religious service, not every kind of service, is intended; which 
religious service is not to be paid to creatures, Rom. i. 25. not to those 
that ‘‘ by nature are no Gods,” Gal. iv. 8. Having shewn then that 
this firat rule of our author's is groundless, I must next observe that it 
is trifing and insignificant. The very Papists and Pagans, in their 
grossest idolatry or image-worship, keep up to this rule. They ‘erminate, 
at least intentionally, all their worship upon the one supreme God. 

2. This gentleman’s second rule for worship is, that it must not be 
offered to other Gods, any farther than our worshipping of them is 
really worshipping of the supreme God, as redounding to his glory. 
But who can assure us that any worship of the creature is really 
worshipping of God ; or that it does or can redound to God’s glory ἢ 
Are we better judges of what is properly the worshipping of God, or 
of what is most for his glory, than God himself is? If this gentleman 
can prove that any creature-worship is really the worshipping of God, or 
that it redounds to God's glory, he will then do something. I mention 
not, that both Popish and Pagan idolaters pretend, that all their wor- 
ship is really the worshipping of the one supreme God, and redounds 
to his glory. But Divine wisdom seems to have fixed the affair of 
worship upon quite another foot, as it were on purpose to cut off all 
euch pretences of men, wise in their own conceits. 

4. The last rule laid down by this writer is, that worship be not 
offered to others, any farther than the supreme God has commanded. 
This is a safe and a good rule; and I wish that this gentleman, and 
such others, would abide by it. It is evident from the whole tenour of 
Scriptare, that God has not only not commanded, but absolutely pro- 
hibited, all creature-worship ; and laid it down as a fundamental rule, 
that God alone is to be worshipped, because he is God, in opposition to 
all that do not stand possessed of those excellencies and perfections 
which belong to God. If therefore this rule be good, as it certainly is, 
all creature-worship is for ever precluded by it. I proceed to, 

4. A fourth particalar maintained by this writer, vis. that media- 


torial worship may belon; to Christ, though not true God, or supreme 
God. But he has not proved that there is any such thing as me- 
diatorial worship, distinct from Divine. If Christ our Mediator is 
worshipped, it is because he is God as well as man, a Divine Mediator. 
This writer cannot prove that Christ’s mediatorial office is the ground 
and foundation of the worship which we are commanded to pay him: 
but it may, on the contrary, be proved that it is not. As to what he 
pretends from John v. 22, 23. I refer the reader to my defence of 
Qu. 19. vol. i. which this gentleman should have answered, instead of 
repeating an old objection. As to Phil. ii. 9, 10,11. I refer to my 
fifth Sermon, and to my defence of Qu. 18. vol. 1. p. 189, &c. where I 
shew that these and the like pretences are calculated only for the 
Socinian hypothesis, and come very absurdly from the pen of an 
Arian. As to Rev. i. 5, 6, and v.12. I refer to my Defence, vol. i. 
Ῥ. 195,196. which this gentleman has attempted to answer in part, 
but has not done it. I had said, ‘‘ that the essential dignity of Christ’s 
“‘ Person is really the ground and foundation of honour and esteem, 
‘* (and consequently of worship, the highest expression of both,) which 
*‘ ought always to bear proportion to the intrinsic excellency of the 
“« object,” (Defence, vol. i. p. 196.) To this he replies, ‘‘ that if we 
“* take worship to signify prayer and thanksgiving, then my assertion is 
** plainly false: for the essential dignity of Christ’s Person is not the 
“ ground on which his title to prayer and thanksgiving is founded.” To 
which I rejoin, that prayer and thanksgiving, considered merely under 
the notion of asking a favour, or giving thanks for it, (as this gentleman 
seems to understand them,) do not suppose any Divine excellency in 
the person we ask of, or give thanks to: for we may ask a favour of a 
man or an angel, present with us, and give thanks to them for what 
they have done. But prayer and thanksgiving, ip the religious sense, 
considered as acts of worship, suppose Divine excellency in the object 
we address to, God having commanded all worship, properly such, to be 
paid to God alone, making it thereby incommunicable to any creature. 
In a word then, prayer and thanksgiving, under one consideration, are 
founded in kindnesses to be received, or already received: but con- 
sidered as parts of religious worship, they carry in them the same 
significancy which sacrifice or any other instance of religious worship 
does; are outward marks and expressions of that honour which belongs 
to God only, and are therefore founded in the essential dignity of the 
person to whom this honour is paid. This writer observes justly enough, 
(p. 43.) “ that there would be no obligation either to prayer or thanks- 
“ giving, if God did not exercise a providence over the world; and 
“from thence he infers, (p. 44.) that God’s government of the 
“ world is the foundation of this kind of worshép.” This may be true, 


ma certain sense, and very consistent with what I had said, according 
as prayer and thanksgiving may be taken under different conceptions. 
I considered them under such precise formality, as erpressions or marks 
of honour : and that my reasoning was just, is capable of being proved, 
even with the evidence of demonstration. I shall make it out distinctly, 
step by step, as follows. There is no reason why I should esteem or 
think any thing thus or thus excellent, but because it really is so ; 
therefore the intrinsic excellency of the thing is the sole foundation of 
all just value or esteem. Inward honour is a mental acknowledgment 
of that esteem which I have of, or bear towards, the thing so esteemed, 
and consequently rests upon the same founilation: worship, considered 
as an outward expression or mark of that honour, (as it must be con- 
sidered when once appropriated to the one only greatest and most 
excellent Being»,) rests upon the same foundation that the honour 
does: prayer and thanksgiving, considered as parts of religious worshsp, 
(and consequently as marks and expressions of that highest honour, 
which is appropriate to the greatest and best of Beings,) has the same 
foundation which all worship has; that is, which Aoxour bas; that is, 
which esteem has; that is, the intrinsic excellency of the object : which 
was to be proved. There is no answering this, but either by denying 
prayer and thanksgiving to be parts of religious worship ; or by shewing 
that all worship is not appropriate to God. Thus far I have proceeded 
in observing, that this writer has not been able to make good his 
position, that the worship of Christ is founded on his mediatorial 
office. The contrary may be proved from two plain reasons : 

1. That the only Scriptural foundation of any religious worship is 
the Divinity of the person to be adored, in opposition to all creature- 
worship ; as I have formerly proved in my Defence, &c. vol. i. Qu. 16. 
And it is worth observing, how naturally and how easily this falls in 
with the commands to worship Christ ; since the same Scriptures, which 
declare him to be adorable, describe him also as God; and, together 

ΝΥ shall endeavour to illustrate this 

matter for the sake of common readers. 
We read in Daniel, chap. vi. of a law 
made that no petition should be offered to 
any one for thirty days, save to the king 

appropriated ensigns 
of royal pre and majesty, and acknow- 
ledgments n to 

it wae capable of obdiging him, and upon 
that foundation (the sole foundation of all 

petitions) he had petitioned him ; he would 
presently have been told, that the re- 
ceiving a petition was a privilege of the 
crown, and went along with the throne ; 
that there could not now be any legal 
foundation for it, but the royalty of the 
person to whom it should be offered. 
Now, put for reyally, Divine perfections ; 
and for petitions, religious prayer and 
thanksgiving ; which are appropriated, 
not for thiriy days, but for ever, to God ; 
and it will appear that the only lawful 
foundation of religious prayer and thanks- 
giving, considered as parts of worship, is 
the Divinity, {. 6. the inérinsio excellency 
of the object. 


with the name, ascribe to him likewise those Divine perfections which 
make up and form the tdea signified by so august and venerable a 

2. That the mediatorial office will cease at the day of judgment, and 
therefore cannot be the foundation of that worship which will continue 
beyond it; even for ever and ever, as Christ’s worship will. See 
Ro.a. ix. 5. Heb. xiii. 21, 1 Pet. iv. 11. 2 Pet. iti. 18. Rev.i. 5, 6. 
Vv. 12, 13. 

This gentleman demands of me a plain Scriptare text, where it is 
said that Christ is to be worshipped as being God, equal to the Father. 
But to this I answer, that Scripture supposes men to have common 
sense ; and therefore when Scripture has laid down one only rule and 
JSoundation of worship, and it appears from the same Scripture that 
Christ is to be worshipped; there is no need of any thing farther, 
the rest follows of course. Besides, that though Scripture has not 
In express terms said that he is to be worshipped on that particular 
account; yet, since Scripture has asserted the equality of the Son to 
the Father, in more places than one, and his right to worship too; a 
very little logic will suffice to shew what relation these two things must 
have to each other. 

5- A fifth particular maintained by this writer, though it concerns 
myself more than the cause, I am now to take notice of. ‘‘ Dr. Water- 
“ land,” he says (p. 54.), ‘‘ has, in one passage, given up both points ”’ 
(viz. that the Son is God in a lower sense of the word God, and is to 
be worshipped only as Mediator) “to us.” But where have I said 
either, or any thing like it? I have given nothing up, that I know of, 
which can do this writer, or his cause, any service. I have said, that 
the Father is primarily and eminently God, Creator, and object of 
worship: which he may be, without supposing him to be God in any 
higher or any different sense of the word God, Creator, &c. A different 
manner or order of existing or operating may, in many cases, be saf- 
ficient to ground an emphasis upon, (a8 might be proved by plain 
instances,) without recurring to a higher and lower sense of the words. 
As to the allowing of a subordination, it is so far from inferring a lower 
sense of the word God, &c. that, in strict propriety of speech, it implies 
the contrary ; as I have before observed more at large. 

_ Having thus examined and answered the most material pretences 
which this wrifer insists upon in favour of Arianism, or in opposition 
to the Catholic doctrine, I might now take my leave of him. But it 
may be proper first to say something to a pretended contradiction, which 
not only he, (p. 6.) but the Modest Pleader also, (p. 48.) has been 
pleased to charge me with; as it is usual with many to think every 
thing contradictory which they cannot readily reconcile. 


My words are, (Defence, vol. i. &c. p. 248.) “Each divine Person 
“is an indsvidual intelligent agent : but as subsisting in one undivided 
** substance, they are all together, in that respect, but one undivided 
“intelligent agent.” This, they tell me, is to say, that three persons 
are one person. But, if they please to think again, they will find it is 
no more than saying, that person, and undivided intelligent agent, are 
not reciprocal. Undivided or individual intelligent agent, like the 
phrase individual being, may admit of a stricter and a larger sense. 
When this writer is able to fix a certain principle of individuation, he 
may then perhaps have something of colour for the charge of contra- 
diction. See this matter more distinctly and fully esplamed in my 
Defence, &c. vol. i. p. 122. 

I have detained my reader long enough, I fear too long, in the 
Preface. But I was willing, having this fresh opportunity of appearing 
in public, to take some notice of those two pamphlets, (the only ones 
that deserved it,) which had objected to my Vindication of Christ’s 
Divinity, vol.iv. If I have, either through haste, or through a desire 
of brevity, slipped over any thing of real weight, or that may create any 
scruple or difficulty with impartial and considering men; I shall, when 
apprised of it, (if God permit,) carefully and fully examine and discuss 
that, and whatever else falls within the compass of what I have under- 
taken, namely, the point of Christ’s real Divinity, in opposition to the 
pretended Divinity maintained by the Arians. 

I should just observe to the reader, that some of the Sermons, as 
they appear in print, are somewhat longer than when preached. The 
three last especially are so, which I was obliged to shorten in the 
preaching, passing over several pages, for fear of keeping the audience 
too long. Some xotes I have here and there added at the bottom, since 
the Sermons were delivered; though much the greater part were pre- 
pared before. I thought it very proper to intermix all along with 
Scripture the testimonies of the ancients, as the best comments upon it. 
The reader will be the better satisfied in having a view of both together; 
and our adversaries may perhaps see cause to abate of their unreasonable 
and unaccountable boasts that way, when it appears from so many plain 
and clear proofs, that their pretences to antiquity are groundless, and 
their faith novel as it is false. 

I cannot here forget to mention my obligations to the Reverend Dr. 
Knight, of St. Sepulchre’s, London ; whose great learning and judgment 
are equal to his singular modesty and ingenuity ; and to whose judicious 
observations it is owing, that the following Sermons appear more cor- 
rect, and may, I hope, be more useful, than they would otherwise have 

Digitized by Google 

Christ God in the strict and proper sense : 




The first Sermon preached Sepf. 9, 1719. 

ΦΌΗΝ 1.1. 
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and 
the Word was God. 

SAINT John the beloved Disciple, the undoubted author of 
this Gospel which bears his name, was the youngest of the 
Apostles, and survived the rest many years. He saw so much 
the more of the state of Christianity, and of the progress it 
made under two persecutions; the first by Nero, the second by 
Domitian. Under the latter, he himself had inevitably suffered, 
had not God miraculously preserved him. After this, he was 
banished into Patmos, a little island in the Archipelago; and, 
during his retirement there, was favoured in a particular man- 
ner with revelations from heaven; which he committed to 
writing, and left behind him for the benefit of the Church. 
After a year or two's exile, it pleased God to call him forth 
again to Ephesus, his usual seat of residence; and there he 
passed the short remainder of his days, being then ninety years 
old, in the most divine and comfortable employment; taking 
upon him the charge of the churches of Christ, those especially 
of the Lesser Asia. As there must be Aeresies at all times, 
(mfinite wisdom permitting them for great ends and reasons,) 
so were there not wanting, even in the times of the Apostles, 

80 Christ's Diommity SERM. I. 

some denying the divinity, others the humanity of our blessed 
Lord, and both for the same reason; being offended at the 
great and unsearchable mystery of God incarnate. The tares 
had been sown by Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and others; and 
were grown up to a great height before St. John’s death. This 
made it the more necessary for him to write his Goapel ; which 
accordingly he undertook at the request of the bishops of Asia, 
and the brethren of the neighbouring provinces. But first he 
appointed solemn fasting and prayer for the divine blessing and 
assistance in it; after which being more fully instructed and 
more plentifully inspired, he thus began his lofty theme. “ In 
“the beginning was the Worn, and the Worp was with God, 
‘and the Worp was God. The same was in the beginning with 
“God. All things were made by him, and without him was not 
‘“ any thing made that was made.” In these few words, and 
those that follow in that chapter, the good Apostle has not only 
confuted most of the heresies then on foot, but has obviated as 
many as should thereafter rise up in opposition to the dwinity, 
personality, or incarnation of the Son of God: points of the 
greatest concernment to all Christians, but which nevertheless 
(through the perverseness of men’s wits, and their proneness to 
take wrong measures of divine things) have been a stone of 
stumbleng and a rock of offence to the disputers of thss world, in 
former and in latter ages. This firat chapter of St. John (as I 
said) is alone sufficient, with reasonable men, to end all disputes 
upon those heads. The words are plain, and the sense clear 
when carefully looked into; and it is for that very reason that 
they have been more tampered with than any in the whole 
Scriptures. For, when the obvious and natural meaning of a 
text happens to stand in the way of an hypotheste, or precon- 
ceived opmion, pains must be taken to darken the evidence, and 
to perplex the proofs which make against it. My design is 
briefly to enumerate the several interpretations which have 
been given of this chapter, to remark upon them as far as is 
needful, and to establish the only true one. They are reducible 
to four; which I may call Sabellian, Soecinian, Arian, and Ca- 
tholic. I shall explain them in their order. To begin with 
the first. 

1. Under the Sabellian interpretation I include all that be- 
longs to men of Sabellian principles, whether before or after the 
tames of Sabellius, who lived about the middle of the third cen- 

BEAM. I. asserted from John i. 1. 31 

tury. The Sabellians deny the Λόγος, or Worn, whereof St. John 
speaks, to be any real or substantial thing, distinct from the 
Person of God the Father. They understand by the Word, 
either some atiribute, power, or operation inherent and perma- 
nent in the Father; or else some transient voice, sownd, and the 
like. How they came into these and the like fancies, I shall 
shew presently, after I have premised a few things about the 
name of the Λόγος, or Worn, which St. John uses. I do not 
design any historical account of the use of the term among Jews 
ΟΣ Gentiles; being happily prevented, in that part, by a late 
excellent sermon of a very worthy and learned Prelate*. But 
I must observe that the Greek Λόγος, which we render Worn, 
may signify either taward thought, or ouéward speech. And it 
has with good reason been supposed by the Catholic writers, 
that the design of this name was to intimate that the relation of 
Father and Son bears some resemblance and analogy to that 
of thought, or of speech to the mind». For example: as thought 
ig cosvad with the mind; so the Son is coeval with the Father¢. 
As thought is closely united to, proceeds from, and yet remains 
in the mind; so also may we understand that the Son is in the 
bosom of the Father, proceeding from him, yet never divided or 
separate, but remaining in him and with him. As to speech, it 
is properly the tnéerpraer of the mind ; and so, in this respect 
also, there is some resemblance and analogy, the Son being as 
it were interpreter and revealer of the unknown Father to the 
world4, Some of the ancient Catholic writers* joining both 

® Bishop of Lichfield and Coven- 
Sermon before the King. 

b Adyos δὲ ὅτι οὕτως ἔχει πρὸς τὸν 

πατέρα ὡς πρὸς νοῦν λόγος. οὐ μόνον 

πε τὸ ἀπαθὲς τῇ gh tie Ande ἀλλὰ καὶ 

ἐξαγγελτικὸν------ πε 

Dr ade καὶ 
Greg. Orat. xxxvi. p. 590. Vid. 
etiam Basil. Hom.15. Petav. de Trin. 

τ᾿ id. Dionys. Alex. apud Athanas, 


zt 4°Ob hoc Verbum nuncupatur, quia 
prio divmo ore processit, et 
il Pater sine eo aut jussit, aut fecit. 
Peeud. Ambros. de Fid. Orth. cap. vi. 

Ρ. 353. ed. Bened. 
Δύναται δὲ καὶ ὁ λόγος υἱὸς εἶναι 
παρὰ τῷ ἀπαγγέλλειν τὰ κρύφια τοῦ 
ἐκείνου, ἀνάλογον τῷ καλουμένῳ 

vig, λόγῳ νοῦ τυγχάνοντος" ὧς γὰρ 6 

wap’ ἡμῖν λόγος “Αγγελός ἐ ἐστι τῶν ὑπὸ 

τοῦ you ὁρωμένων, οὕτως ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
λόγος ς μα a slp Ear hey 
Norra be Ὁ Orig. Comm, 
in Jok. p. 41. "vid. vet Just. Mart. 

Ῥ. 358. Iren. lib. ii. cap. 20. 
P- 103, 
eophilus Bishop of Antioch, 
where a speaks of the Adyos ἐνδιάθε: 
ros and sropoptt (p. 129.) is thus 
to be und rage idea in his 
ece against xeas, a great 
ae to the same pu : Athena- 
goras, Tatian, and Hippolytue, though 
more obscurely, seem to have in- 
tended the same. And even Origen 
himself had adopted the like notion, 
88 ΤᾺΣ appear from: the following 

"Ede ἐπιμελῶς ἐξετάζωμεν αὐτοῦ wd- 

82 Christ's Duownity SERM. I. 
these notions together, have considered them as applicable to 
the Son at different times, and in different capacities. Before 
the world was made, while he yet existed alone with the Father, 
(always including the Holy Ghost,) they supposed he might 
best be compared to silent thought resting in the mind, and 
which in Greek is called Λόγος évd:d0eros. But when he after- 
wards came to create the world, and to reveal both himself and 
his Father, then he might more properly be eompared to ouf- 
ward speech, or a word spoken forth, which the Greeks express 
by λόγος προφορικός. And thus it is that the same writers 
sometimes speak of the Λόγος, or Worp, being both eternal, and 
in time: eternal in one capacity, not so in the other. For as 
thought must be considered previous to speech, so the Adyos, or 
Worp, under one consideration might be conceived more ancient 
than under the other. 

Thus far the Catholics, sober men, carried on the parallel ; 
and there was no harm in it, while they kept close to the rule 
of faith, and within the bounds of sobriety. But the Sabellian 
heretics did not stop there. They pursued the parallel still 
farther, till they left the Λόγος, or Worp, no distinct persenality. 
They observed that inward thought was no real substantial thing, 
distinct from the mind itself; and that outward speech was but 
& voice or sound, nothing fixed, real, and permanent: and from 
hence they took occasion to misinterpret the Apostle very 
widely; as if the Worp, which he speaks of, were nothing 
really distinct from the Father, not a second Person, any more 
than a man’s thought, or word, is another person from the man. 
This kind of construction was openly received and propagated 

σας τὰς ἐπινοίας, μόνον κατὰ τὸ εἶναι 
σοφία ἀρχή ἐστι. ὡς εἰπεῖν ἄν τινα 
τε αῤῥηκότως πρεσβύτερον πάντων τῶν 
ἐπινοουμένων ταῖς ᾿ὀνομασίαις τοῦ πρω- 
τοτόκου πάσης κτίσεώς ἐστιν ἡ σοφία. 
Orig. in Joh. p.19. 
ake ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ λόγο:------ἀρχὴ δὲ 
δ᾽ μαρευρίαν τῶν ἐκ τῶν παροιμιῶν 
ἀποδέδοται εἰρῆσθαι ἡ ἡ σοφία, καὶ ἔστι 

ested. ἡ σοφία τοῦ αὐτὴν 
ἕλλοντος λόγου, νοητέον τὸν ἐν 

τουτέστι τῇ σοφίᾳ, ate 
ἢ ra tn Joh. p.43. Compare 
P- 89. 

Afterwards Origen uses an argu- 
ment to prove that the Adyos has a 

real 0 λόγοι , and adds in conclu- 
sion : Ὁ :---τ-τ- ὦν σ 
τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχων, = Ὁ trike 
words are remarkable, and worth 
comparing with Tertullian’s upon 
the same subject, where he says: 
Jam in usu est nostrorum, per sim- 
εἱ licitatem interpretationis, sermonem 
cere in primordio apud Deum fuisse, 
cum magis rationem competat anti- 
quiorem baberi; quia non sermonalis 
ἃ principio, sed rationalis Deus etiam 
ante principium, et quia ipse quoque 
sermo ratione consistens, priorem eam 
ut substantiam suam ostendat. Tertull. 
contr. Praz. cap. v. 

ΒΒΕΜ. I. asserted from John 1.1. 33 

by fPhotinus, about the middle of the fourth century; by Paul 
of SSamosata, almost a century before him; by "Sabellius and 
Noétus earlier than he; and by 'Praxeas still higher up, about 
the end of the second century; and iprobably by some other 
heretetcs before him. What remains of it at this day is to be 
met with chiefly among the Socinians; those of them, I mean, 
who have refined upon their master Socinus, in this particular ; 
and are more properly Photinians, or Sabellians. A ‘celebrated 
writer abroad has openly espoused this Photinian notion in 
part; disguising it a little under the name reason, answering 
pretty nearly to the heretical sense of the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, or 
mward thought: so that now the Sabellian interpretation, after 
the latest improvements, runs thus: 

“In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was in God, and 
‘“ Reason was God himself. It was in God from the beginning, 
“before the world was: for whatever is in nature was made 
“ with the highest Reason, neither is there that single thing that 
“ was made without Reason.” 

But against this, or any other the like Sabellian construction 
of the first chapter of St. John, many unanswerable reasons 
have been urged both by ancients and moderns. 

1. Ag first, St. John does not say that the Worp was ἰΘεῖος, 
a divine Word, which might have favoured the Sabellian sense, 
but Θεὸς, God; thereby strongly denoting a real Person. A 
man’s word, or thought, ia not called man; nor would the Word 
or Wisdom of God be called God, if a mere attribute or opera- 
tion only was intended, and not a real Person. Or if it be said, 
that it does denote a Person, the same Person that was before 

f Hilar. p. 789, 1048, 1179. Am- 
bros. de Fid. lib. i. cap. 8. 
¢ Epiphan. Heres. lxv. p. 608, 

Epiphan. Heres. Ixv. p. 608. 

ι Tertull. contr. Prax. c. vii. viii. 

3 Vid. Clem. Alexandr. Strom. Ὁ. 
646. Iren. Ὁ. 130, 132, 157, 158. 

N.B. The notion of a λόγος ἐνδιά- 
Geros and προφορικὸς, in this heretical 
sense, is justly condemned by all the 
Fathers. Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, 
Ambrose, and other Catholics cen- 
sured it as smartly as the Council of 
Sirmium, Eusebius, or the Arians. 
Vid. Orig. in Joh. p. 24. in Jerem. 
p. 184. Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 120. 
de Laud. Const. ὁ. 12. Cyril. Hiero- 


οἷ age iv. c. 5. p.50. Athanas. 
xpos. Fid. p. 99. Orat. ii. p. 502. 
Basil. Hom. its p- 602. Paice 
de Fid. lib. iv. cap. 7. Ignat. Epist. 
Interpolat. ad Magnes. c.8. Some 
even of the Arians, after they came 
to make a distinction of a twofold 
λόγος, adopted, in part, this very Sa- 
bellian notion. Vid. Athanas. p. 903 
282, 260. Cyril. Alex. in Joh. Jib. 1. 
p- 30. Ambros. de Fid. lib. iv. c. 7. 

K Le Clerc, Comment. in Joh. i. 1. 

1 Vid. Euseb. contr. Mane? 83. 
Tertull. contr. Prax. p.504. Epiph. 
Heres. lxv. p. 609. Deus erat Ver- 
bum cessat Sonus vocis——Res est, 
non Sonus; natura, non Sermo; 
Deus, non inanitas est. Hilar. p. 796. 


34 Christ's Divinity SERM. I. 

spoken of as God, in the same verse; then how can the other 
words stand, that he was with God? He cannot be supposed 
the selfsame Person with whom he was. ™ With God, plainly 
signifies the same as with the Father, (see | John i. 2.) who is 
God. The Apostle can never be supposed to mean that the 
Father was with the Father; the Word therefore, if it denotes 
a Person at all, must be understood of another Person. But 
that it denotes a Person will appear further. 

2. For it is not said that the Worp, or Reason, was ἐπ God, 
as might be proper of an attribute, ὅσ. but with God; which is 
another personal character". 

3. It is said that all things were made by the Word: which 
(as appears from other texts) comes to the same as to say, that 
the Worp made all things: which is a further confirmation that 
a real thing is intended by the Worp, not an attribute only°. 

4. The Apostle observes (v. 8.) of John the Baptist, that he 
(ἐκεῖνος) was not that Light, intimating thereby that he had 
been speaking of a Person before, who really was: and therefore 
from hence also it appears that the Worp is something real. 

5. It is said, (ver. 11.) of the Worp, that “he came unto his 
“ own, and his own received him not.” This is good sense, and 
sounds well. But to say that Reason, the attribute, came unto 
its own, and its own received it not, has hardly either sense or 
propriety. | 

6. The Worp is represented (ver. 14.) as the only-begotten of 
the Father; which again is personal. For if begotten may be a 
proper expression, concerning an attribute or property ; yet only- 
begotten is not, unless God has no more attributes than one. 
The characters therefore being thus plainly personal, and no 
necessity appearing why we should have recourse to figure, the 
Kteral interpretation is undoubtedly preferable. 

7. I may add, lastly, that St.John in his “ Revelations” 
expressly applies the name of Λόγος, or Worn, to Christ Jesus. 
“ His name,” saith he, “is called the Worp of God.” Rev. 
XIX. 13. 

m ? δ ᾽ . . 

ὁ λόγος ἐστὶ πρὸς ἦν ἦν: οὐδὲ γὰρ 4 ὁ Fock enim ops quot fact ean 

πρὸς ὃν ἦν ἐστι λόγος. Epiphan. 

eres. ΙΧΥ. Ὁ. 609. 

Ὁ Verbum erat apud Deum. Nun- 
quid audieras in Deo, ut Sermonem 
recondite cogitationis acciperes ? 
non i altero esse, sed cum altero 

per illum. Quale est ut πίλΥϊ sit ipse 
sine quo nthil factum est ? Ut inanis 
solida, et vacuus plena, et incorporalis 
corporalia sit operatus? Tertull contr. 
Praz.c.7. Comp. Phebad. Ὁ. 304. 

SERM. I. asserted from John i. 1. 35 

These reasons are abundantly sufficient to convince us, that 
St. John intended not any attribute or operation by the Worp, 
but a real, ving, substantial thing or person, distinct from the 
Father: and so the Church of Christ from the beginning has 
constantly understood it. So much for the Sabellian interpre- 
tation of this chapter. 

2. The next that offers itself is the Socinian, properly so 
called; never espoused by Heretic or Catholic; never so much 
as thought of, at least not heard of, before the days of Socinus. 
He supposes St.John to have intended a real Pereon, by the 
Word, viz. the man Christ Jesus. His interpretation then is to 
this effect : 

“ In the beginning of the Gospel, was the man Christ Jesus, 
“ otherwise called the Worp. He was with God, having been 
“ taken up into heaven before he entered on his ministry. And 
“he was God, having the office, honour, and title of a God 
“ conferred upon him, after his resurrection. The same was tn 
“ the beginning of the Gospel with God. AN things belonging 
“to the Gospel-state were reformed and renewed by him: and 
“ without him was there not any thing reformed or renewed.” 

A construction so manifestly forced and foreign, as this is, 
carries its own confutation along with it. It serves only to 
shew what contempt the heads of a sect generally have, not 
only of the rest of mankind, but even of their own disciples ; 
while they can thus unmercifully impose the wildest conceits 
imaginable upon them. To do the later Socinians justice, they 
have, 1 think, for the most part given up this violent interpre- 
tation; and, instead of it, have rather closed in with the 
Sabellian construction, which is more ingenious and plausible, 
and serves their hypothesis as well. Neither of them will answer 
to the truth of the sacred Writ: they are both no other than 
the device of man, and must equally come to nought. 

I proceed to the Arian interpretation, which appears better 
than either of the former, as coming nearer to the true one: 
and it is for that Pvery reagon the most insinuating and 
dangerous of any. 

P Vinci illi vel facile possunt, vel innoxias mentes, et Soli Deo deditas, 
facile vitari, quorum prima proposi- fraudulenta societate percutere, dum 
tione omne consilium pectoris prodi- malorum suorum virus per bona nos- 
tur. At vero hi (Ariani) quibus multa tradefendunt. Pseud. Ambros. de Fid. 
nebiscum paria sunt, facile possunt Orthodoza, cap.i. p. 347. ed. Bened. 


86 Christ's Divinity SERM. 1. 

3. The Arian construction, invented probably before, but first 
openly espoused and propagated in the beginning of the fourth 
century, is as follows: 

‘In the beginning of all things, before ever the earth or the 
“ world was made, there existed a very glorious and excellent 
“4 creature, (since called the Worp,) the Oracle of God, and 
* Revealer of his will. That excellent Person, the first whom 
“ God of his own good pleasure and free choice gave being to, 
‘ was with God the Father; and he was God, another God, an 
“inferior God, infinitely inferior; but yet frudy God, as being 
“ truly partaker of divine glory then, and foreordained to have 
“ ¢rue dominion and authority in God’s own time. God em- 
“ ployed him as an instrument, or under agent, in framing and 
“ fashioning the world of inferior creatures; and approved of 
“ his services so well, as to do nothing without him.” 

This is the sum of the Arian interpretation, as nearly as I 
could draw it, out of the most general principles of the sect. 
For it must be observed that there never was a sect so divided 
and various, so unsettled and fluctuating in their principles as 
they. The reason of it is this; they take a kind of middle way 
between Catholics and Socinians, which admits of so great a 
latitude, that they know not where to fix. The Catholics look- 
ing upon the Son as essentially God in one capacity, and as man 
in another, easily know what may be proper to ascribe to him, 
in this or in that respect. The Socinians believing him to be 
man only, can as easily come to a resolution in the particulars 
of their scheme. But the Arians supposing him a creature at 
large, and not knowing the several degrees of perfection on this 
side infinite, are always in uncertainty; not being able to deter- 
mine how much or how little it may be proper to ascribe to 
the Son of God: and hence it is that they could never unite 
together in any one fixed and certain set of principles; but have 
been always wavering, various, and unconstant; and must ever 
be so to the world’s end. But this by the way: having laid 
before you the Arian interpretation, nothing now remains but 
to offer to you the Catholic sense of this chapter, which I mean 
to explain, and defend; and that will be the same thing with 
confuting the Arian. 

4. The Catholic construction, at length, is this: 

“In the beginning, before there was any creature, (consequently 
“from all eternity,) the Worn existed; and the Worp was no 

asserted from John i. 1. 37 

“ distant separate power, estranged from God, or unacquainted 
“with him, but he was with God, and himself also ivery God ; 
“ not another God, but another Person only, of the same nature, 
“ gubstance, and Godhead. AU things were created by him, &c.” 

This I presume to call the Catholic and truly primitive inter- 
pretation of the first verse of this chapter: and what time your 
patience will further allow me, shall be taken up in asserting 
and maintaining it. St. John has here called the Worn, God. 
In what sense, is the question. The context, and circumstances, 
and other collateral evidences must at length decide it. I shall 
first inquire, 

1. What kind of idea, or notion, Scripture and Christian 
antiquity give us of one that is truly and really God. And 

2. Shall consider what reasons we have to believe that 
St. John here calls the Λόγος, or Woxp, God, in the same sense, 
or in conformity to that idea. 

I. I shall inquire what kind of édea, or notion, Scripture and 
Christian ‘antiquity give us of one that is really and truly God. 
If we trace this matter through the Old Testament, we shall 
find that the Scripture-notion of a Person that is truly God, and 
should be received as such, includes in it power and might irre- 
sistibler ; perfect knowledge and consummate wisdom®, eernity*, 
immutability", and ommipresence®; creative powersy; supremacy, 
independence, and necessary ewistence. These are the distin- 
guishing characters under which God was pleased to make 
himself known: and it is upon these accounts that he, in oppo- 
sition to all other Gods, claims to be received and honoured as 
God. These therefore are what make up the Scripturetdea of 
a Person who is truly, really, and strictly God. And if Sorip- 

BERM. 1. 

4 Dei Verbum, imo magis ipse 
Deus. Iren. p. 132. 

ν yap ἄμφω ὁ Θεός" ὅτι εἶπεν, ἐν 
ἀρχῇ ὁ λόγος ἦν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ᾽ καὶ Θεὸς 
ἦν ὁ λόγος. Clem. Alea. p. 135. 

Alium autem quomodo accipere de- 
beas, jam professus sum. Persone, 
non substaniie nomine; ad distinc- 
tionem, non ad divisionem. Tertull. 
contr. Praz. p.506. Hunc didicimus 
Filium Dei esse, et Deum dictum ex 
unitate substantiz. Tertull. Apolog. 
c, 21. 

Ei δὲ οὖν ὁ λόγος πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, 
Θεὸς ὧν, τί οὖν φήσειεν ἄν τις δύο 

λέγειν θεούς ; Δύο μὲν οὐκ ἐρῶ θεοὺς 

ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἕνα, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, &c. Hip- 
pol. contr. Noét. c. xiv. p. 15. 

r Deut. iii. 24. vii. 19. xX. 17. XXXiL. 
39- 1 Chron. xxix. 11. Job ix. 4. 
xu. τό. xlii.2. Isa. xxvi. 4. xlii. 5. 

5 Job xxxvi. 4. xxxvii. 16. Dan. 
ii, 20. 

t Psal. xciii. 2. Job xxxvi. 26. Gen. 
xxi. 33. Deut. xxxiii. 27. Isa. lvil. 15. 

u Hal. iii. 6 

x Deut. iv. . Paal, cxxxix. 7, &c. 
Jer. xxiii. 23, 24. 2. 

y 2 Kings xix.15. Job xxvi. xxxviii. 
Peal. viii. 4. Isa. xlv. 7, 18. Jer. x. 
12. , 

z Exod. iii. 14. 


ture has thus informed us what properties, attributes, and 
perfections, must be supposed to meet in one that is trudy and 
properly God, our own reason must tell us, that these attributes, 
&c. must have a subject, and this subject we call substance: and 
therefore the Scripture-notion of God, is that of an eternal, 
immutable, omnipresent, omniscient, almighty substance. If it 
be pretended that these are the characters of a supreme God 
only, and not of every Person that is true God; I answer, that 
supremacy (negatively? considered in opposition to any superior 
nature) is one of the characters belonging to any Person that is 
truly God, as much as omnipotence, omniscience, or any other; 
and consequently he is not truly God, in the Scripture-notion of 
God, who is not supreme God. This is the Scripture-notion 
of one that is truly God; and thus it stood when St. John 
wrote his Gospel. 

Let us next inquire, whether the same notion obtained in the 
Christian Church after St. John wrote. 

Justin Martyr, a very early and excellent writer, within forty 
or fifty years of St.John, observes, that >God alone is neces- 
sarily existing and tmmutable, (or incorruptible,) and that for 
this very reason he is God; thereby intimating that without 
such perfections he could not be God. 

Irenzeus, another early and judicious writer, almost contem- 
porary with Justin, expresses himeelf more fully and clearly 
upon the same head; observing that ¢no Person that has any 
supervor can be justly called God; nor any thing that has been 
created, or ever began to exist. The same Irenseus has a whole 
dchapter to prove that the Old Testament, or New, never gave 
the title of God, absolutely and definitively, to any one that is 
not truly God. 

Tertullian (in the beginning of the third century, or sooner, 

Christ's Divinity SERM. 1. 

a 1 say, negatively ; because post- 
tsve supremacy over others ὑπ not 
commence till the creation. 

Ὁ Μόνος yap ἀγέννητος καὶ ἄφθαρτος 
Θεὸς, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Θεός ἐστι. Justin. 
Dial. p. 21. Jebb. 

© Qui enim super se habet aliquem 
superiorem, hic neque Deus neque 
rex magnus dici potest. Lib. iv. cap. ii. 
p- 229. 

- Queecunque aotem initium sump- 
serunt, et dissolutionem possunt per- 
cipere, et subjecta sunt, et indigent 

ejus qui se fecit, necesse est ommni- 
modo uti differens vocabulum ha- 
beant apud eos etiam, qui vel modi- 
cum sensum in discernendo talia ha- 
bent: ita ut is quidem qui omnia 
fecerit cum verho suo, juste dicatur 
Deus et Dominus solus; que autem 
facta sunt, non jam ejusdem vocabuli 
participabilia esse, neque juste id vo- 
cabulum sumere debere, quod est 

Creatoris. Iren. lib. iii. cap. viil. 
p. 183. 
d Lib. iii. cap. 6. 

asserted from John i. 1. 39 

within a hundred years, or very nearly, of St. John) observes, 
that the word ‘(rod does not, like Lord, signify dominion or 
power only, but substance; that none but the efernal, uncreated 
substance can justly be called God; that an inferior God is a 
contradiction in terms. 

These testimonies are sufficient to shew (without adding any 
more) how the word God was taken and generally understood 
by the Christian Church, soon after the Apostle’s time; and 
therefore very probably, in the Apostle’s time also. Now let 
us proceed to consider, 

It. What reasons we have to believe that St. John, in his 
first chapter, calls the Worp God, in the same sense, in con- 
formity to that tdea which Scripture hath given us of one that 
is truly God; and which the primitive writers also appear 
plainly to have embraced. 

1. This alone is a strong presumption, in favour of our inter- 
pretation, that the Scriptures defore, and the Christian Church 
after, espouse this notion. Would St. John have called the 
Worp, God, in the manner that he does, without guard or 
caution, had he not intended it in the strict sense, which Scrip- 
ture itself so much favours, and in which the generality, at least, 
would be most apt to take it? Had he meant it in a lower sense, 
it might have been very proper to have inserted a qualifying 
clause to prevent any mistake or misconstruction; which yet he 
is so far from doing, (as we shall see presently,) that he has put 
together with it many circumstances, all tending to convince us 
that he used the word in the strict sense, as Scripture had done 
before, and the Christian Church did after. For 

2. It is observable, that the Apostle does not say, in the 
beginning God created the Worp, (as the style runs in the first 
chapter of Genesis, and might have been properly used here, 
had he intended to signify that the Worp was God, in an 
inferior or improper sense:) but instead of that, he only says 
that the Worn was‘; intimating that he existed before any 


summum magnum, quem credis mi- 

e Deus substantive ipsius nomen, id 
norem. Adv. Marc. lib. i. cap. 6, 7. 

est Divinitatis; Dominus vero non 
substantia, sed potestatis, &c. Tertull. 

contr. Hermog. p. 234. 

Deus jam vocari obtinuit substan- 
tia cui ascribo. Hanc invenies solam 
innatam, infectam; solam eternam, 
et universitatis conditricem—— nega 
Deum quem dicis deteriorem: nega 

p: 368. 

Παρὰ δὲ τὸ ἀεὶ συνεῖναι τῷ πατρὶ, 
λέγεται, καὶ 5 λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. 
οὐ γὰρ ἐγένετο πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. καὶ ταυ- 
τὸν ῥῆμα, τὸ ἦν, τοῦ A κατηγορεῖ- 
ται, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν, καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τὸν 
Θεὸν ἦν, οὔτε τῆς ἀρχῆς χωριζόμενος. 

40 Christ’s Dioinity SERM. 1. 

thing was created, consequently from all eternity: for whatever 
existed before any thing was created, was no creature, as is 
manifest of itself; and if no creature, eternal. This is further 
confirmed from the Apostle’s repeating it in the next verse, 
“The same was in the beginning with God.” It is not impro- 
bable that the Apostle might intend this in opposition to 
Cerinthus, who believed the Δημιουργὸς, or Creator, to be sepa- 
rate and estranged from Gods, Nothing can be more directly 
levelled against that doctrine than this assertion of St. John’s, 
that the Worp, who was Creator of the world, was from the 
beginning, or always, with God. But to proceed : 

4. Another argument of St. John’s intending the word God 
in the strict sense, may be drawn from the time whereof he is 
speaking. It was before the creatton; he was then God. It is 
not said, that he was appointed God over the things that should 
be afterwards created. No; he was God before the world was. 
Our adversaries sometimes tell us of a throne, a power of judging, 
a regal authority belonging to the Son: and that therefore he 
is God; and they observe) (as they think, shrewdly, but in 
truth very weakly) that the Holy Ghost has therefore none of 
that title, as having no regal dominion, &c. And when, in 
answer to this, we say further, that the Son was Jehovah, God, 
and Lord, under the Old Testament; they reply, that he was 
then ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, acting in the name and Person of God, and 
therefore styled God. Admitting all this, (which is mostly 
fiction,) yet what will they do with this text of St. John? Here 
it 186 plain, that the Son was God before any dominion over the 
creatures commenced; before he acted as representative of the 
Father, or was ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, in that low fictitious sense: how 
was he God before the creation? Here they have little left to 
say, but that “ he was partaker of divine power and glory with 
‘‘and from the Father'.” From hence then we see, that 

οὔτε τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπολειπό νος. Kal Vid. etiam Athanas. ae Hilar. 
πάλιν οὔτε ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἐν ἀρχῇ Ρ. 95. Chrysost. in Jo . and 
γωόμενος ἐν ἀρχῇ, οὔτε ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ other testimonies collected ἢ in Suicer. 
τυγχάνειν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐπὶ τῷ πρὸς Thesaur. under ᾿Αρχὴ, and Petav. 147, 
τὸν Θεὸν εἶναι γινόμενος. πρὸ γὰρ πάν- 417. 

τὸς χρόνου καὶ αἰῶνος. ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Ε Tren. lib. iii. cap. 11. ᾿ς 188. lib. i. 
λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. cap. 26. p. 105. Tertull. de Prascript. 
Orig. in Joh. p. 4 45. Heeret. ‘Append. D. 221. Epiphan. 

Οὐκ ἦν γὰρ ὅτε ἀρχὴ ἄλογος ἦν. διὸ Heres. xxviii. τυ 

λέγεται ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐν ὁ λόγος. Ibid. b See Scri octr. p.264. 2nd edit. 
p- 66. ! Script. ‘Doct. p. 240. and edit. 

SERM. I. asserted from John i. 1. 41 

dominion alone is not sufficient to account for the Son’s being 
God; not to mention that the Holy Ghost might have been 
called God in Scripture, as having been “ partaker of divine 
“ὁ power and glory with and from the Father,” as well as the 
Son ; so that that pretence about the Holy Ghost and this solu- 
tion hang not well together. To such straits and inconsistencies 
are men reduced by bringing their hypotheses with them to inter- 
pret Scripture by, instead of making Scripture the rule of their 
faith. But to conclude this article: since then neither dominion, 
(on account of which princes and magistrates have been some- 
times called G'ods,) nor vicegerency, nor any thing of like kind, 
will account for the Worn’s being called God by St. John in 
this place: and since our adversaries themselves appear to be 
very sensible that their principles, which serve to help them out 
at other times, fail them here; and that they are forced rather 
to say any thing, however slight or trifling, than to be wholly 
silent: this alone is a strong presumption on our side of the 
question, where the solution is so easy and natural, and entirely 
consistent with our other principles. 

4. Another circumstance, confirming our interpretation of 
this passage of St. John, is, that “ all things” are there said to 
have been “ made by him ;” and, to be more emphatical, that 
“‘ without him was not any thing made that was made.” I shall 
not here insist upon the dignity of the Son as Creator, (the 
distinguishing character of the one true God,) designing that for 
a distinct head of argument another time: all the use I shall 
make of it at present is to observe, that it is not said, all other 
things were made by him, but αὖ things absolutely ; wherefore 
he himself cannot, according to the letter, be supposed of the 
number of the things made, unless he made himself, which is 
absurd; and since nothing was made or created but by and 
through him, it is but reasonable to infer that every creature 
whatever is a creature of the Son's as well as of the Father's; 
and therefore certainly the Son is not a creature at all. 

5. A further circumstance favouring our sense is, that the 
Worn is called God, in the very same verse, wherein the Father 
is mentioned as G'od, and undoubtedly in the strict and proper 
sense. And how shall any the most judicious reader be ever 
able to understand language, if in the same verse and same 
sentence, the same word should stand for two ideas, or bear 
two senses widely different and scarce akin to each other? and 

42 Chriat’s Divinity SERM. I. 

that too, not only without any guard or caution, or any notice 
given of the change of ideas; but also with such circumstances 
as give no suspicion of any change, but all tending to confirm 
us the more that the same idea is still kept up, and applied 
equally to Father and Son. It has been objected that the 
Father is ὁ Θεὸς, God with the article, the Son only Θεὸς, God 
without the article. But every body knows that the addition 
or omission of an article is no certain proof of any change at all 
in the sense of a word ; besides that the word Θεὸς, God, is used 
in the strict sense, though without the article, several times in 
this chapter. The sacred penmen were not so critical about 
articles; neither can we imagine that a point of this moment 
should have been left so unguarded, with nothing to direct us 
but 1 know not what blind and dark conjectures of the use of 
articles; concerning which we have no certain rules either for 
Scripture, or for any other writings. The word Θεὸς, God, is 
frequently used without the article to signify the true God: and 
it is used with the article (2 Cor. iv. 4.) where it is supposed 
by most interpreters to be meant of the Devil: so little account 
is there to be made of articles. But enough of this. It is 
further pretended, that ὁ Θεὸς, God, applied to the Father, may 
stand for Jehovah, which is the proper name of a Person, and 
that therefore God and God, in the text, cannot bear the same 
sense, unless both be one and the same Person Jehovah. But 
in answer to this, it is sufficient to say, that it can never be 
proved that Jehovah is a proper naine of any Person, but as that 
Person is considered as having independent or necessary exist- 
ence: and then the name must be common to as many persons 
as exist necessarily, or independently ; independently on the will 
or free choice of any. Besides that it is certain that the name 
belongs equally to Father or Son, (as I shall shew presently,) 
and therefore St. John might intend that the Father is Jehovah 
and the Son Jehovah too, and both in the same sense; while at 
the same time, by his telling us that one was with the other, he 
has sufficiently signified that they are not the same Person; 
but that Jehovah is a name proper indeed to one substance, 
or one Godhead, but common to more Persons than one. 1 
proceed then, 

6. To observe, that St. John did look upon God the Son as 
the true Jehovah ; and this alone is an irrefragable argument of 
St. John’s meaning in the text before us. I shall first shew 

SERM. I. asserted from John i. 1. 43 

the fact, and next make good my inference from it. The fact 
may be proved first from chapter xii. verse 41. of this very 
Gospel. The words are: ‘“ These things said Esaias when he 
“ gaw his glory,” (meaning Christ's glory,) ‘“‘ and spake of him.” 
Now the place of Esaias referred to is chapter the sixth, which 
begins thus: 

441 gaw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted 
‘‘ up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the Sera- 
“‘ phims———-And one cried unto another and said, Holy, holy, 
“ holy is the Lord of Hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory.” 
Here we are to observe, that the Lord, which Esaias saw in his 
vision, was the Jehovah, and Lord of Hosts, which is of the same 
signification with Lord God Almighty. Him it was, and his 
glory, which the Prophet saw. And that this was Christ, and 
that glory Christ's glory, St. John has before testified; and 
therefore certain it is that God the Son is, in St. John’s account, 
the Jehovah, and Lord God Almighty. This reasoning is in itself 
plain and strong; and is besides further confirmed by the kcon- 
curring sentiments of many Catholic writers. 

A ate writer endeavouring to elude the force of this text, 
devises thia construction, that the Prophet, in beholding the 
glory of God the Father, revealing the coming of Christ, he then 
sato (that is foresaw) the glory of Christ. But admitting that 
saw may signify foresaw, (which however is a very needless sup- 
position, since it is certain that our blessed Lord had as much 
glory with the Father before the world was, as ever he had after, 
John xvii. 5.) yet what occasion is there to suppose the Father's 
glory to have been principally spoken of, when St. John says 
plainly it was Christ's glory, and that the Prophet spake of him, 
viz. Chriat? It is indeed said, that Christ shall come “in the 
“ glory of his Father.” (Matt. xvi. 27.) But it is also said, 
that “he shall come in his own glory” (Matth. xxv. 31. Luke 
ix. 26.); “ and sit in the throne of his own glory.” (Matt. xix, 
28.) If then the Prophet saw indeed the glory of the Father 
aleo, it is because the glory of both is one; and if the Father 
be the Lord of Hosts, whom the Prophet saw, it is because the 
Father and Son are one Lord of Hosts: for it is as certain as 

k Eusebius in loc. Athanasius, p. p.605. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. xiv. 
877,889. Hilar. Trin. lib. v. oe 33- p.202. Ambros. de Fid. hb. 1. c. 12. 
i Basil. contr. Eunom. hb. v. abies ed. Benet. Te Nyss. contr. 
ein Hieronymus in loc. ga han, unom. 1. ii. p. 488 
Ancorat. p. 15,13. Jobius apu 1 Script. Doctr. Ῥ. 93. and edit. 

44, Christ's Divinity SERM. I. 

words can make it, from what St. John says, that the Son’s 
glory was seen; and that he was the Jehovah of whom the Pro- 
phet spake. If the Father was so too, we have a full and strong 
proof, not only of the Son’s being Jehovah, but of the Father 
and Son both being comprehended under the same one Jehovah: 
and so indeed ™several of the ancient Fathers have interpreted 
it. But that is not what I insist upon now, my argument not 
requiring it. It is sufficient for me, that the Prophet sae, or 
foresaw (no great matter which) the glory of Jehovah, or Lord 
of Hosts ; and it was the Jehovah, or Lord of Hosts, that the Pro- 
phet spake of. That is, as St. John interprets it, he saw the 
glory of Christ, and spake of him: Christ therefore is Jehovah 
and Lord of Hosts; which was to be proved. 

There is a second passage in this very Gospel, which proves 
the same thing. It is John xix. 37. “ Another Scripture saith, 
‘* They shall look on him whom they have pierced.” The Scrip- 
ture referred to is Zech. xii. 10. where the Lord (Jehovah) is 
introduced saying, “ They shall look upon ΜῈ, whom they have 
“ pierced.” The Person pierced is Jehovah, and the same Person 
is Christ: wherefore, by necessary construction and implication, 
Christ is Jehovah. The fact being thus plain and clear, we are 
next to consider the inference from it. The import of the name 
Jehovah (according to the best critics, ancient and modern) is 
eternal, immutable, necessary existence. The Greek ὃ ὧν, or 
τὸ ὃν, taken from it, or answering to it, has been interpreted to 
the same sense by Jews, Gentiles, and Christians". It would 
be tedious here to enter any further into the detail of that mat- 
ter. It shall suffice to observe how the one true God insists upon 
his being Jehovah, in opposition to all other gods, glorying, in a 
manner, and triumphing in it, as the distinguishing character by 
which he would be known to be infinitely superior to all the gods 
of the nations. 

“} am the Lord, (Jehovah,) that is my name, and my glory 
“ will I not give to another,” Isa. xlii. 8. “ Against all the gods 
“ of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord, (Jehovah,)” 
Exod. xii.12. ‘“ Who hath told it from time to time? have not 
“ I the Lord, (Jehovah ?) and there is no God else besides me ; 

™ Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nys- lib. 1. c. 6. 
sen, Ambrose, Jerome, Epiphanius, |§ Appendix to the Considerations on 
before referred to. Mr. Whiston’s Histor. Preef. p. 101. 
n Vid. Petav. Dogm. Theolog. vol.i. and part ii. p. 2, 3, &c. 

ΒΒΕΜ. I. asserted from John i. 1. 45 

“a just God, and a Saviour; there ts none besides me,” Isa. 
xlv.21. “41 am the Lord, (Jehovah,) the God of all flesh: is 
“ there any thing too hard for me? Jer. xxxil.27. “Jam the 
“ Lord, (Jehovah,) I change not,” Mal. 1. 6. ‘“ Iam the Lord, 
“ (Jehovah,) and there is none else: I form the hght and create 
“ darkness——I1 the Lord (Jehovah) do all these things,” Isa. 
xlv.6,7. I forbear to add more texts. These are enough for 
aspecimen. There is no giving a full and complete idea of this 
matter, without transcribing a great part of the Old Testament. 
Now since the title of Jehovah is, in Scripture, a principal note 
of distinction by which the true God was pleased to manifest 
himeelf, and to set forth his own superior excellency in opposi- 
tion to all pretended deities; and since St. John has given us 
to understand, that Christ is Jehovah, or Lord of Hosts, and con- 
sequently posseased of all those distinguishing powers and per- 
fections which go along with that title; the consequence is 
evident and undeniable, that when the same St. John tells us 
that the Worp was God, he intended no nominal or tnfertor 
Deity, but God in the true, strict, and proper sense, eternal and 
immutable, of the same power, nature, and perfections with God 
the Father. I shall now briefly sum up the particulars of the 
argument, that we may the more easily take into one view the 
whole strength and force of it. 

The Apostle has here told us, in a very solemn manner, in the 
very entrance upon his Gospel, that the Λόγος, or Worn, was 
God ; the very mention whereof, according to the Scripture-idea 
of God, and the prevailing notions of those who lived in and 
near St. John’s time, carries with it, in its first and most natural 
conception, all that is good, great, or excellent: and so every 
unprejudiced man, upon the first reading or hearing the Apostle’s 
words, would be apt to understand him. He has inserted no 
guard or caution to prevent any such construction : but, on the 
contrary, has hardly omitted any thing that might tend to con- 
firm and enforce it. The Worp was God before he had any 
dominion, before he had acted as representative of the Father ; 
God, ἐπ the beginning, before the world was, before there was any 
creature; God, by whom the world was made, and to whom 
every creature owed its existence; who coming into the world, 
came unto his on, who is Jehovah and Lord of Hosts, the same 
as Κύριος παντοκράτωρ, the Lord Almighty, and God over all: in 
such a sense, and with these circumstances, the Worp is called 

46 Christ's Divinity SERM. I. 

God, in the very same verse where mention also is made of the 
Father, with whom he was, and who is there called God, in the 
strict and proper sense: all this put together amounts to a 
demonstration, that the Apostle intended no nominal or inferior 
God by the Worp, but the true and living God, one with the 
Father, coessential and coeternal. Thus the first Christians 
understood it; and thus the Catholic Church has believed: and 
this is the faith which we ought evermore earnestly to contend 
for, as being “once delivered to the saints.” 

I entreat your patience but a little further, just to take notice 
of a late pretence of an Arian writer °. 

The Jews, says he, and Gentiles believed in one God, under- 
standing it of one Person only: our Saviour and his Apostles 
taught that Christ was the Son of that one God: when therefore 
Christ is also styled God, those among whom he was first so 
styled, would naturally understand it in the subordinate sense, 
as the word Elohim in the Hebrew, Θεὸς in the Greek, and God 
in the English frequently signifies. 

This is the argument, and in this, the author says, “the sum 
‘‘ of the whole controversy is briefly comprised.” If this be 
really the case, the controversy may be brought to a short and 
clear issue. By subordinate sense of the word God, the gentle- 
man means such a sense in which creatures may be gods, and 
have been called gods. I hope I have sufficiently shewn that 
St. John could never intend any such low senge, nor be so under- 
stood by any man of ordinary attention or common discernment. 
As to the question, how it would be understood by those who 
first heard it, it has been already determined by plain evidence 
of fact. It appears certainly to have been understood in the 
strict and proper sense, as high as Tertullian, Clement of Alex- 
andria, [renseus, Athenagoras, that is, within sixty or seventy 
years of St. John’s writing: and I will venture to add Ignatiusp, 
which brings it up to the very time: for Ignatius had been well 
acquainted with St. John himself, having been once his 4disciple. 

As to Jews or Gentiles, whatever short or imperfect notions 
they had of God, (though it is a disputable point, whether 

© Modest Plea, Postscript, Ρ. 318. Els ἰατρός ἐστιν, σαρκικός τε καὶ 

P*Os πρὸ αἰώνων rapa πατρὶ ἦν, καὶ πνευματικὸς, γενητὸς καὶ ἀγένητος, ἐν 
ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη. Ignat. ad Magn.cap. σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός Ad Ephes. cap. 
vi. p. 22. Vil. p. 14. 

Ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος ἀΐδιος, οὐ ἀπὸ Act. Martyr. S. Ignat. cap. iii. 
σιγῆς προελθών. cap. Vill. p. 23. Ῥ. 49. 

SERM. I. asserted from John i. 1. 47 

they did not both admit of some plurality in the Deity,) they 
are to come to Christians to be more fully instructed ; and we 
are not to be taught by them, how we are to understand a clear 
and plain Gospel. Hard must be our case indeed, if we are to 
be sent to Jews or Pagans to learn Christianity. However, 
Jews and Gentiles both (as many as came over to Christianity, 
and did not side with heretics,) then at least corrected (or rather 
filled up what was wanting in) their ideas of the divine Unity, 
by their faith in, and profession of one holy, undivided, and co- 
eternal Trinity. We have seen then, first, how St. John ought 
to have been understood; and next, how he actually was under- 
stood by sober men, and those that were the most competent 
judges of his meaning. What can be desired more to cut off all 
further controversy in this article ? 

To conclude: The Sabellians at this day, as well as formerly, 
are a standing evidence of the strength and force of those two 
or three first verses of St. John’s Gospel. For as they reject 
the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, only because they 
think it repugnant to reason; so they reject also the Arian 
hypothesis, because they take it to be repugnant to Scripture, 
and particularly to the first chapter of St.John. They are sen- 
sible how absurd it is to suppose so much to be said of a creature, 
and said in that manner, and with those circumstances; and 
therefore they interpret the whole of God the Father himself. 
Thus they get over one difficulty, but unhappily split upon 
another; and the Arians have as plainly the advantage in the 
point of personality, as the other have in respect of the divinity 
of the Worp. Happy might it be for both, if, laying aside pre- 
judice, they would contentedly submit their fancies to God's 
written Word; interpreting it according to its most obvious 
and natural meaning, without laboured subtilties and artificial 
glosses : remembering always that, in case of doubt, there is no 
safer guide to take with us, than the concurring judgment of the 
ancients ; nor any more dangerous than warmth of imagination, 
or a love of novelties. 

Christ properly Creator : 


pea a ee re ee 

The second Sermon preached Oct. 7, 1719. 

JOHN 1. 3. 

All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing 
mace that was made. 

I HAVE before took notice of these words of the Apostle, but 
so far only as was necessary to give some light to the words 
going before, whereof I was then discoursing. “My design now 
is, to consider them distinctly, as containing a further argument, 
independent of the former, to prove the real, essential divinity 
of our blessed Lord, “by whom all things were made, and with- 
“‘ out whom was not any thing made that was made.” I have, 
in my former discourse, intimated the various interpretations 
given of this chapter, under the names of Socinian, Sabellian, 
Arian, and Catholic, suitably to their respective schemes. Ac- 
cordingly, these words of the Apostle, in passing through those 
several hands, have been shaped and fashioned into so many 
several constructions; though one only can be the true one. 
The Socinian will tell us, that all things belonging to the Gospel- 
state were regulated and modelled by the man Christ Jesus; 
that the moral world was reformed and rectified by him; and 
that the Apostle is not here speaking of a proper, but a meta- 
phorical creation. Next comes the Sabellian, who thinks that 
the text is meant of the creation of the natural world, and all 
things in it; but then, not by the man Christ Jesus, nor by any 
Person really distinct from God the Father: all things were 

SERM. ΤΙ. Christ's Divinity proved &c. 49 

made by reason or wisdom, figuratively put for God himeelf; so 
that the Apostle intended not here any real Person besides God 
the Father: thus far the Sabellian. After him succeeds the 
Arian, who admits of a proper creation of the natural, not the 
moral world; and admits also of a distinct Person, viz. the 
Λόγος, or Worn, himself a creature: and he does not deny him 
any hand or concern at all in the creation ; but endeavours only 
to detract from him, more or less, with great uncertainty. For, 
as I have before observed, that sort of men are always fluctu- 
ating, hovering, and doubtful, not knowing where to fix upon 
any certain set of principles. Sometimes *you will find them 
pretending that God the Son, properly speaking, did not make 
or create any thing at all; but that the Father only was Cre- 
ator, through him. At other times» they will not scruple to 
allow that the Son, by his own inherent power, created all things 
out of nothing ; which is carrying the point as high as any the 
soundest Catholic can carry it: only they add, by way of lessen- 
ing, that this was at the command of the Father, who had 
appointed him Creator ; which however might bear a sound and 
good sense. Betwixt these extremities of high and low (if I 
may so call them) amongst the Arians, there is a middle way, 
and that also with a latitude: some think it enough for the Son 
to have created some things only (suppose, what belongs to one 
system): others again (understanding by creating, modelling 
only) apprehend it sufficient, if he did but frame, model, or digest 
what was already created to his hand: others, lastly, admitting 
both, yet say, it was not by his own power, but the power of the 
Father, always present with him: or that he had learned the 
art of creating by being bred up under the Father; which was 
the profane and wanton suggestion of Asterius, an Arian sophist 
of the fourth century®. There is no end of fancies and conjec- 
tures, when men are once got out of the plain and open way of 
truth. I shall not undertake particularly and severally to con- 
fute the three hypotheses, and the interpretations built upon 
them: but I shall proceed to lay down the Catholic construc- 

® Πολλάκις yap ἀκήκοά τινας λέγον- 
τας ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς ἐποιήσεν οὐδὲν, ἀλλὰ δι᾽ 
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο τὰ γενόμενα. Epiph. An- 
corat. Ὁ. 22. 

b Antequam faceret universa, omni- 
um futurorum Deus et Dominus, Rex 
εἰ Creator erat constitutus. Volun- 


tate et preecepto (Det εἰ Pairis sui) 
coelestia et terrestria, visibilia et invi- 
sibilia, corpora et spiritus, ex nullis 
exstantibus, ut essent, sua virtute fe- 
cit. Serm. Arianorum apud Aug. tom. 
vill. p. 622. ed. Bened. 

¢ Athanas. Orat. ii. 496. 


δ0 Christ’s Divinity SERM, Τί. 

tion; which if I can maintain and defend, the other drop of 
course. The Catholic doctrine is this: that the Son, together 
with the Father, (always including the Holy Ghost,) was the 
efficvent Cause of all things, the Creator and Framer of men and 
angels, of principalities and powers, of the whole universe. I 
shall therefore, in my following discourse, undertake these three 
things : 

I. I shall endeavour to shew, that God the Son, a distinct 
Person from God the Father, is strictly and properly ¢effictent 
Cause and Creator of all things: 

II. I shall consider the force of the argument arising from it, 
in favour of Christ’s divinity. 

III. I shall draw some suitable inferences from the whole. 

I. I shall endeavour to shew that God the Son, a distinct 
Person from God the Father, is strictly and properly efficient 
Cause and Creator of all things. And here I shall distinctly 
consider what light we may have in this matter from the New 
Testament, and what from the Old, and what additional con- 
firmation from the declared sentiments of the primitive and 
Catholic Church. 

τ. To begin with the New Testament; and first with the 
very words of the text: “All things were made by him, and 
* without him was not any thing made that was made.” I have, 
in a former discourse, asserted the distinct personality of the 
Λόγος, or Worn; shewing that the Sabellian interpretation of 
this chapter will by no means bear: I shall occasionally take 
notice of the Sabellian pretences in relation to other texts, as 
I come to treat of them. For the clearer understanding of the 
text now under consideration, we may observe, that Cerinthus 
and other heretics (against whose pernicious principles St. John 
is reasonably believed to have wrote his Gospel) had made a 
distinction between the upper and lower world, pretending they 
had not one Author. Hence, very probably, it is, that the 
Apostle expresses himself so particularly and emphatically in 
these words, (which might otherwise look like tautology,) “and 
‘“‘ without him was not any thing made that was made.” He 
had first told us affirmatively, that all things were made by the 
Worp; then he repeats, as it were, the same thing over again, 
but negatively, that nothing was made without him: that is, we 
are not to expect any part of the creation, not the invisible 
things above, which the heretics pretended to distinguish from 

SERM. If, proved from Creation. δ] 

the other: all things vistble and tnvisidle; all, without excep- 
tion, were made by the Worp. I must here observe, that, after 
the Arian controversy arose, the Catholics made good use of 
the latter part of this text especially, which is su very expressive 
and emphatical. The Arian principle is, that the Son was the 
first thing that God had made; and that God made him, 
ἀμεσιτεύτως, tmmedtately by himself, without the intervention of 
any other person. Against this, the Catholics pleaded that 
nothing was made without the intervention of the Son; the 
Apostle having emphatically declared, that “without him was 
“not any thing made that was made:” there was therefore 
nothing made ἀμεσιτεύτως, tnmediately by the Father, without 
the intervention and concurrence of the Son. Consequently, the 
Son was not made at all, since it is absurd to imagine that he 
sntervened or concurred to the making of himself; which would 
be the same as to say, that he existed before he existed, or was 
prior to himself. But I pass on to what I design. “ΑἹ! things 
“‘ were made by him,” signifies the same as that he made all 
things. Thus the ‘ancients have unanimously interpreted it, 
and the idiom of the language will undoubtedly bear it*. We 
find the phrase of δι᾽ αὐτοῦ or δι᾿ οὗ, τὰ πάντα, by whom are all 
thengs, nearly the same with what St. John here says of the Son, 
twice applied to the Father himself, (Rom. xi. 36. Heb. ii. 10.) 
which effectually takes off any pretence the Arians can have, 
merely from the force of the preposition διὰ, as if it were 
intended as a note of inferiority, when it is nothing more than 
& note of distinction. When Father and Son are joined toge- 
ther, (as 1 Cor. viii. 6.) of whom is indeed applied to the Father, 
and by whom to the Son, to signify at once the unity of opera- 
tion and distinction of Persons, and withal some priority of 
order, as the Father is the fountain of all, and first in con- 
ception, whenever we think of the Deity. This is all that can 
dat a ee 
εὐρὺν nal ἐν Ἐν ἐν Just, Dial 

Ρ. 331. 
Πρὸς αὐτοῦ γὰρ, καὶ δι αὐτοῦ πάντα 

Verbum autem hoc illud est quod 
in sua venit, et sul eum non recepe- 
runt. Mundus enim per eum factus 
est, et mundus eum non cognovit. 

éyevero. Athenag. p. 38. 

Verbum Dei per quod omnia facta 
sunt, et quoniam mundus proprius 
ipsius et per ipsum factus est, volun- 
tate Patris—mundi enim Factor vere 
Verbum Dei est. Iren. p. 315. 

Fecit enim et ipse que facta sunt 
per illum. Tertull. contr. Praz. p. 504. 

——Si homo tantummodo Christus, 
quomodo veniens in hunc mundum, 
in sua venit, cum homo nullum fece- 
rit mundum? Novat. cap. xiii. p. 714, 
e See Petavius de Trin. lib. vii. 
cap. 17. Ὁ. 431. 


52 Christ's Divintty SHRM. II. 

be reasonably inferred from the Scripture-usages of the prepo- 
sitions: especially if it be considered that under the same lati- 
tude of expression, as all things are said to be of the Father, so 
likewise all things are said to be by the Son; consequently the 
operation of one is of equal extent with the operation of the 
other, and indeed is but one work of both. AU thengs then are 
made by the Son, but in conjunction with the Father; and the 
Father hath made nothing but in and by the Son. This appears 
to be the true and full sense of the text in St. John, whereof 
I am now treating; and it is confirmed by other passages of 
the New Testament, which I shall take in their order. There 
is one occurring in the same chapter, a few verses lower. “ He 
‘was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the 
‘“ world knew him not: he came unto his own, and his own 
‘‘ received him not.” ver. 10,11. Some have thought that by 
his own, in this place, is meant only hts own people, the Jews, 
as being of his kindred according to the flesh. But this can 
never be the meaning of it. The Evangelist is here speaking of 
the Λόγος, or Worp, antecedently considered, and now coming 
to those who were his own before he came to them, before he 
took flesh upon him. The words immediately preceding, viz. 
‘the world was made by him, and the world knew him not,” 
make it probable that the Apostle was not then thinking of the 
Jews only, but of mankind in general. Besides this, it is worth 
the noting, that some heretics, in St. John’s time probably, as 
well as after, had a conceit that the Creator of this lower world 
was separate and distant from the supreme God, and that 
Christ came not into a world of Ais own making, but into one 
that belonged to another. Now in opposition to these and the 
like chimerical fancies, the Apostle informs us, that the same 
Creator (that is, Christ in conjunction with the Father) made 
every thing; and that therefore when he came into the world, 
he came wnto his own, his own house and workmanship, this 
world being by right of creation his. This construction is what 
Trenzeus, a very ancient writer, gives of the textf. The like 
construction is given of it by Clemens of Alexandria, Hippo- 
lytus and Novatian, writers of the second and third centuries. 
Some, who interpret the text of the Jews, yet do not give this 
for the reason that the Jews were his own, as being akin to him 

f Tren. p. 188, 315, 316. contr. Noét. cap. xii. p. 14. Novatian. 
ξ Clem. Alex. p. 882. Hippolyt. cap. 13. 

SERM, II. proved from Creation. 53 

according to the flesk; but as they were his peculiumh, his chosen 
people, and as he was in a more eminent manner their God: 
and so Cyril of Jerusalem seems to understand it'. Taking the 
text either of these ways, it affords us an argument of the Son’s 
bemg properly Creator. For if it be understood of the world 
in general, then it is manifest from the words immediately pre- 
eeding, that the τὰ ἴδια refers to his right of creation, and that 
the world is called his own in that respect. Or if it be under- 
stood of the Jews, it will prove thus much, that they were his 
own, as they were his people, and he their God; and it will 
appear from the Old Testament, that the God of Israel was the 
Maker of the world, the same that created Jacob, and formed 
Israel, (Is. xliii.1.) and none else. If it be said, that the Jews 
may here be called his own, as he was their promised Messiah, 
their Saviour and Redeemer; that construction seems to be the 
least probable of any: first, because he was equally the Saviour 
of mankind, and therefore there is no reason why the Jews 
should be called his owz in that respect. And secondly, because, 
admitting they might be called his own in that respect, yet it 
could not have been so properly said of them, antecedently to 
the work of redemption, before he had bought them at the price 
of his blood, and thereby made them his own. I conclude 
therefore from this passage, that whether it means the world 
or the Jews, they were his own in some higher respect; and 
that could be no other but as he was their Creator. 

The next Scripture I shall cite shall be out of the Revelation, 
the work of the same Apostle whose words I have been con- 
sidering. Our blessed Lord is there called the ᾿Αρχὴ, “the 
“ beginning,” (that is, author or efficient cause) ““ οὗ the creation 
“of God.” Rev. iii. 14. This I mention as the most probable 
construction of the place, suitable to what I have before ob- 
served from St. John’s Gospel. Otherwise, I think, nothing 
ean, with any certainty, be proved from this passage alone; 
the word ᾿Αρχὴ (which we render beginning) being a word of 
great latitude, and capable of many senses. The ancients may 
afford us some light in this matter; not that I find this text 

h See Deut. xiv. 2. Non ideo se principium creature 
i re fia Catech, xii. p. 152, 312. dicit, quod ipse sit creatura, sed quod 
Ox. ed. ab ipso omnia sint creata, ut puta 
κ᾿ ᾿Αρχὴ yap τῆς κτίσεως ἣ προκαταρ- architectus fecit domum. Berengaud. 
τικὴ αἰτία καὶ ἄκτιστος. Andr. Cesar. in loc. p. 511. 
in loc. p. 20. 

δ4 Christ's Divinity SERM. II. 

particularly explained or quoted by any of the earlier writers: 
but it is frequent with them to apply the name ᾿Αρχὴ to God the 
Son; and they give this account of it: 'he existed of and from 
the Father before all things: he made all things; and he 
governs all things: and therefore is the ᾿Αρχὴ, the head, or 
beginning of all things, or of the whole creation. This, I pre- 
sume, may serve as the best comment we can meet with upon 
this text in the Revelation. I shall now proceed to other texts 
of more clear and certain meaning: 1 Cor. viii. 6. “Τὸ us there 
“18 but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we 
‘in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, 
“and we by him.” Before I come to the argument which I 
intend from this text, I may just take notice that here we find 
Father and Son equally opposed to the gods many and lords 
many. There is but one Lord to us, viz. Jesus Christ. Is then 
the Father (who also is the Lord “by whom are all things,” 
Rom. xi. 34, 36.) excluded among the lords many? God forbid. 
But Father and Son are one Lord. So likewise to us there is 
but one God, viz. the Father. Is then the Son excluded among 
the gods many? the Son, who, as the same St. Paul testifies, 1s 
“over all God blessed for ever?” (Rom. ix. 5.) No, certainly ; 
but Father and Son are one God. Thus, and thus only, can 
St. Paul's reasoning in that chapter be made to hang together: 
or otherwise he himself has infallibly shewn us that there are 
to us two Gods and two Lords, at the same time that he in- 
tended to prove (see ver. 4.) that fo us there is but one God and 
one Lord. The truth is, St. Paul has not only hereby insinuated 
to us, that Father and Son are one God and one Lord; but he 
has likewise intimated the reason why, or on what account they 
are one. It is because all things whatsoever arise or flow from 
both. There is nothing of the Father, but dy the Son; nor any 
thing by the Son, but what is also of the Father: so that the 
original of all creatures is referred up to both, as to one indi- 
vidual fountain and cause of their existence. The Father does 
not make one thing, and the Son another; but what the Father 
creates, the Son creates, for all things are by the Son. Hence 
it is manifest that God the Son is Creator and author of all 

1‘H τῶν ὅλων ᾿Αρχὴ ἥτις ἀπεικόνι- Οὗτος λέγεται ᾿Αρχὴ ὅτι ἄρχει, καὶ 
σται μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου κυριεύει πάντων δι᾿ αὐτοῦ δεδημιουργη- 
πρώτη καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων. τετύπωκεν δὲ μένων. Theoph. Antioch. lib. ii. 

τὰ μεθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν ἅπαντα γενόμενα. Clem, Vid. Coloss. i. 18, 
Alex. Strom. i. p. 669. 

SERM. II. proved from Creation. 55 

things, as well as the Father; nor would the Apostle have used 
the same latitude of expression in respect of both, (without any 
the least guard, caution, or exception,) had he not so under- 
stood it™. I find an ancient writer, under the name of Igna- 
tius, though certainly later than Ignatius, concluding from this 
very text that the "Son of God created all things. Whoever the 
author was, the reasoning is true and just, agreeable to other 
Scriptures, and to the unanimous sentiments of the primitive 
Church. Some amongst us of late have affected very much to 
say, that all things were created through the Son, rather than 
Sy the Son. But they do not tell us the meaning of their quaint 
distinction between by and through; nor indeed are they able, 
in the present case, to make sense of it. Whether they say 
through or by, all comes to the same thing, that the Father is 
Creator by the operation of the Son: that is, both werk toge- 
ther, (“my Father worketh hitherto, and I work; what things 
‘‘ soever he doth, these also doth the Son likewise,” John v. 17, 
19.) The operation is undivided, and the wark one: one crea- 
tion, and one Creator in all. But more of this in the sequel. 

The next passage in order is Ephes. ili. 9. “God who ore- 
“ ated all things by Jesus Christ.” The sense of this must be 
the same with the former, and needs not any further comment. 
The last words, “by Jesus Christ,” are observed to have been 
wanting in the most ancient copies; and are therefore probably 
presumed to be an addition to the text. If so, then this text 
is nothing to our present purpose. I shall only remark, that 
when this text is away, there will be but one left, in the whole 
Scripture, where that particular form of expression is used, of 
God's making the world by the Son. And that is Heb,i.2. “ By 
‘‘ whom also he made the worlds,” 

m Omnia enim per Filium ex nihilo 
substiterunt: et ad Deum ex quo 
omnia, ad Filium vero 54 om- 
nia ae retulit. Et non invenio 

uid differat, cum per utrumque opus 
ait virtutis ejusdem. Si enim ad uni- 
versitatis substantiam proprium ac 

sufficiens creaturis esset quod ez 
sunt; quid habuit necessitatis memo- 

rasse, quod que e# Deo sunt 
Christum sint, nisi quod unum idem 
est, per Christum esse, et ex Deo esse? 

Hilar, Trin. lib. viii. c. 38. p. 970. 
© [lperdéroxos πάσης κτίσεως, καὶ 

Θεὸς λόγος" καὶ αὐτὸς ἐποίησε τὰ πάν»- 
τα. λέγει γὰρ ὁ ἀπόστολος. εἷς Θεὸς 
ὁ πατὴρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα" καὶ εἷς Κύριος 
ese Χριστὸς, 8° od ra πάντα. Ignat. 

cript. Epist. ad Tars. c. iv. p. 106. 

Vid. etiam Tertull. contr. Prax. cap. 
xxi. Athanas. t. i. contr. Arian 
Ρ. 124. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. x. 

© Μὴ εἶναι ἄλλα Χριστοῦ δημίου; 
γήματα, καὶ ἄλλα πατρός. μία γὰρ ἡ 
πάνγων δημιουργία" τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ 
υἱοῦ πεποιηκότος. Cyril. Cateck. xi, 
Ρ. 148. 

δῦ Christ's Divinity SERM. II. 

The other places which make mention of the Son’s creating 
all things run in ἃ somewhat different style; saying only, that 
the world, or all things, were made by him; not that God made 
them through, or by him: which different way of expressing the 
same thing is worth the observing, to keep us from two ex- 
tremes; that we may not so interpret God’s making all things 
by the Son, as to exclude the Son from being properly Oreator'; 
nor so interpret the Son’s making all things, as to forget that 
he is a Son, and as such refers all to the Father, as the Head 
and Fountain of the Son himself. 

I pass on to a famous passage in the first chapter of the 
Epistle to the Colossians, which runs thus: 

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of 
“ every creature: for by him were all things created, that are 
“ἴῃ heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether 
“they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all 
“ things were created by him, and for him. And he 1s before 
“ all things, and by him all things consist.” (Coloss. i. 15, 16, 
17.) Strong, lively, and magnificent expressions; plainly in- 
tended of a Person, the Son of God just before mentioned, (ver. 
13.) 80 that here is no room for any Sabellian pretences; of a 
Person preexisting before the world began, so that here is as 
little left for the Socinian ; lastly of a Person who was before 
all creatures, and made all creatures, which is enough to silence 
the Arians. The last particular I am principally obliged to 
speak to. In the Greek we have two expressions, ἐν αὐτῷ and 
δι’ αὐτοῦ, in him and by him, were all things created; and also 
els αὐτὸν, for him; the same expression which we find used of 
God the Father, probably, (Rom. xi. 36,) and is there rendered 
to him. So now we have found els αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα, as before δι 
αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα, equally applied to Father and Son: such expres- 
sions, so indifferently applied to either, have a meaning; and 

P The anonymous writer of ‘‘ Mo- 
** dest Plea, &c. continued,” pretends 
that this concession of the Father’s 
being Head and Fountain, &c. over- 
.tarns our whole scheme. (p. 39.) But 
-he does not at to shew how. 
Dr. Clarke and his adherents have 
been called upon more than once, to 
make good their consequence from 
subordination of order to énfertors 
of nature. (See my Defence, &c. vol.1. 
p- 448, 450, 535-) But this . writer, 

contenting himself with throwing in 
two or three expressions, as explana- 
tory of the Father’s being Head and 
Fountain, (which are really not expia- 
natory, but a manifest perverting of 
the sense,) drops the point which it 
concerned him to to. ‘The ob- 
jection from subordwation, long ago 
despised out of the mouth of Euno- 
miue, will not grow considerable 
merely by being repeated, without 
any thing new to enforee it. 

Β5ΕΜ. ΤΙ, proved from Creation. 57 

did not drop by chance from inspired writers. But to consider 
the passage more distinctly. 

In respect of the words, “first-born of every creature,” our 
translation comes not up to the force, or meaning, of the ori- 
gmal@. it should have been, bors (or begotten) before the whole 
creation™ ; 88 is manifest from the context, which gives the reason 
why he is said to be πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. It is because 
‘he is “before all things,” and because by tm were all things 
created. So that this very passage, which, as it stands in our 
translation, may seem to suppose the Son one of the creatures, 
does, when rightly understood, clearly exempt him from the 
namber of creatures. He was before all created bemg, and con- 
sequently was himself uncreated, existmg with the Father from 
all eternity. But this by the way only, the better to introduce 
what I have to observe further from this passage. Creation 
is here ascribed to the Son in very full, clear, and expressive 
terms. “All things:” not sublunary things only, not this infe- 
rior system, but “all things,” whether above or below, “that 
“ are in heaven, and that are in earth;” not inanimate things 
only, or the inhabitants of this globe, but aleo what is remote 
and distant; all things οὐδέδίο and tmvisible; and not only all 
rational creatures of an inferior rank and order, but the very 

4 Μόνος Bins υἱὸς τῷ Θεῷ γεγέννη- 
ται, λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων καὶ πρωτό- 
shige καὶ δύναμις. Justin. Mart. Ap. i. 
p- 40. 

Πρωτότοκος τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ Θεῷ ἐστι. 
Ibid. p. τοι. ος καὶ λόγος πρωτότο- 
κος ὧν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Θεὸς ὑπάρχει. 
Ibid. p. 123. Θεοῦ δὲ, ἐκ τοῦ ἔβα! 
τέκνον πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμά- 
των. Deal. p. 364. LUperdroxov τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, καὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων. 
Ibid. p. 295. Τοῦτο τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ 
πατρὸς προβληθὲν γέννημα, πρὸ πάν- 
τῶν τῶν ποιημάτων συνῆν τῷ πατρί. 
Ibid. p. 187. Πρὸ πάντων ἁπλῶς τῶν 
κτισμάτων. ἰδία. p. 375. 

It ia observable that Justin never 

8 πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων κτισμάτων, but, 
simply and absolutely, before ali crea- 
tures, clearly exempting the Son from 
the number of creatures. 

Πρῶτον γέννημα εἶναι τῷ πατρὶ, οὐχ 
ὡς γενόμενον &c. Atkenag. p. 38. 

ἙΙρὸ yap τὶ γίνεσθαι, τοῦτον εἶχε 

σύμβουλον, ἑαυτοῦ νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν 

ὄντα: ὁπότε δὲ ἐθέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς ποιῆ-. 

σαι ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον 
ἐγέννησε προφορικὸν, πρωτότοκον πά- 

ons κτίσεως, &c. Τλοορὴ. Antioch. Ὁ. 


"Primogenitus conditionis, ut Sermo 
Creatoris per quem omnia facta sunt. 
——Quomodo ante omnia, si non pri- 
mogenitus conditionis, si non Sermo 
Creatoris? Tertull. contr. Mare. lib. v. 
p 48. 

Primogenitus omnis creature—— 
quoniam secundum divinitatem ante 
omnem creaturam ex Patre Deus Ser- 
mo processit. Novat. c. 16. 

Ἡιρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, τὸν πρὸ 
αἰώνων εὐδοκίᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα, 
οὐ κτισθέντα. Constit. Apostol. 1. vii. 
c. 41. 

These passages are sufficient to 
shew how πτρωτότοκος was understood 
by the earliest Christian writers. If 
the reader desires to see it still fur- 
ther explained, he cannot consult a 
better than the great Athanasius. 
Orat. ii. contr. Arian. p. 530, &c. 

τ See John i. 30. πρῶτός μου ἦν. 

58 Ohrist’s Divinity SERM. II. 

highest orders of angels or archangels: whether there be thrones 
or dominions, principalities or powers; they are all created tn 
and dy him: not only so, but for him, or to him; he is the jinal 
as well as effictent Cause; as much as to say, that they are 
made for his service and for his glory, the ultimate end of their 
creation. And that it may not be suspected that they have 
their dependence upon another, and not upon him; or that in 
him they do not ive and move and hold their being ; the Apostle 
adds further, that “by him all things consist.” He is not Crea- 
tor only once, but perpetual Creator, being the Sustatner and 
Preserver of the whole universe. 

Is this the description of a creature? or can any thing be said 
higher or stronger even of God the Father, to signify his being 
properly Oreator and Preserver of the worlds? 

I go on to Heb. i. 2. where it is said “by whom (Christ) 
‘* he (God) made the worlds:” to which is subjoined that he is 
ἀπαύγασμα, the “ brightness (or effulgency) of his glory, and the 
“ express image of his person, and upholdeth all things by the 
“ word of his power,” ver. 3. which I shall leave without further 
comment, to be interpreted from what hath been said before, 
that I may the sooner come to another passage in the same 
chapter, so full and strong that all the wit of man can devise no 
way to elude it. 

“ Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of 
“the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. 
« They shall perish; but thou remainest: and they all shall wax 
‘old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them 
“up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy 
“ years shall not fail.” 

In the first place we may observe, that here the Sabellian 

5 The author of “‘ Modest Plea, &c. 
“‘ continued,” is pleased to say, (p. 36.) 
that it is a “mean thing to confound 
“the unlearned reader with the ambi- 
“* guity of the terms Creator and Pre- 
“4 server.”” I hope he had not con- 
sidered how plainly the Scripture has 
taught, what he thinks it so mean to 
say; nor how frequent it was with 
the early Fathers, as high as the se- 
cond century, to appl those very 
titles expressly to God the Son. This 
was the constant Catholic language, 
insomuch that the old Arians, and 
even Eunomius himeelf (see Basil. 

contr. Eunom. lib. ii. p. 58.) did not 
refuse to style the Son Creator. Other 
Arians ecrupled not to say, “Chri- 
** stum colimus ut Creatorem,’’ (vide 
Maxim. apud August. p. 663. ed. 
Bened.) We worsktp Christ as Crea- 
tor. If thie writer had but as ho- 
nourable thoughte of God the Son, 
as the generality of the ancient Arians 
had, he could not find fault with these 
or the like expressions; if he has not, 
I leave him to reflect how mean a 
thing it is to pretend to exceed even 
the most refined Ariantem, and at the 
same time to admit the grossest. 

SERM. IT. proved from Creation. 59 

pretences are fully obviated. The characters are all plainly 
personal, both in this chapter, and in the Psalm from whence 
this is quoted. The Socinian subtilties about the renovation of 
the moral world are as light and empty as the other: the words 
are as express as the first chapter of Genesis, for the material 
earth and heavens: besides that it can never be explained how 
the neo creation and moral world shall “ wax old as doth a gar- 
“ ment,” or be “folded up as a vesture,” or be changed and 
pertsh. The Arian can deal no better with this passage than 
either of the two former. It is the Jehovah and God of Israel 
who is here spoken of, as is plain from the Psalm whence this 
is taken, and it is now applied by the sacred writer to Christ. 
The heavens are here said to have been the “ works of his hands,” 
and he it was (it is not said, another through him) that “ laid the 
* foundation of the earth.” Here are none of the prepositions 
ἐν, or διὰ, by or through, to criticise upon. Those pretences, 
however serviceable at other times, can have no place here. If 
therefore either plain and strong words have any sense, or Scrip- 
ture any weight, God the Son is and must be Creator, properly 
and strictly so, maugre all the endeavours of weak and vain men 
to the contrary. 

Seeing then that this passage is so full and clear, that neither 
Socinians, Sabellians, nor Arians, can any way work it into any 
of their schemes, what must be done next? tSome of them have 
been willing to think, and bold enough to say, that these four 
verses were fraudulently added, and were not originally a part 
of this Epistle. But all the copies and ancient versions of this 
Epistle retain these four verses: so that any pretence of forgery 
or interpolation does but expose the man that makes it, and the 
cause that needs it. The last pretence is, that this passage is 
intended of God the Father, and not of Christ. But the whole 
context, and the whole scope and drift of the author, in citing 
these verses, are sufficient to confute that conceit: nor would 
any one, that has not an hypothesis to serve, ever suspect that 
the words were intended of any other but Christ, to whom they 
are so manifestly applied. Thus was the passage understood 
(and never otherwise that I know of) in the fourth and fifth 
centuries, and cited in proof of Christ’s being properly Creator ; 

t Judgment of the Fathers, p.30. ἃ See my Defence, vol. i. p. 329. 

60 Christ's Divinity SERM, II. 
not only by «Athanasius, Ambrose, Austin, Chrysostom, and 
Cyril of Alexandria, but by the elder Cyril too, who has been 

generally thought a very moderate man, and not much a favourer 
of Athanasius, though he retained the same faith. But enough 

of this. From what hath been said it appears now plainly and. 

undeniably, that God the Son is properly Creator of the world. 
It was he that “laid the foundation of the earth,” and the “‘ hea- 
‘‘ vens are the works of his hands.” If there be any doubt in 
respect of the other texts, as not being full and explicit enough, 
there can be none in respect of this: so that, at length, we see 
Scripture iteelf has put an end to the disputes about the prepo- 
sitions ἐν and διὰ, in, by, or through, and shews that all the criti- 
cisms of our adversaries about them, if intended to prove that 
God the Son is not properly Creator, are groundless and false. 
But if any thing else be intended, they are not pertinent to the 
cause in hand. 

I may here observe to you further, by the way, that those 
gentlemen who retreat to that subterfuge, that they may appear 
at least to have something to say, do not themselves know 
distinctly what they mean by it. Is it that God made the world 
by Christ, as he “wrought special miracles by the hands of 
“ Paul?” (Acts xix. 11.) Is-the Father in such a sense the 
efficient, and the Son the minestering Cause! They do not, y they 
dare not say it. For, besides this plain text, out of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, directly against it, they cannot but know that 
the whole Catholic Church, down from Barnabas, (that is, from 
the days of the Apostles,) were of another mind; that even 
Origen and Eusebius, their two favourite authors, would con- 
demn them; and that the soberer Arians themselves were 80 
far orthodow, as to allow a proper effictency to the Son, in the 
work of creation, Scripture and tradition running clear and 
strong for it. Since therefore a proper efficiency must be ad- 

x Athanas. tom. i. p. 440, 461,685. created the world by the power of the 
tom. ii. p- 10. Chrysost. in Joh. p. Father: but he does not deny that 
44. Cyril. Alexand. Thesaur. p.126, he created it by his own power: that 
205. Cyril. Hierosol. Cateches. p.221. would be too plainly running counter 
Pseudo-Justin. p. 296. ed. Sylburg. to Scripture and the whole Catho- 
Ambros. de Fid. 1. ν. 6.2. Augustin. lic Church; and betraying meaner 
contr. Maxim. 1. ii. p. 741. Greg. thoughts of Christ than the generality 
Nyse. contr. Eum. 1. iv. p. 542. of the ancient Arians appear to have 

Υ Dr. Clarke, indeed, says, (Script. had. See above, p. 49. 

Doctr. p. 369. ad ed.) that the Son 

ΒΈΒΜ. ΠΙ. proved from Oreation. 61 

mitted, what can they pretend next’ That the Son’s efficiency 
reached not so far, was not of the same artent, as the Father's? 
Bat here Scripture, express Scripture, comes in, and precludes 
every pretence of this nature. ‘“ AW things were made by him,” 
says St. John, (John i. 3.) not a single thing without him: af 
things, says St. Paul, (Eph. iii. 9.) and again, all things by the 
Son, the same, and therefore as many things as of the Father, 
(τ: Cor. vill. 6.) and again, ‘ all things visible and invisible,” ὅσα. 
Coloss. i. 16. If therefore a proper efficiency, and of the same 
extent, must be allowed, what will our adversaries allege further 
to lessen it ? Will they say that it is not the same in Aind? that 
the Father, for example, created; the Son only framed or mo- 
delled ? But neither will this pretence serve any better than the 
former: for then it would not have been said that the Father 
made or created the world, or all things, by his Son, but framed 
and modelled only. And yet we have every word applied in this 
case, that can be supposed to carry any weight or significancy ; 
πάντα ἐγένετο, says St. John, all things were made, not framed 
or modelled only. Or if κτίζειν, to create, be stronger, πάντα éx- 
τίσθη, all things were created, twice over by St. Paul, Coloss. i. 
16. Or if ποιεῖν be imagined to signify something more, we have 
that word also, δι’ οὗ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν, “ by whom also he 
“ made the worlds,” Heb. i. 2. 

If then the Son’s efficiency be proper, and of the same eztent, 
and of the same Aind with the Father's, let our adversaries tell 
us what they would have next! They will say still, the Son is 
subordinate. Right; and so long as they take the other consi- 
derations along with it, that he is effictené in a proper sense, in 
the same find, and in the same eatent, as the Father is, we 
shall not dispute the point of subordination with them. The 
Father is primarily Creator, as the first in order, the Son 
secondarily, as second in order; and they are both one Crea- 
tor, as they are one in nature, in power, and in operation. This 
is the Catholic faith, which was before Ariantsm , and will be 
after it. 

Thus far I have proceeded in the proof of my position from 
the New Testament : and there is no further need of any other. 
But since the ancients have also made use of several texts of the 
Old Testament, it will be proper to take a short view of them 
also; not so much to confirm what has been before proved and 
wants no confirmation, as to explain and illustrate it something 

62 Christ's Divinity SERM. II. 

further, and withal to give us a clearer idea of the sentiments of 
the primitive writers on this head. 

In the first chapter of Genesis, ver. 26, God is introduced, 
speaking in the plural number, “ Let us make man in our 
‘image, after our likeness.” This text has been understood 
of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (or at least of Father and 
Son,) by the whole stream of Christian writers, down from the 
times of the Apostles. The Christians were not singular in 
thinking that the text intimated a plurality. The Jews before, 
and after, believed so too, as appears from Philo, and Justin Mar- 
tyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; only they interpreted the 
text of God and his angels, which the Christians understood of 
the Persons of the Trinity. Justin Martyr and others made 
very good use of it aguinst the Jews, observing how absurd it 
was to suppose that angels could be joined in that manner with 
God the Father, and be able to create man, or any thing. 

Thus far at least we may infer from their manner of using 
this text, and their reasonings upon it, that the Christian 
Church, in general, believed Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to 
create, as it were, in concert, and every Person of the Trinity 
to be properly Creator. 

This will appear further from another text of the Old Testa- 
ment, which they cite very frequently to the same purpose. It 
is Paalm xxxiu. 6. “ By the word of the Lord were the hea- 
“ vens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath of his 
‘‘ mouth :” or, as it may be understood, by his Worp, and by 
his Sprit. This they interpreted of the Λόγος, or Worn, which 
St. John speaks of, and of the Holy Ghost. Which interpreta- 
tion obtained very early in the second century, and was gene- 
rally received afterwards. It must indeed be presumed that 
those early writers would not have entirely founded any doctrine 
of that moment on texts so very capable of another construction. 
But having already imbibed the principles of Christianity from 
the New Testament and Catholic tradition, they easily believed 
that those texte intended such a sense, when they knew from 

Σ Theoph. Antioch. p. 21. Ox. ed. contr. Eunom. lib. iii. p. 82, rro. 
Irenseus, p. 98, 183. ed. Bened. Hip- Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xliv. Ὁ 714: 
polyt. contr. Noét. cap. xii. p. 14. Epiph. Anchorat. p. 29. Pseudo-Jus- 

ertull. contr. Prax. cap. vii. p. 503. tin. Expos. Fid. p. 296. Sylb. ed. 
Origen. in Joh. p. 43. Euseb. Preep. Pseudo-Ambros. de Symb. Apost. lib. 
Evan. lib. vii. cap. 13. lib. xi. cap. 14. vi. p. 324. ed. Bened. 

‘in Pe. p. 125. Athanas. p. 694. Basil. 


other evidences, that that sense was a truth, whether taught 
there or no. 

Here again I must observe, that whether the text of the 
Psalms proves any thing or nothing to the point in hand, its 
being used formerly, in favour of such a doctrine, shews that 
that doctrine was then received, and was the faith of the 

There are two texts more out of Psalms, which I may put 
together, being both of the same import and significancy. 
Ps. xxxiii. 9. “ΗΘ spake, and it was done; he commanded, 
“and it stood fast.” The other is Ps. cxlviii. 5. ““ He com- 
‘© manded, and they were created.” 

These the *ancients understood of the three Persons; the 
Father being supposed to issue out his orders or commands for 
the creation, and the Son and Holy Ghost to execute or fulfil 
them. This notion >obtained among the Ante-Nicene and Post- 
Nicene writers; and seems to have been grounded chiefly upon 
those two passages out of the Psalms, and some expressions in 
the first chapter of Genesis®. What led the Fathers to take 
the more notice of those places, was the singular use they might 
be of in their disputes with Jews and Heretics. The Jews 
denied the divinity, or rather the distinct personality of the 
Λόγος, or Worp. They were not to be confuted out of the 
New Testament, (which was of no authority with the Jews,) 
but out of the Old, which both sides equally admitted. Hence 
it became the more necessary to search the Old Testament for 
proofs of the divinity or distinct personality of Christ. Now it 
was thought that no person would be introduced as giving out 
orders or commands to himself, but that such expressions denoted 
a plurality of persons. Who then could these other Persons 
be that received the commands! They could not be angels or 
archangels: why? because the orders were such as no angels 
could execute?, They were orders to creafe man, and the whole 

SERM. II. proved from Creation. 

8. Trensus, p. 118, 183, 169, 288. 

Epist. 5 . Antioch. Labb. tom. i. 
. 845. Orig. in Job. p. 18, 61. Contr. 
Cele. p- 63, 317, 79. Euseb. Prepar. 

Evang. lib. vii. cap. 12. in Psal. Ὁ. 
aes Athanas. p. 216, 499. Cyr 
Catech. xi. p. 143,147. Hilar. de 
Trin. hb. iv. p. 837. 

Ὁ Irenzeus, lib. iv. cap. 38. p. 285. 
Hippolytus contr. Noét. p. 16. Basil. 

de Sp. Sanct. cap. 16. Cyril. Hierosol. 
. 146. Ox. ed. Hiilar. p. 325, 837, 
40. Athanas. p. 216, 499. See others 
cited in Petav. lib. ii. c. 7. p. 141. 
© Vid. Tertull. contr. Prax. cap. xii. 
p. 506. Hilar. de Trin. lib. iv. p. 836. 
Athanas. Orat. ii. p. 499. 
a Οὐ γὰρ, ὅπερ ἡ wap ὑμῖν λεγομένη 
αἵρεσις δογματίζει, φαίην ἂν ἐγὼ ἀληθὲς 
εἶναι, ἣ οἱ ἐκείνης διδάσκαλοι ἀποδεῖξαι 



Ohrist’s Diminity 

None less than God’s own Son and Holy Spirit could 
be equal to such a charge. There are therefore two divine 
Persons, or at least one, besides the Father. This was their 
argument from the Old Testament against the Jews. They had, 
besides, almost the like occasion to make use of the very same 
argument against heretics; against the Sabellians especially, 
and sometimes Arians. For, as many as had a mind to prove 
that the Person of the Father, and he ouly, was God, were 
wont to plead that Moses and the Prophets knew of no other 
real Person that was God besides him; quoting Deut. vi. 4. 
(“* Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord :”) and other 
passages of the Old Testament of like import. Had this pre- 
tence been true, it would not have weakened the belief of a - 
Trinity of Persons, founded upon a fuller and clearer discovery 
made by the Gospel. But they thought there were sufficient 
(though in some measure odscurs) intimations given of a plu- 
rality of real Persons in the Old Testament; and accordingly 
they alleged those texts which I have mentioned, and abundance 
more too tedious to recite; insisting upon it, that Moees and 
the Prophets had asserted a plurality of divine Persons; and 
that, notwithstanding their doctrine of the Unity of God, they 
had actually applied the titles of God, Lord, Jehovah, ὅσο. to 
more Persons than one; and that it was not the Father singly, 
but he, and his Son, and Holy Spirit, that created the world. 
The last particular (as I have before observed) they inferred 
from the texts which I have here cited out of the Psalms, and 
from others of like import. I have dwelt the longer upon this 

. δύνανται, ort έλοις ἔλεγεν, ἢ Gre Adest enim οἱ semper Verbum et Sa- 
ἀγγέλων ποίημα ἡ» τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἀνθρώ- pientia, Filius οἱ Spiritus, per quos, 
πειον. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ et in quibus omnia libere οἱ sponte 
fecit, ad quos et loquitur dicens, Fa- 

warps προβληθὲν γέννημα, πρὸ πάντων 
ctamus hominem, &c. Iren. lib. iv. 

φῶν ποιημάτων συνῆν τῷ πατρὶ, καὶ 

τούτῳ ὁ πατὴρ προσομιλεῖ (fort. προσ- 
ὡμίλει.) Just. Dial. p. 187. Jebb. 
——tTantus Deus, et ipse est qui 
per semetipsum conatituit et elegit et 
adornavit, et continet omnia~— Non 
ergo angeli fecerunt nos nec nos 
lasmaverunt, nec angeli potuerunt 
Imaginem facere Dei; nec alius quis 
ter ver Domini, nec vittus 
onge absistens a Patre universorum. 
Nec enim indigebat horum Deus ad 
faciendum que ipse preedefinierat fieri, 
quasi ipee suas non manus. 

. 20, Ὁ. 253. 

ihil in totum Diabolus invenitur 
fecisse, videlicet cum et ipse creatura 
sit Dei, quemadmodum et reliqui 
angels. fren. Ὁ. 288. 

Ei yap ἐνετείλατο ὁ Θεὺς, καὶ ἐκτίσθη 
τὰ δημιουργήματα, τίς ἂν κατὰ τὸ ἀρέ- 
σκον τῷ προφητικῷ πνεύματι, εἴη ὁ τὴν 
τηλικαύτην τοῦ πατρὸς ἐντολὴν ἐκπλη- 
re δυνηθεὶς, ἣ ὁ (ἵν᾽ Hie ὀνομάσῳ) 

μψυχος λόγος καὶ ἀλήθεια άνων ; 
Orig. sale (οἶδ. lib. ii. p. 63." 

SERM. II. proved from Creation. 65 

matter, because some persons, upon their first reading of the 
Ante-Nicene Fathers, (meeting with those passages where the 
Father is said to have commanded, and the Son to have executed 
his orders,) are apt either to be offended at them, or to draw 
strange conclusions from them: not considering that such men 
as Athanasius, Basil, and Cyril, made no scruple of them, under- 
standing very well what such expressions meant at that time, 
and with what view they were intended®. The patrons of 
Artanism will never be able to serve their cause at all by them. 
They would indeed gladly infer, that since the Father is intro- 
duced as commanding, and the Son as fulfilling, that therefore 
the Son was supposed of an inferior nature to the Father. But 
if they please to take a view of the whole argument, as it stands 
in the primitive writers, they will find that the very contrary is 
the truth. For the argument is this: the Father is represented 
in Scripture as giving out commands for the creation of the 
universe: no inferior person, no angel or archangel, no f creature 
whatever, could be equal to the office, or able to execute those 
commands: therefore there must be some other Person or 
Persons, distinct from the Father, and superior to all creatures ; 
and those are his Son, and his Holy Spirit. Thus we see, that 
the primitive writers proceeded upon a supposition directly 
opposite to what the Arians pretend: for had they supposed 
the Son and Holy Ghost to be creatures, there had been no 
force at all in their argument; nor could they, in that way, 
have proved that there was any Son or Holy Ghost at all. But 
admitting that the work of creation was too big for any creature, 
and admitting at the same time that there were other Persona, 
besides the Father, who created the world; the consequence is 
very clear, that there are more divine uncreated Persons than 
one; and thus the doctrine of a coefernal Trinity is established. 
I must entreat you to observe, that I do not take upon me to 
maintain the whole premises, which those ancient writers went 
upon. I think the argument from those texts is barely probable : 
I do not apprehend that a plurality of Persons can certainly 
be inferred, merely from such forms of expression, where the 
Father is said to have commanded, and things were created. 

€ See the meaning of them clearly f See the quotations from Irenzus 
and explained by Athanasius. especially. 
. ii. p. 499. 

66 Christ’s Divinity SERM. II. 

. The style is not improper or unsuitable, as I humbly conceive, 
though the Father were supposed the only Person concerned 
in creating. It is a handsome way of expressing that to οὐδέ or 
to do is with God one and the same thing. Allthat I intend 
is, that the Fathers, who made use of that way of reasoning, 
believed that God the Son was properly Creator (otherwise 
there is neither force nor pertinency in their argument) and 
properly divine. As to the argument itself, they had no need 
of it, but in occasional disputes, where it might be of some 
service, ad homines at least; or where the New Testament 
proofs, on which they chiefly grounded their doctrine, could not 
be admitted at all 

I shal] now just give you a brief summary of the doctrine of 
the primitive Church, in this article, and then take my leave of 
you for this time. They believed that Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, were distinct Persons, and all jointly concerned in the 
creation of the world; not as many Creators, but as one 
Creator ; not dividing the work into parts, but as concurring 
in the whole, and in every part. Man, and every man, was 
supposed the creature of the whole Trinity; and so also the 
universe, and every part of the universe, was believed to be the 
creature of all, there being no creatures of the Father's but what 
were likewise creatures of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Yet 
they admitted some distinction in the manner of operation, 
reserving to the Father, as jirst Person, some sort of preemi- 
nence in every thing. He was primarily considered as Creator 
by the operation of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but without 
excluding them from a proper efficiency. So far from it, that 
they chose rather to represent the Father as willing or designing, 
and the two other Persons as acting and executing ; contributing, 
as it were, but in subordination to one Head, to the beginning, 
the growth, and the perfection of every work. They ventured 
no further, nor was it proper to indulge imagination in a matter 
so sublime, and above the comprehension of men or angels. It 
is sufficient to know, that the creation was the effect of three 
Persons, whose operations were undivided, as their nature and 
essence is; and whose powers, perfections, and glory are one. 
But I must not anticipate what more properly belongs to my 
second head of discourse. 

Having shewn from Scripture, that God the Son is strictly 

SERM. I. proved from Creation. 67 

and properly Creator of men, of angels, and of the whole unj- 
verse, I am next to consider the force of the argument deducible 
from it, in favour of Christ’s divinity. But the first part having 
already taken up the full time allowable in discourses of this 
nature, I must be content to defer the remainder to another 

F 2 

Christ properly Creator : 




The third Sermon preached November 4, 1719. 

a ap ὕ..... 

JOuN i. 3. 

All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing 
made that was made. 

IN discoursing on these words, I proposed three things: 

ι. To shew that God the Son, a distinct Person from God 
the Father, is strictly and properly Creator, and efficient Cause 
of all things. — 

2. To consider the force of the argument arising from it, in 
favour of Christ’s divinity. 

3. To make some reflections and observations upon the whole, 
for our further improvement. 

I had then no more time than was necessary to be taken up 
in making good my first position: which, I hope, I have clearly 
shewn to be founded in express words of Scripture, and con- 
firmed all along by the unanimous suffrage of Catholic antiquity. 
The two remaining parts I reserved for the subject-matter of 
our present meditations. I proceed then to my second general 
head of discourse. 

ΠῚ. To consider the force of the argument, in respect of 
Christ’s divinity, contained in this; that he is properly Creator 
of men, of angels, of all things. I shall consider it under three 
views, debating the point distinctly, from the reason of the thing, 
from Scripture, and from antiquity. 

SERM. III. Christ's Divinity proved from Creation. 69 

1. From the reason of the thing. I shall not here treat of 
the subject in the scholastic way; which would afford but dry 
entertainment: besides that, the argument would suffer by it, 
and lose much of its force and efficacy. There is sometimes in 
moral probabilities an irresistible strength, little short of the 
strictest demonstration. There is something so affecting and 
sensible under them, that they cannot fail of making their way 
into every well-disposed and ingenuous mind: and so it often 
happens that they do as infallibly (and more agreeably) win 
over our assent, as demonstration can force it. To come to 
the business in hand: God the Son is Creator of all things. 
On that foundation I am to proceed: and when I say Creator, 
I include Sustatmer and Preserver. Let us then distinctly con- 
sider him: 

1. As Creator of man. 

2. As Oreator of the earth, and of all things in it. 

3. As Creator of the heavens, with all their host. 

4. As Creator of angels and archangels, thrones and dominions, 
principalities and powers, which live, and move, and have their 
being from, and in, the Son of God. 

Ido not heighten or rhetoricate at all, in these particulars. 
They are no more than strict and close comment upon Coloss. 
1.16. and Heb. i. 10. only branching out into parts what is there 
couched and comprised in few words. 

1. First then, let us consider our blessed Lord as Creator of 
man, of all men living quite round the globe; of all that have 
lived and died from Adam down to this day. I leave it to the 
anatomists and physiologists to describe the wonderful mechanism 
and exquisite workmanship of the human body: the erect pos- 
ture, the figure and shape, the size and stature, the structure 
and use of every part, and the symmetry of the whole; which 
carry in them uncontestable proofs of the skill, and the con- 
trivance, and the consummate wisdom of him that made us. 
How many lectures might be read upon the fabric of the eye, 
the texture of the brain, the configuration of the muscles, and 
disposition of the nerves, or glands; all bearing testimony to 
the power and greatness of the Son of God; of whom we may 
now say, that “he hath set the members every one of them in 
“the body, as it hath pleased him;” and hath so “ tempered 
“ the body together,” as admirably to answer all the wise ends 
and purposes designed by him. The same wisdom, which is 

70 Christ's Divinity SERM. III. 

visible in every single individual, reaches at the eame time to 
the whole spectes round the globe. All are supported, sustained, 
and actuated by God the Son, in “ whom all things consist.” 
He is equally present to all, supplying motion, nutriment, and 
strength to every individual, extending his providential care to 
the ends of the earth, and in one comprehensive view grasping 
the whole system. For, 

2. We are to consider him as Creator of the terraqueous 
globe, the earth and all things in it. He “has laid the founda- 
“tions thereof,” divided it into sea and land, garnished it with 
plants, trees, and flowers, stocked it with living creatures for 
the use of man, and plentifully furnished it with the most grate- 
ful and unexpressible variety. Every herb that grows, every 
spire of grass that springs up, every creeping thing that moveth 
upon the face of the earth, proclaims the wisdom of its Maker, 
sounds forth the praises of the Son of God. I may here apply 
the words of the Psalmist, which, whether meant of Father or 
Son, are certainly applicable to both. ‘“ Praise the Lord from 
‘‘ the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps: fire, and hail; snow, 
“ and vapours ; stormy wind fulfilling his word: mountains, and 
‘“‘ all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars: beasts, and all eattle ; 
“ creeping things, and flying fowl: kings of the earth, and all 
. “ people; princes, and all judges of the earth: both young men, 
“and maidens; old men, and children: let them praise the 
“ name of the Lord: for his name alone is excellent; his glory 
‘ia above the earth and heaven.” Psalm cxlviii. It would lead 
me too far off from my purpose to consider, or to enumerate, 
the many legible characters of a wisdom and power nothing 
short of divine, which are every where discoverable within and 
without this earth whereon we live. These I leave to the 
naturalists to describe. No man that considers its stupendous 
size, or bulk alone, but must think it a work too august and 
great for any thing less than a dtvme architect. We have often 
triumphed over atheists upon this head, alleging that no power 
or wisdom less: than infinite could be equal to the task. The 
very same topics, to such as believe the Scriptures, may be as 
justly urged for the divinity of God the Son. It was his hand 
that made all these things, and by his power they are sustained 
and held together. And yet these are little things, and as 
nothing in comparison. For, 

3. We are thirdly to consider, that the heavens also are the 

SERM., ΠΙ. proved from Creation. 71 

“ works of his hands.” That huge and vast compass, that 
immense region of ether, and therein the sun, with its planetary 
chorus dancing round it, the fixed stars, (perhaps suns too, with 
their planets rolling about them,) whatever modern much im- 
proved astronomy has discovered, or whatever yet further dis- 
coveries future ages may bring to light; all things visible and 
tnvisible have the Son of God for their Creator, Sustainer, and 
Presercer. If we survey the magnitude of the heavenly bodies, 
some smaller, most vastly bigger than our own globe, all of an 
amazing size and greatness; if we consider the nice proportion 
of their distances, the regularity of their situations, the harmony 
of their courses, and uniformity of all their motions; they oan- 
not but raise in us an idea of the infinite power, wisdom, and 
greatness of him that made them. This is a theme of very wide 
extent, and has been often and excellently handled in defence 
of our common religion, against the atheists and scepitcs of our 
age or nation. It is with pleasure I observe, that the same 
topics (only taking in those Scriptures which they and we own) 
will almost equally serve against Arians or Socinians, or any 
that presume to deny the divinity of God the Son. It is clear 
from the Sacred Writ, that he “ created” all things, and that 
by him “ all things consist :”” and therefore it is evident, that all 
the marks of wisdom, power, or majesty, discoverable in this 
grand palace, and august structure of the universe, are 80 many 
arguments of his divinity, and proclaim him to be the eternal 
and omnipotent God. I have one particular more to urge under 
this head. Hitherto I have been speaking of sun, moon, and 
stars, prodigiously great, but yet inanimate bodies; and crea- 
tures less perfect than we ourselves are, who make a part, 
though the lowest part, of the rational creation. We are fur- 
ther to consider, 

4. That the very angels themselves, the top, surely, of the 
creation, those bright intelligences, and glorious ministers of the 
court of heaven, are the creatures and workmanship of the Son 
of God. Whether they be thrones or domintons, principalites 
or powers, they were all created, not only by him, but for him. 
Myriads of those heavenly spirits are continually serving and 
praising him. To him they owe their perfections, their strength, 
their glory, their life, their very being ; and on him they depend 
for their support and sustenance. I shall proceed no further: 
I have said enough. I leave it to any man of plain good sense, 

712 Christ's Divinity SERM. III. 

and common discernment, to pass a judgment, whether, sup- 
posing these facts be true, (and they are true, if pluin Scripture 
be so,) any longer doubt can be made of the real and essential 
divinity of the Son of God. If any one tells me, after all, that 
this does not amount to strict demonstration, because we cannot 
make a certain estimate of the scale of being, nor define peremp- 
torily what degrees of perfection there may be short of infinite ; 
I say, if any one urges this, I should allow that there is not 
what may be called strict demonstration: but it is demonstration 
that the evidence is such as ought to convince every wise and 
considerate man; and such as ought to have the same effect 
upon the mind as a thousand demonstrations. There are many 
things not capable of strict demonstration; and yet so evident 
and undoubted, that a man would forfeit the very character of 
sobriety and common sense, that should seriously make the least 
question of them. I might mention, for instance, the existence 
of the world about us; which good philosophers have thought 
not capable of strict demonstration. But a man would hardly 
be supposed well in his wits, that should seriously entertain any 
the least doubt or suspicion concerning it. His eyes, his ears, 
and all his senses bear testimony to the truth and certainty of 
it: and if it be not strictly demonstrable in the rational way, 
yet this is demonstrable, that the nature and circumstances of 
men are such, that he both may and must believe it. The 
same, in ἃ great measure, I am persuaded, is the case which I 
have been mentioning. For, allowing the first position, that 
the Son of God is properly Creator of men, of angels, and of the 
universe; there is no man that attends to it, and considers it 
in its full latitude, but must come to this conclusion, that the 
Son of God is no creature, nor any thing less than the eternal 
and infinite God. So much for my first head of argument, from 
the nature and reason of the thing itself. My second head of 
argument is from Seripture-texts. 

2. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the same who 
had told us, in his firat chapter, that the Son had “ laid the 
“ foundation of the earth,” and that the “heavens were the 
‘ works of his hands;” I say, the same author observes, ch. iii. 
ver. 4, that “‘ he that built all things is God;” thus establishing 
the very conclusion which we are seeking after, as he had before 
done the premises. This, considered as a general maxim, must 
be applicable to the particular instance of God the Son, if it was 

SERM. III. proved from Creation. 13 

he that “built all things,” as hath been proved: nay, it is 
reasonable to believe that the Apostle intended it particularly 
of God the Son. ‘This construction is very suitable to the 
argument which the author was upon, in that chapter; and to 
the high things spoken of the Son in chapter the first: there is 
nothing in the context but what extremely favours and confirms 
it; except it be that, verse the sixth, it is said, “Christ as a 
“Son over his own house,” intimating as if he was not that 
Person before spoken of, (who is called God, ver. 4,) but Son of 
that Person. But to this it may be replied, that the author 
was here setting forth the preference of Christ above Moses: 
the comparison was between those two persons only. How the 
Person of the Father came in here, is not easy to account: but 
understanding it of the Person of the Son, the sense is clear, 
the argument proper and pertinent. As to his being called 
God in the fourth verse, and Son in the sixth, it was very proper 
and significant, because he is so God, as withal to be Son of 
God, or God of God. 

I proceed now to another text, Rom. i. 20. “The invisible 
“ things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, 
“ being understood by the things that are made, even his eter- 
“nal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” 
If then, as the Apostle here testifies, the work of creation pro- 
claims the eternity and divinity of its Creator, it will follow from 
thence, that God the Son as Creator must be eternal, and 
strictly divine. I am sensible that St. Paul’s argument may 
be taken under another view. For it may mean, not that the 
magnificence or greatness of the work proves that every Creator 
must be eternal, or God; but that there must be one eternal 
first Cause of all things; otherwise there would be a progress of 
causes, one higher than another, én injinttwm, which is absurd. 
The first construction I take to be the more probable, as it is 
more obvious to common capacities, and as the argument in 
that view strikes the more sensibly, being such as few could 
mies of; and therefore the Gentiles were without excuse, for not 
attending to it. However this be, I lay no great stress upon it, 
designing a more general, and, I think, more convincing argu- 
ment out of Scripture, than I have hitherto mentioned ; which 
is this: that the work of creation is every where represented as 
the certain mark and characteristic of the true God. It is the 
favourite topic which God is pleased to insist most upon, when- 

74 Christ's Diviney ) SERM. UI. 

ever he would either distinguish his own peculiar majesty and 
power, above and beyond all the gods of the nations, or when 
he would excite in his people the highest idea possible, suitable 
to his transcendent excellency and peerless perfections. Number- 
less are the texts of the Old Testament, which might be cited to 
this purpose. I shall single out as many as may serve to give a 
due light and force to the present argument. 

Hezekiah, in his prayer to God, thus expresses himself: “0 
‘‘ Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, 
“ thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the 
“ earth.” Then follows the reason why he is so eminently distin- 
guished, and so infinitely superior to all others : “Thou hast made 
“ heaven and earth.” 2 Kings xix. 15. 

Job, describing the sepereminent majesty of the one true God, 
thus elegantly sets it forth: ‘He stretcheth out the north over 
“the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He 
“ bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is 
“not rent under them The pillars of heaven tremble, and 
“ are astonished at his reproof. He divideth the sea with his 
“* power. By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his 
“ hand hath formed the crooked serpent.” Job xxvi. 7, &c. 

In the Psalms we meet with a great deal to the same pur- 
pose. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firma- 
“‘ ment sheweth his handywork.” Ps. xix. 1. “ All the gods of 
“the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens.”’ Ps. 
xevi. 5. ‘“ The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as 
‘‘ for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them. 
“ The north and the south, thou hast created them.” Ps. lxxxix. 
11, 12, 

More to the same effect occurs perpetually in the Prophets. 
I shall cite a few examples only. “ Lift up your eyes on high, 
“and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out 
“their host by number,” ὥς. Isa. xl. 26. ‘ Who hath mea- 
“ sured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out 
“ heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth 
“in ἃ measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the 
“ hills in a balance?” Isa. xl. 12. ‘“ Thus saith God the Lord, 
“ he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that 
“ὁ spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it,” &c. 
Isa. xl. 5. “ Thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, 
‘“‘and he that formed thee, O Israel.” Isa. xliii. 1. So again; 

SERM. Π|. proved from Creation. 15 

“ 1am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and 
“create darkness.” Isa. xlv. 6, 7. “1 have made the earth, 
“and created man upon it; I, even my hands, have stretched 
“ out the heavens, and all their host have 1 commanded.” Isa. 
xlv.12. ‘Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have 
“not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish 
“from the earth, and from under these heavens. He hath 
“made the earth by his power, he hath established the world 
“by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his 
“ discretion.” Jer. x. 13, 12. 

It would be tedious to add more texts. These are sufficient 
to shew what a particular stress and emphasis is laid upon 
God’s being Creator of all things. It is the distinguishing cha- 
racter of the one true God; and whenever Scripture mtended 
to raise in men’s minds such esteem and veneration as they 
ought to have for the supreme God of Israel, nothing higher 
or greater could be said than this, that he had created the 
universe, had “laid the foundations of the earth,” and that 
the “heavens were the works of his hands.” (See Psalm cii. 
25,26.) This is further confirmed from the New Testament, 
Rom. i. 25, where St. Paul directs us to worship the Creator, 
in opposition to all creature-worship. From whence it is plain 
that the Apostle supposes the Creator, or Person creating, to 
be no creature, but God “blessed for ever :” from whence also, 
by the way, we may remark that Scripture knows no medium 
between God and creature, but includes all things and all persons 
whatever under that distinction; as does also antiquity unani- 
mously, and all sound philosophy, and the common sense and 
reason of mankind. But to proceed. 

Seeing then that the title of Creator is thus magnificently and 
elegantly set forth in holy Scripture, as the distinguishing mark 
of eminency, the epitome of all perfection, and the sure and cer- 
tain character of frue Divinity: if nothing higher or stronger 
ean be thought on, to raise in us the most sublime, awful, and 
exalted idea of the supreme God of Israel; and if the Son of 
God be plainly and evidently set forth to us under this same 
high character: if he created all things, visible and invisible ; if 
he “ laid the foundations of the earth,” and if the “‘ heavens are 
“ the works of his hands : if these be the premises, let any man 
of common abilities, that has not his faculties foreclosed, or is 
not steeled against conviction, be left to draw the conclusion. 

76 Christ's Divinity SERM. ΠΙ. 

To say of God the Son, that he is the Maker of the world, of 
the kinds in it, as well as of the grand palace itself, (as a late 
ingenious author expresses it,) is to say as much and as high of 
him, as it is possible to say or to conceive of any other person, 
however named : because the whole that we can naturally know 
or apprehend of God, his powers or perfections, is only what we 
can infer from his work of creation. Hence it is, that Socinians 
and Sabellians have joined with the Catholics in condemning the 
Arians for making two or more creators, the same in effect with 
two eternal gods: and since there is no way of avoiding it, but 
either by saying that Father and Son are one Creator, or else 
denying the Son to be Creator at all; those gentlemen have 
chose the /atver, rather than part with their main principle, 
that the “unity of God is an unity of Person.” But then they 
manifestly run counter to Scripture, which evidently makes the 
Son of God Creator, as 1 have before shewn. 

3. 1 proceed now, thirdly, to inquire into the sentiments of 
the ancients, upon this head; whether they thought it did not 
exceed the power of a creature to create any thing, or whether 
the work of creating was not looked upon as a work properly 
divine, belonging to God only. It does not appear that any, 
except heretics, ever dogmatically» ascribed the work of creation, 
or any part of it, to any creature. 

Simon Magus, borrowing his sentiments from the Platonic 
philosophy, did not scruple to assert, even in the times of the 
Apostles, that this lower world was made by angels. After 
him, 4 Menander, ¢Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, ἢ Cerin- 
thus, with the infamous crew of Gnostics, taught the same, or 
very nearly the same doctrine; and this within the first century. 
Cerdo and Marcion of the second century have been thought by 
some to have asserted the same principles in the main, differing 
rather in words than in reaityi. The Valentinians also were 
so far in the sentiments of the Gnostics, as to ascribe the crea- 
tion of the lower world to a creature of their own devising, whom 

® Mr. Nye, Explication of the Di- appears of it, but the contrary. 
vine Unity, p. ΟἹ. ¢ Jrenseus lib. i. cap. 23. P 99 

Ὁ Origen indeed seems to have in- @ Ibid. p. roo. e Ibid. 
dulged some fanciful conjectures that Ibid. p. ror. 
way, in some of hia looser writings, & Ibid. p. 103. 
if they be his. (See Comm. in Joh. h Ibid. p. 105. 
Pp: 43, 43.) But in his more accurate { Vid. Dissert. Preev. ad Iren. et 
and certainly genuine works, nothing Bened. p. 70. 

SERM. π|. proved from Creation. 17 

they called Demiurgus, or Creator. These wild and vain con- 
ceits were utterly detested by the sober Catholics; who would 
not so much as hear of any angel or archangel's creating the 
world, or any part of it; but ascribed it wholly to the joint 
operation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It appears to have 
been a rule and maxim of the Church, in Irenzus’s time“, and 
probably all along, that no creature whatever could have any 
hand in creating ; but that creating was an indisputable mark of 
a divine tmmutable nature. These principles seem to have ob- 
tained constantly in the Church long before the Nicene Couneil. 
No sooner did the Arian controversy arise, but the Catholics, 
upon their old principles, charged the Arians with great imeon- 
sistency, as making a creature of the Son of God, and yet admit- 
ting him to be Creator. They scrupled not to tell them, that 
this was copying after Valentinus, and reviving the principles of 
the Gnostics: that it was confounding the ideas of Creator and 
creature, and was all over contradictory and repugnant. No 
argument bore harder upon the Arians than this, as appears by 
the perplexity and confusion they upon it; not being 
able to come to any fixed and certain resolution in it. Scrip- 
ture and Catholic tradition appear clear, full, and strong for 
the Son’s being properly and strictly Framer and Maker of the 
world; and there were but few in comparison that durst go 
such lengths as openly to deny it: on the other hand, to make 
a creature-creator, was in a manner unheard of, except among 
heretics, and was, besides, harsh and shocking even to common 

To soften this matter, the Arians, many of them, would not 

k Nihil enim in totum Diabolus 
Invenitur fecisse, videlicet cum et ipse 
Creatura sit Dei, quemadmodum et 
religqui angeli. Omnia enim fecit 
Deus, quemadmodum et David ait: 
Quoniam ipse dizit et facta sunt ; ipse 

it et creata sunt. Peal. cxlviii. 

5. Iren. lib.iv. cap. 41. p. 288. 
Et hoc Deus ab homine differt, 
iam Deus quidem facit, homo 
autem fit: et quidem qui facit sem- 
per idem est. Tren. lib. iv. cap. 12. 

Pp. 240. 

That this was et ες εὐ αν τὰν 
all antiquity appears from hence, that 
all the Fathers, where they declare 

against creature-worship, do at the 
same time declare for the worship 
of the Creator: constantly opposing 
Creator and creature to each other, 
in such a manner as shews plainly 
that they thought there was no me- 
dium between, and that creation be- 
longed to God alone, not to any 

See Athenagoras, p.56. ‘Tertull. 
Apolog. c.17. Clem. Alex. p. 55, 59- 
Origen. contr. Cels. p. 158, 375- 

1 Quis auctorem inter opera sua 
deputet, ut videatur id esse quod fe- 
cit? Ambros. de Fid. lib. i. cap. 5. 

P. 450. 

78 Christ's Diointty SHEM. ΠΙ. 

own that they held the Son to be a creature; which was pre- 
tence only, and playing with words: for had they not only ver- 
bally, but really intended that the Son was no creature, they and 
the Catholics could have had no further dispute. But this was 
& contrivance to dissemble an absurdity too gross to be owned, 
and to disguise a difficulty which they could not answer. They 
had, besides, many little arte and subterfuges, to lessen and 
undervalue the Son’s part or province in the work of creation, 
such as I have mentioned and confuted above; the same that 
are made use of by their successors at this day. But all would 
not do: Scripture was plain and clear, and tradition full and 
strong ; and was not to be bore down by little quirks and sub- 
tilties. In fine, truth prevailed, Artantsm daily lost ground ; 
and this very argument, from the Son’s concern in the work of 
creation, contributed, as much as any other, to sink it. The 
strength of it has been often tried since. The Socinians, who 
at the beginning were most of them Arians, were soon sensible 
of this difficulty. They knew not what to make of two Creators 
upon the Arian scheme, nor how to avoid it, if the texts were 
to be understood Hierally of a proper creation: and this, very 
probably, was one main reason of their giving the Arian scheme 
up, and running in with the Photinian hypothesis, which looked 
more defensible. They observed that the texte, which speak of 
the Son’s being Creator, were few in comparison ; and therefore 
thought, they might be able to deal with them ; being never at 
ἃ loss for some eubtile and surprising meaning for any text in 
the Scripture which made against them. Their device, at length, 
was to interpret every text of a mefaphorical creation: and so 
they left the Arians to shift as they could, resting themselves 
upon a new bottom. Yet this could not hold long, though sup- 
ported and set off with all the advantages of wit and criticism. 
Several of the acutest and ablest of the Unitarians grew dissa- 
tisfied with it, and began themselves to feel the force of, and to 
close in with, the arguments of the Trinitarians against it. The 
result was, the preferring the old Sabellian before the late Socinian 
construction: and yet that is as manifestly unscriptural, false, 
and groundless, as either Socinian or Arian. But thus do men 
rove and range about, after they have once forsaken the truth, 
and have given themselves up to the conduct of their private 
fancies, instead of adhering to God’s written word, and to the 

SERM. II. proved from Creaivon. 79 

most faithful guide, for the interpretation of it, the primttive and 
Catholic Church. I thought it not improper to hint thus much 
of the history of the argument whereof I have been discoursing. 
It has lost no weight or strength all the time: for truth is 
always the same. The variety of methods thought on to elude 
it, only confirm it so much the more. I doubt not but the Unita- 
rians, of every denomination, are very sensible, that our inter- 
pretation of Scripture, so far as concerns this point, is the most 
easy, obvious, and natural, and most agreeable to the letter of 
the inspired writers: only they have some scruples about three 
and one, and know not how to digest three Persons that create, 
and yet but one Creator. There is all the difficulty: and so 
they choose to follow philosophical conjectures, (which they call 
reason,) rather than the dictates of true and sound reason, which 
will tell us, that we ought not to be wise beyond what is writ- 
ten, nor put a violent construction on any passages, where there 
is no necessity for it, nor leave a safe and plain rule, to follow 
our own wanderings. But enough of this. 1 have now finished, 
in a great measure, what I designed, having explamed and 
vindicated the argument for Christ’s divinity drawn from the 
consideration of his being Creator of the world. In a former 
discourse I endeavoured to maintain the premises; and now in 
this, to make good the conclusion. The sum of it is this: God 
the Son is Creator of the universe : the Creator of the universe 
is strictly and truly God: therefore God the Son is strictly and 
truly, or essentially God, which was to be proved. It remains 
now only, in the third and last place, 

III. To make some reflections and observations upon the 

1. Having before shewn the truth and certainty of our prin- 
ciples, give me leave, in conclusion, to recommend them further 
from their plainness and simplicity. The Arans were never 
more perplexed about any thing, than in accounting for God's 
taking in a creature to be his agent and operator in making the 
world™. What! make one creature in order to make others ἢ 
Why might he not rather have made all creatures, as well as 
one, and reserved the sole glory of so great and so stupendous 
a work, as that of creating, to his own self? Did he want the 

τὸ Vid. Athan. Orat. ii. p. 496. 

80 Christ's Divinity SERM. III. 

assistance of an inferior being? Or was not his own will and fat 
sufficient to give birth to all things? Besides, did he cease to 
work after he made the Son, leaving it to a creature of his own 
to have, in a manner, the honour of doing of every thing else, 
and to be the immediate agent and manager in all things, both 
in heaven and earth? These were tenets which appeared very 
harsh and strange, and were not naturally, scarce tolerably, ac- 
counted for on the Arian hypothesis. But, upon the Catholic 
scheme, all is easy, expedite, and clear. The Son is of the same 
nature and substance with the Father; so nearly allied, so 
closely united, that nothing could be the work of one, without 
being at the same time the work of both: hence it was, that the 
Son was Joint-Creator with the Father, that “all things were 
“ made by him,” and nothing without him. It was not πὶ possible 
for them either to act or to exist separately ; and therefore it is, 
that the work of creation is in Seripture attributed to both. 
This is an easy and natural account of the whole thing; and 
besides very agreeable to Scripture. “My Father worketh 
“ hitherto, and I work.” John v.17. ‘ What things soever he 
“ doth, these also doth the Son likewise.” John v. 19. 

2. Another thing which recommends our principles is, their 
great consistency with each other, and with the principles of the 
Catholic Church, in this article especially, from the very begin- 
ning. When the Arians first broached their heresy, they had 
some plausible things to urge, particularly in respect of the gene- 
ratton of the Son, which was their principal topic, and which 
they most delighted to dwell upon. But then they took but a 
partial and superficial view of things, and knew not how to work 
up a consistent scheme. The Church had all along set forth 
God the Son as Framer, Creator, Maker, nay, and Sustainer too, 
of all things, in subordination to the Father. The subordination 
looked well on the Arian side; but Creator and Preserver were 
strange attributes to be applied to a creature. This alone was 
sufficient to shew, that the Catholic Church had never gone 
upon Arian principles; having so unanimously and so expressly 

Ὁ Οὐκ ἠδύνατο μὴ δι’ αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι pds, ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ign τὰ πάντα, 
τὰ ὁ δημιουργήματα" καθάπερ ρ τὸ φῶς &c. Athan. Orat. ii. p. 4 
τῷ ἀπαυγάσματι τὰ πάντα ὠτίζει, καὶ Comp. Cyril. Alex. Comm: in Joh. 

τοῦ ἀπαυγάσματος οὐκ ἄν τι φω- 1.3. p. 45. 
τισθείη. οὕτω καὶ ὁ πατὴρ, ὡς διὰ χει- 

SBRM. ΤΠ. proved from Creation. 81 

ascribed creative powers to the Son of God; and not only so, 
but had supposed him Inspector and Governor of the whole 
universe°, extending his power and presence through the whole 
compass of being. That the fact was really thus, besides many 
other evidences, one might reasonably infer from the works of 
Eusebius alone; of whom I may venture to say, that he never 
would have ascribed more power, dignity, or perfection to the 
Son of God, than the plain force of Scripture and Catholic tra- 
dition obliged him to. This man, though a favourer of the 
Arians, (of the men at least, if not of their cause,) yet every 
where says many high and great things of the Son’s creating 
and governing the whole universe, such as any man of plain sense 
must think can belong to no creature, but to God only. 

In his oration before the Emperor Constantine he describes 
God the Son, under the most endearing and magnificent charac- 
ters imaginable. “ He is the omnipotert Lord and Governor 
* of the whole universe, the framer and disposer of all things, 
“ who is above all, and through all, and in all; pervading and 
‘* permeating all things both above and below, earthly and hea- 
“ venly, visible and invisible. It is he that formed and brought 
“ into regularity the confused chaos, made it habitable and plea- 
“ gsurable, adorned it with trees, plants, and flowers, stored the 
‘‘ sea with fishes, and the land with variety of animals, support- 
“ing, preserving, and sustaining them all. It is he that gave 
“the sun its light, and who directs the courses of the stars; 
‘* who is superintendent every where, and steers the whole uni- 
“ verse. To him the very angels owe their life, their light, their 
“ knowledge, or whatever excellencies and perfections they stand 
“ possessed of. In a word, he is set forth as operator and ma- 
“ nager, director and supervisor over all the works of God, shed- 
“ ding his rich blessings, and distributing his bounties through 
“the whole creation.” This is Eusebius’s account of God the 
Son, as it lies scattered through that orationP. A great deal 
too much for any Arian to say, and more than can be tolerably 
accounted for, upon any other than Catholic principles. I shall 
not here pass any positive judgment upon Eusebius, about whom 
the learned world has been so much divided. I shall only say, 

© Iren. p. 190, 31s. Clem. Alex. Novat. cap. 14. 
p- 123, 273, 831. Tertull. adv. Prax. » Vid. Euseb. de Laud. Constant. 
cap. xxiii. p.514. Origen. contr. Cels. .p. 501, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 
p. 63, 164, 239. in Johan. p.123,128. 531, ὅς, 



82 Ohrist's Divinity SERM, ΠῚ. 

that if he was an Arian at the bottom, he was the most incon- 
sistent one that ever was. He ought either to have been much 
more of an Arian than he appears to have been, or no Arian at 
all. He ascribed so much to God the Son, that he hardly left 
any thing peculiar to the Father, but a kind of nominal great. 
ness and majesty, as it were to be above and beyond the world. 
In short, he describes him, as it were, sitting in his throne of 
state, and looking on, and God the Son as acting and perform- 
ing every thing. Athanasius’s account of this matter appears 
much more rational and consistent. For indeed it is by no 
means reconcilable with good sense, and the truth and reason 
of things, to allow so much to God the Son as Eusebius did, 
and not to allow him every thing which Athanasius, with other 
Catholics at that time, (as the Oatholic Church had all along,) 
ascnibed to him. It was a weak thing to pretend to honour the 
Son of God by halves. <A creature or no creature, was the ques- 
tion. The Arians innovated in making the Son a creature, and 
yet were minded to keep up, in other respects, the same honours 
and acknowledgments which had been paid him before. This 
was trifling and inconsistent. The Catholics were wiser men. 
They preserved the same honour and respect which had been | 
formerly paid to God the Son ; but withal, carefully looked after 
the foundation of it; that so they might be able not only to do 
their duty, but to give a reason also for the doing it. This was 
acting with thought and judgment; in which they appear to 
have been as much superior to their adversaries, all along, as in 
true piety, probity, and sincerity. But, 

gdly and lastly, I would observe to you, what I before hinted, 
that while we acknowledge the Son of God to be Creator, we 
acknowledge him a Son also: the second only, not the frst 
Person of the Trinity. The Father therefore is primardy 
Creator, as Father. He is first in conception, whenever we 
speak of the divine nature. And hence it is that he is said to 
create by the Son, and he is eminently and emphatically repre- 
sented in the Creeds, as Maker of heaven and earth, the Son 
having another title, more peculiar to him, that of Redeemer. 
The Nicene Creed (as do many other ancient Creeds) takes 
notice of the worlds’ being made by the Son; but yet so that 
he did not make the worlds by the Father, but the Father by 
him. This is the constant language of antiquity, always keep- 
ing up some preeminence of order, as proper to the first Person, 

SERM. ΠΙ. proved from Ογθαζ, οΉ. 89 

‘along with the true essential divinity of the other two. This 
distinction of order, consistent with a parity of nature, they 
learned from Scripture, and inviolably maintained. For thus 
they thought that, by referring all things to one Head and 
Fountain, they should preserve the unity, along with the dis- 
tinction; and consistently teach a plurality of Persons in one 
Godhead, as we do at this day. There can be no such thing as 
Tritheism, upon the principles of the ancient Church, so long 
as a proper Sonship and subordination is allowed: for therein 
consists the relation, the alliance, the strict union of the Per- 
sons, while they are considered, as I may say, of the same stock, 
and included in each other. But take away that relation and 
alliance, either by supposing three independent separate prin- 
ciples, or by making two of the Persons creatures, and conse- 
quently of a different nature from the other; and then imme- 
diately commences either Tyritheism, strictly so called, or Gentile 
Polythesm. So that the Catholic doctrine is the only security 
against a plurality of Gods; unless we take our last refuge in 
Sabelliantsm, which is utterly repugnant to the whole tenor of 
Scripture, and to the doctrine of the universal Church. ‘ Now 
“« to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three Persons and 
“‘ one God, be all honour and glory, power and dominion, hence- 
“ forth and for evermore.”’ Amen. 


The Scripture-Unity not an Unity of Person : 


The fourth Sermon preached Dec. 2, 1719. 

Marx xii. 29. 
Κύριος 6 Θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστι, 
Hear, O 7εναοῖ, the Lord our God ἐδ one Lord. 

MY design in taking this text is to inquire into the Scripture- 
notion of the Divine Unity: a point very necessary to be stated 
and cleared, in order to a right understanding of the doctrine 
of the Trinity. Iwas once inclinable to defer the treating of it 
some time longer; thinking it most suitable to the rules of 
strict method to throw it off to the last part of what I intend 
upon this subject. But I considered, that while I am asserting 
the divinity of more Persons than one, the thought will, in a 
manner, perpetually occur, how it can be consistent with the 
Scripture-account of the Divine Unity: and many may be 
impatient to have that point settled before we go further. Upon 
this consideration, I thought it advisable to postpone this mat- 
ter no longer, choosing rather to break in upon the rules of 
strict method, than to suffer ἃ prejudice to lie upon the minds 
of any, which might so easily be removed. I shall therefore 
now fall directly to the business of the Unity. 

The words which I have chosen to discourse on appear first 
in Deuteronomy, chap. vi. ver. 4, from whence they are cited by 
our blessed Lord, and thereby made a doctrine of the Gospel, 
as before of the Law. ‘“‘ Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is 
“one Lord.” I think it proper, in the entrance, to take notice, 

SERM. IV. The Divine Unity stated and cleared. 85 

that the original word in the Hebrew for Lord, is Jehovah, 
(according to our now customary way of reading and pronounc- 
ing it ;) and if we put Jehovah, instead of Lord, into the English 
text, it will then run thus: Jehovah our God ts one Jehovah. 
The use which I intend of this will appear presently. 

There are three several constructions of this one short sen- 
tence. The differences betwixt them may appear slight, but 
are really of moment in this controversy, as will be seen in the 
sequel. The Anti-Trinitarians of all sorts have here an interest 
to serve in making the word Jehovah to be nothing more than 
the proper name of one Person only. It is for this reagon chiefly 
they contrive to change the obvious, natural order and construc- 
tion of the words: for otherwise indeed, upon their hypotheses, 
_they would scarce be sense. Suppose it were said, David, our 
king, is one David; or Abraham, our father, is one Abraham ; 
what sense would there be in it? And yet this sentence, Jehovah 
our God ts one Jehovah, supposing Jehovah to be merely a proper 
name, will be just such another saying, and is too flat and 
insipid a sense to be suffered to pass upon the sacred writings. 
This our adversaries are sensible of, and therefore, to salve their 
hypothesis, they make bold with the order and construction of 
the words two ways; which I shall here previously take notice 
of and examine, and then proceed to lay down the third con- 
_ struction, which is the only true one. 

1. The first way is, to turn the sentence thus: Jehovah is 
our God, Jehovah only. Here you see, in this form, Jehovah may 
be ἃ proper name, and the words are good sense too: and so, 
they think, both points are secured. But the objection against 
it is, that the words here in St. Mark (and indeed those in 
Deuteronomy) will not bear that construction. For then the 
words should have been thus: Κύριός ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, Κύριος 
μόνος, which is very different from what we find, and is quite 
another proposition. 

2. A second way of construing the words is thus: Jehovah 
our God, even Jehovah, ig one Person. Here again you will 
observe, that Jehovah may be understood as a proper name, 
which is thought a great point gained; and a greater than 
that is intended by interpreting one, one Person. So there are 
thought to be two ends served at once. But it will be easy to 
defeat them both ; which we shall see presently, as soon as we 
come to assert and explain the true construction of the place. 

86 Tie Divine Unity SHRM. IV. 

I shall here only examine a pretence which is *made from Zecha- 
riah xiv. 9. in favour of this fanciful interpretation. The verse 
runs thus in our translation: “And the Lord shall be King 
‘“ over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and 
‘“‘ his name one.” 

Here it is thought that the truer rendering of the latter 
part should be thus; Zhe Lord (or Jehovah) shall be one, and 
his name one. That is, say they, The Lord shall be one Person. 
It is somewhat strange that they do not add likewise, that his 
name shall be one thing, to answer to the other. It requires no 
great acumen to perceive that the attribute of one is apphed to 
Jehovah in the same manner as it is to the name; and so it is 
els, or wnus, in the masculine gender, when applied to Lord; ἂν, 
or unum, in the neuter gender, when applied to name. And it 
is evident that the meaning only is, that as there shall not be 
many names, but one name acknowledged in that day over all 
the earth; so there shall not be many lords, but one Lord, or 
one Jehovah, one only received as such. This consideration alone 
is sufficient to confute the surmise, as if the Prophet waa here 
concerned about Unity of Person, or intended any thing like it. 
He certainly meant no more than that the Jehovah, who has 
the sole right of dominion over all, will then appear so in fact, 
and be received, among his subjects, as the only God and Lord, 
reigning without a rival. He will be one, in opposition to any 
different gods or lords, and acknowledged as one Head, uniting 
all under him. This is the sense of the place, as is clear from 
the context». For the text is not speaking of what God is in 
himself, being in that respect always the same; but of what he 
should be in respect of his reception in the world, when he should 
be generally acknowledged, and have no rival set up in oppo- 
sition to him. The other construction, which would force Unity 
of Person out of this passage, take it which way we will, is scarce 
sense. For is it thus? Jehovah will in that day become one 
Person, which he was not before? This is, at first sight, ridi- 
culous. Or, is it that Jehovah will then be acknowledged to be 
one Person? This is almost as absurd as the other. For, pro- 
bably, those that did not receive the God of Israel as their God, 
yet might have thought him to be one Person, all along. This 
was not the point; but they were to acknowledge him go one, 

® See Clarke’s Script. Ductr. p. 2. ed. 2. Modest Plea, p. 133. 
b Vid. etiam cap. xiii. ver. 2. 

BERM, IV. stated and cleared. 87 

as not to presume to set up any rival power against him. The 
Prophet had something else at heart than either Unity of sué- 
stance, or Person. "Eora: Κύριος εἷς : “ There shall be one Lord” 
(as our version rightly renders it) both for Jew and Gentile. 
The expression is much such another as νόμος εἷς ἔσται, (Numb. 
ix.14.) ‘There shall be one law to him that is homeborn, and 
“ to him that sojourneth among you:” You shall not be under 
different rules or laws, but one and the same shall be for all. 
In like manner the Prophet predicts that Jew and Gentile shall 
not have different gods or lords, but one and the same God and 
Lord shall rule over both. Having shewn then that the second 
interpretation is as groundless as the first, 

3. I proceed to lay down the third, which is the true one. 
The Lord our God ts the sole Lord, or the only God : in opposition 
to gods many, and lords many, whether supreme or infertor. Thus 
the Scribe, to whom our Lord spake, and whom he commends 
as answering so far discreetly, understood it. ‘There is one 
“ God, and there is none other but he.” This shews that 
Jehovah was here equivalent to Θεὸς, or God. Some of the 
ancient versions, instead of one Lord, render it, one God: as do 
also some of the ¢primitive Fathers; none of them (so far as 
I have observed) either considering Jehovah in this place as ἃ 
proper name of one Person only, or ever bringing this text to 
prove that God is but one Person. This they understood, and 
this only; that there is but one God, one Lord, and one Jeho- 
φαΐ; not two Gods, two Lords, or two Jehovahs. 

If it be asked, who, or what Person is intended by “ the Lord 
“ our God” in the text, it seems most reasonable and natural to 
understand it of God the Father ; not exclusive of, but abstract- 
ing from the consideration of, the other two Persons. The 
Scribe perhaps understood it in the axclusive sense; exclusive 
of all other Persons. Our Lord commends him as answering 
discreetly, in acknowledging one God; but intimates withal, 
that he was not yet come to perfection: he wanted something 
further, he was “not far from the kingdom of God.” One 
thing that he wanted was to acknowledge the Son to be God 
and Lord, as well as the Father: and it is pretty remarkable 
that both the Evangelists, St. Matthew and St. Mark, after 
relating this conference of our Saviour with the Scribe, imme- 

¢ Irenzeug, lib. v. cap. 22. p. 319. Cyprian. de Orat. Domin. p. 151, 172. 
Ambros. de Fid. lib. i. cap. 1, 2. p. 445, 448. ed. Bened. 

88 The Divine Unity BERM. LY. 

diately subjoin the history of our Saviour’s putting a question 
to the Pharisees, how the Messiah could be both David’s Son 
and David’s Lord, quoting that passage of Psalm ox.1. “ The 
“ Lord said unto my Lord,” &c. It is no improbable conjec- 
ture of a ‘judicious Father, that our blessed Saviour thereby 
intended to correct the Jewish construction of Deuteron. vi. 4, 
and to intimate, as far as was proper at that time, that the 
Father is not εἷς Κύριος, one Lord, in such a sense as to exclude 
the Son, who is also Κύριος, or Lord, and tacitly included, as 
often as the Father is styled the only God, or Lord. But it is 
now time to consider more distinctly and fully the doctrine 
contained in the text, which I shall endeavour thus : 

1. By inquiring, under what salvos, and qualifying consider- 
ations, we may reasonably understand the general doctrine of 
God the Father’s being the only true God, or Lord. 

2. By considering what we may justly infer from it, and what 
use we are to make of it. 

I. I shall inquire, under what salvos, or qualifying consider- 
ations, we may reasonably understand the general doctrine of 
God the Father’s being the only true God, or Lord. 

The texts seem, at first view, to exclude all other persons 
whatever, from being divine in the same sense; and also from 
having any right or title to religious worship, or any degree of 
it. The texts run in the personal character; “I am the Lord 
“thy God :” and generally ¢in the singular number; J, not we ; 
or he, not they. And then the practical doctrine founded there- 
upon is to pay to that Person, not supreme worship only, but αὐξ 
worship ; not our Aighest religious service, but our whole religious 
service ; reserving no part nor degree of it to any other. If 
therefore the doctrine is to be interpreted up to the utmost 
rigour in both its parts, the Father only is God, in any atrict or 
proper sense; and every part and degree of religious service is 
to be paid fo him solely. But how can we be Christians if we 
say this? or how is it possible to reconcile it with other plain 
Scriptures? There must be some abatement, some favourable 

4 Dominus ipse precipuum man- teste, confirmat. Hilar. p. 1oor. 
datum legis in untus Domini confes- © I say generally, not always; be- 
sione et dilectione docens esse, non cause there are some instances of 
suo ad Scribam, sed Prophetee testi- plural expressions: Gen. i. 1, 26. iii. 
monio usus est, esse se Dominum.— 5. 22. xi. Τ' xx. 13. xxxv. 7. Deut. 
Dominum unum ita ex lege docens, ἵν. i: Eccl. xii. τ. Jos. xxiv. 19. Isa. 
ut se quoque Dominum, Propheta vi. 8. 

SERM. IV. stated and cleared. 89 

allowance of construction, in one part or other, to make Sorip- 
ture consistent; and the difficulty is to know where we are to 
settle this necessary latitude of interpretation, so as neither to 
do violence to the letter, nor defeat the intent of the inspired 
writers. There have been two ways thought on to compromise 
this matter. I shall mention that first, which is the least likely 
to do us any service, that I may come with the greater advan- 
tage to the other, which will appear to be not only the best, but 
the only way of reconciling the difficulty, after we have seen 
that the first will not bear. 

1. The first way is to suppose that the words Lord and God 
admit of a higher and a lower sense; so that the texts which 
declare the Father the one God, are to be understood to mean 
one only supreme God, leaving room for wmfertor and subordinate 
gods besides him: and so also worship must be understood to 
be of two kinds, sovereign and inferior; and that the supreme 
God claims only sovereign, not all religious worship to himeelf. 

But against this way of reconciling there appear to be many 
insuperable objections. It is not only against the letter, but the 
very intent and design of the sacred writings. For, not to 
mention that Scripture no where tells us of two true, i.e. two 
adorable, Gods, or of two religious worships, sovereign and 
inferior ; the very end and design of all the texts relating to 
the Unity seems to have been to preclude infertor gods, and 
them especially ; there being less danger of men’s running into 
the notion of many supremes. Besides the general drift and 
purport of those texts, there are some particular texts still 
more express and decisive. ‘“ There is no God before me,” says 
the one God, “neither shall there be any after me: and yet 
every m/ferior God must be after the supreme‘. ‘The gods 
“ that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they 
“‘ shal Iperish from the earth.” Jerem. x.11. And yet it is 
never to be supposed that any tnfertor god can be Creator, 
which is the distinguishing character of the one supreme God ; 
consequently, every tnfertor god shall perish and come to 

f Quis ergo hoc dicit, Pater an τὸν πατέρα ee οὐκ ἔστι, δῆλον ὅτι τὸ 
Filius? Si Filius, Ante me, inquit, τῷ πατρὶ, καὶ μὴ pera τὸν πατέρα, 
non δ alius Deus: Si Pater, Post τὸν υἱὸν « Ὁ ὁ λόγ éyos papru ρτύρεται. 
me, inquit, nox erit: hic priorem, 116 EZ ris οὖν perd τὸν Θεόν ἐστι, κτίσισ 
posteriorem non habet. Ambros. de τοῦτο, καὶ οὐ Θεὸς, διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων 
Fid. lib. i. cap. 8. p. 4 εὑρίσκεται. Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. 

Ei yap Θεὸν μὲν ὃν ς, πᾶν δὲ μετὰ iv. p.575- 

90 The Divine Unity SERM. IV. 

nothings. Besides, every infertor god must of course be sup- 
posed a creature of the great God. But St. Paul has expressly 
cautioned us against serving the “creature more than (or besides) 
“ the Creator,” and against serving those that “ by nature are no 
“ gods.” Further than this, it is as clear as words can make 
if, that the great God has claimed to himself af sacrifice, with- 
out distinction of sovereign and inferior, our whole religious 
service and whole confidenceb. To suppose the contrary, would 
have been to leave room for the greatest confusion in worship 
imaginable, and would not have been the way to root out, but 
to establish, idolatry. Add to this, that the distinction of a 
twofold sense in the word God will not help us out of the 
difficulty: because we have all the reason in the world to 
believe that another Person, besides the Father, is called God, 
in the same sense, in the same Scriptures; and therefore this 
solution of the difficulty will not bear; but we must of course 
look out for another. 

2. The other way then is, to suppose that the exclusive terms 
of one, only, or the like, may admit of some latitude of construc- 
tion; and that, so long as the full intent and meaning of the 
declarations of the Unity is in this way answered, all is safe 
and secure. That this is the very truth of the case, I shall 
now proceed to shew at large. 

God the Father may be, and is, very reasonably and justly 
styled the one or only God, without excluding every other 
Person; particularly, without excluding the Son from the one 
true Godhead. It is a rule and maxim, and may be proved by 
many instances in sacred and profane writings, that ewclusive 
terms are not to be interpreted with the utmost rigour, so as to 
leave no room for ¢acté exceptions, such as reason and good 
sense will easily supply. It may be sometimes needless or 
impertinent to mention every exception; and often wiser or 
better not to do it, but to leave them to the intelligent reader. 

Thus for instance it is said, “No one knoweth the Father 
‘‘ but the Son, and no one knoweth the Son but the Father.” 
(Matt. xi. 27.) If we should here interpret the exclusive terms 
with the utmost strictness, it must follow that the Father does 
not know himself, nor the Son himself. But no man of common 

© See Cudworth’s Commentonthis © See my Vindication of Christ’s 
text, p. 545. Divinity, Qu. 16. vol.i. p. 407, &e. 

SERM. IV. stated and cleared. 91 

sense can think so of either; and therefore there was no occa- 
sion for any further guard or exception. 

So again it is said, that “the things of God knoweth no one, 
“but the Spirit of God,” (1 Cor. ii. 11.) as before, (in Matt. xi. 
27.) “No one knoweth the Father but the Son.” Now, if we 
understand the exclusive terms with the utmost strictness, it 
must follow from one passage, that the Holy Ghost knows more 
of the Father than the Son does; and from the other, that the 
Son knows more of the Father than the Holy Ghost does: which 
are propositions directly repugnant. But the truth is, here was © 
no opposition intended to Son or Holy Ghost in either place; 
but to creatures only. 

In like manner it is said, in the Revelations, of the Son of 
God, that “he had a name written, that no one (οὐδεὶς) knew, 
“ but he himself;” (Rev. xix. 12.) which, if the exclusive term 
is to be strictly understood, makes the Father himself ignorant 
of what was known to the Son. 

St. Paul says, “I determined not to know any thing among 
“you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified,” 1 Cor. ii. 2. If 
this be rigorously interpreted up to the letter, St. Paul must 
have been contented to be ignorant of God the Father, and of 
many the most important articles of the Christian religion. But 
it is obvious to common senee, that such expressions are to be 
qualified both from the reason of the thing, and from other 
Scriptures. These instances are sufficient to shew that exclusive 
terms may, and in several cases must, admit of a favourable 
construction. Now to come to the point in hand. I shall first 
shew, directly and plainly, that God the Son was not intended 
to be excluded at all, by the texts which proclaim the Father 
the one God; and next, give some reasons why there was no 
occasion to make any particular exception or salvo, on that 
account; or why it was better not to = it. First, let us com- 
pare texts with texts. 

Isa. xliv. 24. we read thus: “I am the Lord that maketh all 
“ things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, and spreadeth 
“abroad the earth by myself.” Now here, according to the 
rigour of construction, one should suppose the Father (if it is 
indeed to be understood of the Father) to have been by himself 
when he made the world, and that no other Person had any 
hand in creating, or was so much as with him when he did it. 
And yet certain it is from other Scriptures, as I have shewn 

92 The Divine Unity SHRM. IV. 

formerly, that God the Son was not only with him, but assisted 
also in the work of creation. But it was needless for the Pro- 
phet to take any notice of the Son’s concern in it, while he was 
only considering the true God in opposition to other gods ; besides 
that the time was not yet come for the distinct and olear reve- 
lation of God the Son. So again we find it said, probably in 
respect of the Father, “Thou only knowest the hearts of all 
* the children of men,” (1 Kings viii. 39.) and it is not said, 
Thou only knowest originally, or in the most perfect manner, 
but, Thou only knowest, simply and absolutely. And yet evident 
it is, from other places of Scripture, that not the Father only, 
but the Son also must then have known the hearts of all the 
children .of meni; and it may be certainly inferred from his 
being Creator of all men from the beginning. 

We read (Ps. Ixxxiii. 18.) “Thou, whose name alone is 
“ Jehovah,” supposed to be meant of God the Father. If the 
exclusive term is there to be rigorously understood, no other 
Person but the Father has the title or name of Jehovah. And 
yet certain it is, from other Scriptures, that the Son is another 
Person, and that the name Jehovah, is also his name. But it was 
needless, or would have been foreign, to have inserted any par- 
ticular caution or exception, while the Psalmist was considering 
only the true God, in opposition to other gods, or to the gods of 
the nations. God the Father (probably) saya, Isai. xliii. 11, “TI, 
‘¢ even I, am the Lord, and besides me there is no Saviour.” And 
yet no man of sense that reads the Bible can believe, that the 
intent was to exclude our blessed Saviour from being properly 
such, as well as the Father. It is said also, (Isa. ii. 11,17.) that 
“ the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.” Suppose this be 
meant of God the Father; yet no one, who considers either the 
context, or reason of the thing, or other Scriptures, can imagine 
that this was designed to exclude God the Son from being 
exalted; or that it was intended in opposition to any thing but 
idols in particular, or creatures ia general. It would be easy to 
illustrate this matter by more examples of the like nature: but 
these already given are, I am persuaded, sufficient to shew that, 
whether it be said that the Father ts the only God, or. whether it 
were said that the Father only is God, (which expression would 
be stronger,) the exclusive term only need not be supposed to 

1 John ii. 24. xvi. 30. Acts i. 24. Heb, iv. 12. Rev. ii. 3. 

SERM. IV. stated and cleared. 98 

affect the Son at all; but he may still be tacitly understood : 
and there was no necessity for any express caution in the case, 
the reason of the thing sufficiently shewing it afterwards. When 
therefore we read of the Father’s being the one God, we are to 
understand it of the Father singly, not anctusively; of the 
Father, but in conjunction still with the Son: not that we mean 
by the term Father, both Father and Son, but we consider the 
Father singly, in such cases, abstracting from the consideration 
of God the Son, not excluding him from partaking of the same 
Godhead. This then appears to be matter of fact, that God 
the Son is not excluded, but always ¢actily understood in those 
expressions of the Unity, which we meet with in Scripture. The 
same is true of any other expressions of the hke nature, as if 
the Father be said to be the alone good, the only wise, the only 
potentiate, or only having tmmortaiity; they are not intended in 
opposition to God the Son, or Holy Ghost, (who being so nearly 
allied to, so much one with the Father, are tacitly to be under- 
stood as partaking of every perfection which is ascribed to the 
Father,) but in opposition to creatures, or other gods; in oppo- 
sition to every thing extra Patrem, every thing not contained in 
him, or not inseparably included with him, This I observe, on 
supposition that those texts are meant of the Father: but 
perhaps the word God in those places is to be understood in 
the indefinite sense, abstracting from the particular consideration 
of thes or that person; in like manner as the word man often 
stands, not for any particular human person, but the whole 
species, or human nature: man is fratl, man is mortal, or the 
like. I say the word God may be thus understood; and since 
the doctrine of the Trinity is demonstrable from other Scrip- 
tures, we have great reason to believe that this is the true and 
real meaning of the word Giod, as often as the context or other 
circumstances do not confine its signification and intent to one 
Person only. It remains now only to account for the manner 
of speaking. For it may be asked, why, when it is said, sappose 
by the Father, “1 am the Lord, and there is none else,” it may 
be asked why there might not have been added, except my Son 
and Holy Spirit, or some other saving clause of like kind? To 
this it may be answered, | 

1. That it was needless. 

2. That it might have been hurtful. 

1. It was needless. None of those declarations concerning 

94 The Divine Unity SERM. IV. 

the untty of God, and the worship due to God alone, were made 
at the beginning, or before idolatry was grown into practice. 
Their intent and design was to be a remedy against it, and to 
root it out of the world. Those declarations were then so 
understood, as it was intended they should be, in opposition to 
all other gods, all that were plainly opposite to, or diferent from, 
the one God of Israel. Thus the end of them was fully an- 
swered; and there was no occasion explicitly to mention the 
Person of the Son, before the proper time came to reveal his 
distinct Person and character fully and clearly to the world. 
After he was come, it was still as needless to insert any such 
saving clauses; because the revealing his nature, and character, 
and personal perfections, was equivalent thereto, and were ‘in- 
terpretatively so many qualifying clauses or exceptions; the 
reason of the thing shewing that he must be supposed as in- 
cluded always, without any special proviso for it. Thus, for 
instance, if the Father claims all worship, homage, and adora- 
tion to himself, because Jehovah, because Oreator, Sustainer, and 
Preserver of all things ; and if it appears afterwards, that the 
Son also is Jehovah, Creator, Sustainer, and Preserver of all 
things; it is manifest that the worship of the Son comes within 
the reason, intent, and letter of the law about worship; and 
therefore it cannot, by any man of sense, be supposed to exclude 
him from it. There is no need of any special salvo to include a 
person, whom parity of reason shews to be included of course. 
So if it is said, that the Father is the only God or Lord, without 
any express caution or salvo, we might be apt to think it some- 
what strange to hear of any other person who is God and Lord 
also: but when we find that this other Person is so nearly 
related, as a Son to a Father ; that he and his Father are one; 
that he who has seen one has therein seen the other aleo; that 
he is in the bosom of the Father, and as intimate to him as 
thought to the mind; that all things which the Father hath are 
the Son’s; and that what things soever the Father doth, those 
also doth the Son likewise; when we find them represented as 
“one temple,” (Rev. xxi. 22.) and as having but “one throne,” 
(Rev. xxii. 1.) and making “one light,” (Rev. xxi. 23.) and that 
he is in the Father, and the Father in him; when we observe the 
same titles, the same operations, the same attributes, the same 
glory, &c. ascribed to both in holy Seripture: when these and 
the like considerations have been duly weighed, must it not look 

stated and cleared. 95 

strangely impertinent to demand any exception, or special salvo, 
as often as the Father is styled the only God? The Scriptures 
suppose men to have the use of their reason, and that therefore 
there was no need to make express mention of the Son, whenever 
the Father is declared to be the only God; Father and Son 
being so much one, that asserting it of either is implicitly asserting 
the same of both. And hence it may appear, 

2. That particular exceptions and cautions in this case were 
not only needless, but might have been hurtful. Had the /irsé 
commandment run thus; Thou shalt have no other gods besides 
me, except my Son, it had been plainly making the Son another 
God!, which was not the intent of Scripture, nor suitable to the 
truth and reason of the thing. The union and intimacy between 
Father and Son is such, that they are not two Gods, but one 
God. This was the tdea which Scripture was to insinuate along 
with the distinction of Persons, and which it has every where 
carefully kept up. What may be thought an omisston in the case, 
is really an advantage; and the want of an exception in respect 
of God the Son, or Holy Ghost, is an argument to us that their 
unity is too strict and intimate to admit of it. A late ™writer 
upon these words in Deuteronomy, “1, even I, am he, and there 
“ig no God with me,” (Deut. xxxii. 39,) observes, that it is not 
said, except t be in the same essence, but absolutely, there te no 
God. He might have observed also, that it is not said, except 
tt be in subordination to me, or, except such inferior gods as are by 
my appointment; but absolutely, there ts no God. To answer 
more directly: it is very true that Scripture has not mentioned 
any such exception, because it would have been improper, not 
to say absurd, to do it. The design was to teach us that there 
is no other God, besides the God of Israel. Had he said there 
is no other God, axcept st be tn the same essence, it had been the 
same as to say, there is no other God, except one, who is not 
another God. But the objector here supposes that two divine 
Persons in the same essence are fo Gods, which is supposing 


kK EZ τις ἕνα λέγοι Θεὸν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ οὐκέτι" κατὰ τὸν ἶσον, &e. Cyril. 

δίχα τοῦ ἰδίου γεννήματος ἐννοήσει 
ποτὲ τὸν πατέρα, οὔτε μὲν τοῦ Kar 
φύσιν ἐξ αὐτοῦ προχεομένου πνεύμα- 
τος, ὃ καὶ ἐστὶν ἴδιον αὐτοῦ. ὥσπερ 
γὰρ ὁ εἰπὼν ἄνθρωπον, πάντη Te καὶ 

Alex. contr. Julian. lib. viii. p. 264. 

! Atquin si nomjnasset illum, sepa- 
rasset, ita diecens, Alius preter me 
non est, nisi Filius meus. Alum enim 
etiam Filium fecisset, quem de aliis 

» excepisset. Tert. Praz. cap. xviii. 

m Modest Plea, &c. p. 133. 

96 The Divine Unity SERM. IV. 

the thing m question. The contrary appears from this very 
text. For let us admit that it was said, in the person of thé 
Father, “1, even I, am he, and there is no God with me:” it is 
certain that God the Son was then with him, and that he was 
God before the foundation of the world, John i.1. And yet 
there was no God, that is, no other God with him, as appears 
from this text: consequently the Son is not another God, but 
the same God; and therefore two divine Persons having the 
same essence, (as we are able to prove those two to have,) are 
not two Gods, but one God. 

I have hitherto been observing the Scripture-manner of 
speaking in this article of the wnity, and have shewn how easy 
it is to account for it upon Catholie principles. I shall just take 
notice further, that the primitive writers of the Church follow 
the same style exactly. We shall frequently find them giving 
the title of one or only God, to the Father, in such a manner, 
that if we looked no further, we might be apt to imagine that 
they thought of no other person’s being God but the Father. 
And yet perhaps, within a few pages or lines, we shall meet 
with as full and strong expressions of the divinity of the Son, as 
any are, or can be; that he is God, true God, God of the Jews, 
and the like. ‘These seeming contrarieties they sometimes leave 
without any guard or explication, presuming that no Christian, 
who had been but tolerably instructed, could mistake the 
meaning. At other times, upon occasion, they are more parti- 
cular and explicit, shewing how reconcilable and perfectly con- 
sistent with each other, these things are. They give us to 
understand that the exclusive terms affect not the Son at all; 
that they are often meant in opposition to tdols only; that at 
the most they exclude only other goda, and not the Son, who is 
the same and "not another God, nor indeed another Person in 
such a sense as separate divided persons are other persons. They 
are distinct only, not separate; and therefore, in a qualified 
sense, the Son is very self of the Father, as Irenseus expresses it, 
and as later Fathers, ἄλλος ἑαυτὸς, alter tdem, or altus tdem, an- 

= Igitur unus Deus Pater, et alias batur, et alias qui dieebat, Nemo cog- 
abseque eo non est : quod ipseinferens, xoscit Patrem; sed unus et idem, 
non Filium negat, sed aiiam Dewn. ommia subjiciente ei Patre, et ab om- 
Ceeterum akus a Patre Filius non est. nibus accipiens testimonium, quoniam 
Tert. contr. Praz. cap. xviii. p.510. | vere homo, et vere Deus. Iren. p. 234, 
Non ergo alius erat qui cognosce- 235. 


other self, another same; distinct and yet ποὺ different, one 
with the Father, and undivided from him. From these and the 
like hints and illustrations, we easily understand what either the 
ancient creeds or primitive Church-writers mean by styling the 
Father, the one, or only God°; a title which they sometimes 
apply to the Son also, but seldom, and sparingly. The reason 
is this: the Father is, as it were, the top of Unity, the head 
and fountain of all: he is first in our conception of God, and 
therefore whether we speak of the almighty God, or the eternal 
God, or the all-knowing God, (and the reason is the same for 
the only God, untiy being an attribute of the Godhead hike 
omnipotence, eternity, &c.) we primarily and principally mean the 
Father, tacitly including the other two Persons. 

This is more decent, proper, and suitable, than to have fixed 
these names, titles, or attributes principally upon either of the 
other two Persons, tacitly including the Father. The nature of 
language and customary way of speaking required that they 
should be thus generally fixed upon one of the Persons, and we 
are directed to which by the very name of Father, denoting 
some kind of priority of order, such as we cannot perfectly 
understand ; but a confuse, general perception of it, is sufficient 
to all the purposes of faith or worship. In strictness, the one 
God is the whole 7rintty: but we must be content to speak as 
the customary use of language will bear. Our ideas of person 
are plainly taken from our conceptions of human persons, and 
from them transferred to other subjects, though they do not 
strictly answer in every circumstance. Properly speaking, he 
and him are no more applicable to a divine Person, than she or 

SERM. IV. stated and cleared. 

© It is worth observing, how little 
stress the ancients laid upon the ez- 
clusive terms. 

Clemens Alex. calls the Son the 
se Judge, p. 99. and only God, 

Origen calls the Son the only Lord. 
Contr. Cels. 

Cyril of Fert calls him the 
only King, 

uscbitie ani understands, Paal. lxxxvi. 
10. “God alone,” &c. and Isa. xliv. 
24. where it is said, that ‘he stretch- 
eth forth the heavens ALoNngE,’’of God 
the Son. 

Baruch iii. 35. ‘This is our God, 
“‘ and there shall none other be ac- 


“ counted of in comparison of him,” 
is by Cyprian (Test. lib. ii. cap. 6.) 
and by Lactantius (Epit. p. 116.) un- 
derstood of God the Son: as it is 
also by the later Fathers in general. 

Micah vii. 18. “Who 18 a God 
‘* like unto thee?” &c. is also Ὁ carly 
writers understood of God the 

So also Isa. xliv. 6. and Isa. al: 
14; τ: = my Defence, &c. vol. i. 

ΡΝ a had the ancients acknowledged 
any such force of the exelussve terms, 
as is insisted on by some moderns, the 
Father himself must have been there- 
by excluded from being Judge, Lord, 

ing, or God 


her: but we have no third way of denoting a person; and so of 
the two, we choose the best, and custom familiarizes it to us. In 
like manner, when we would speak of God, we have but three 
ways of expressing our thoughts, and none of them without some 
inconvenience. To say it, or that, meaning that thing or sub- 
stance, would sound low and flat; and it is the way of speaking 
which we have, in @ manner, appropriated to tzanimate or trra- 
tional beings. To say he, or him, ordinarily? carries in it the 
idea of one Person only, and is therefore inconvenient on that 
account, as not taking in all that we apprehend of the one true 
God. To say they, or them, would appear as if the Persons were 
divided and separate, like other persons, and might sound as if 
the three Persons were three gods. Of those three ways, the 
best and least offensive is that which has been generally taken, 
as well in Scripture, as in ecclesiastical writings: which is to say, 
he, or him, speaking of God, and meaning it of one Person, princi- 
pally, yet not excluding, but tacitly comprehending the other two, 
as partakers of the same Godhead. And since it was thus necessary 
to fix upon one Person, who should be primarily considered as God, 
it must of course be the Father, who revealed his own Person first 
to the world, and was known under that character before either 
the Son or Holy Ghost were distinctly and fully revealed; who 
has still the character of Father, as Head and Fountain of all, 
and is generally first in our conception, when we speak of God ab- 
solutely, without particularly specifying any Person of the God-. 
head. Yet I must observe to you, that it is far from being cer- 
tain that the Father, or any particular Person, is always meant, 
whenever the word God is used absolutely in Scripture. For, 

The Divine Unity SERM. IV. 

P I say ordinarily, not constantly : 
and therefore the argument drawn 
from the personal characters, I, thou, 
thee, he, him, applied to God, is very 
weak and inconclusive against a plu- 
rality of Persons. We often find in 
Scripture the Personal characters of 
thou, thee, he, htm, applied to a whole 
family, tribe, or people, collectively 
considered; (see Exod. xiii. 5, 7, 9, 
11,13. Numb. xxii. 5, 6. xxiii. 9. Deut. 
1. 21, 31. iv. 9, 10. xi. 15. xviii. 2. 
Josh. xvii. 15. 1 Sam. xv. 3.) and at 
other times we find some things 
applied to the head of a family, which 
belong not strictly to him alone, but 
to him and his whole seed. (See Gen. 

xii. 2, 3. ΧΙ. 17. xvili. 18. xlviii. 10. 
20. xlix. 4, 8, &c.) Why then may 
not the like expressions be used of 
God the Father, the head and foun- 
tain of the other two divine Persons, 
which yet strictly are not to be under- 
stood of him alone, but of him con- 
sidered with his Son and Holy Spirit, 
who are infinitely more united to him, 
than any earthly progeny is, or can 
be, to their head ? 

This argument is a forttori, and 
there is more than parity of reason to 
be pleaded in favour of this manner 
of speaking, with relation to the Per- 
sons of the undivided Trinity. 

SERM. IV. stated and cleared. 99 

as I before hinted, no good reason can be given why the word 
God may not be used in a large indefinite sense, not denoting 
any particular Person, just as the word man is often used in 
Scripture, not denoting any particular man, but man in general, 
or man indefinitely. (Gen. vi. 3,7. vili.21. ix. 6. Deut. viii. 3. 
1 Sam. xvi. 7. ῳοῦ ἵν. 17. v. 7. Psalm lvi. 11.  Ixxviii. 25. 
ΧΟ. 3. oxvill. 6,8. Hos. xi.9. Matt. iv. 4. Luke iv. 4. xviii. 4. 
1 Thess. iv. 8. 1 Tim. ii. 5. Tit. iii. 4.) As the word man 
sometimes stands for the whole apectes ; sometimes indefinitely 
for any individual of the species, without determining which, 
and sometimes for this or that particular man: so, by way of 
analogy, or imperfect resemblance, the word God may some- 
times signify all the divine Persons; sometimes any Person of 
the three indefinitely, without determining which; and some- 
times one particular Person, either Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. 
From what hath been said, I am willing to hope we may now 
sufficiently understand in what sense, and under what restric- 
tions, the Father is set forth in Scripture or antiquity, as the 
one or only God. I proceed now, 

IJ. To consider what we may reasonably and fairly infer from 
the Scripture-declarations of the unity. Of this very briefly ; 
that I may not trespass (as I fear I already have) too long upon 
your patience. 

1. We may certainly infer from them, that they absolutely 
exclude all rival or anti-gods, set up in opposition to God the 
Father ; consequently all sdo/s, and all the gods of the heathen 

2. We may further infer, that they do as certainly exclude all 
such gods as the Marcionites, or others, pretended to be besides, 
or superior to, the Creator and God of Israel. 

3. We may also reasonably infer, that they exclude all things 
or persons whatsoever, that are separate from, or aliene to; that 
are not necessarily included in, and comprehended with, God 
the Father: briefly, they exclude all other gods; consequently 
they exclude all creatures: for since all creatures are posterior in 
time, and different in nature, they are adventitious and extraneous ; 
they are not necessarily included in God the Father; he was 
without them, and may be again, if he pleases: if they are gods 
m any sense, they are other gods, not the same god with God the 
Father ; and so stand excluded from having the name or title 
of God, in any proper or religtous sense; and from receiving any 

H 2 

100 The Divine Unity SERM. IV. 

kind, part, or degree of our religious homage, worship, or adora- 
tion. Socinians and Arians have split upon this absurdity, 
supposing the Son to be a creature only, and yet receiving him 
as God, another God besides the Father; which is Polythetsm 
and Gentslism, condemned by Scripture, and all Catholic an- 
tiquity. The Arians, ancient and modern, have appeared so 
sensible of it, that they never durst openly profess it; being 
reduced to this hard and truly pitiable case, to receive, in 
reality, into their creed, what they are ashamed to express 
in terms4. 

They are used to insist much upon the force of the exclusive 
terms, when they have a mind to exclude the Person of the 
Son from being one God with the Father. But they entirely 
forget that the exclusive terms have any force at all, when they 
imagine that they do not so much as exclude creatures from 
being gods, but leave room for other gods, for two gods, or three 
gods, and as many objects of worship. Thus they appear to 
“strain at a gnat” while they can “swallow a camel;” and 
use arguments against the Catholics, which recoil more strongly 
upon themselves. They are forced, in their turn’, to plead that 
the exclusive terms are intended chiefly in opposition to tdols and 
Jalse-gods ; and that they do not exclude Christ from being true 
God, and true object of worship: which is unsaying all that 
they had before asserted, and is unravelling their own argument, 
so far as concerns the bare necessary force of the ezcluseve terms. 
For if they do not exclude creatures (strangers and aliens, in 
comparison) from being true gods, much less can they be sup- 
posed necessarily to exclude God’s own Son, of the same nature, 
and duration, and perfections with himself, (if the thing be 
possible,) from being true God with him, and one God with 
him. This then must be argued from other topics, and not 

P Consequens est, inquam, ut aut 
non colatis Christum, aut non unum 
Deum colatis, sed duos. Ad hoc tu 
respondere conatus, multum quidem 
locutus es, asserens quod et Chris- 
tum Deum colatis: sed duos Deos a 
vobis coli, quamvis non negaveris, 
tamen non ausus es confiteri. Sen- 
sisti enim, duos Deos esse colendos, 
Christianas aures ferre non posse. O 

uam de proximo te corrigeres, si 
timeres credere quod dicere timuisti! 
cum enim clamet Apostolus, “ corde 

“ creditur ad justitiam, ore confessio 
‘“‘ fiat ad salutem:” si ad justitiam 
putes pertinere quod credis, cur hoc 
ad salutem etiam ore non confiteris ἢ 
Si autem duos Deos colendos ad salu- 
tem non pertinet confitert, sine dubio 
nec ad justitiam oe credere. Vid. 
re aaa contr. Mazim. lib. i. p. 677, 

τ See Clarke’s Reply, p. 50. 69. 
Vid. et Crell. de uno Deo Patre, sect. 
i. cap. 1. 

SERM. IV. stated and cleared. 101 

from any supposed necessary force of the exclusive terms. To 
conclude, we may observe that Scripture and antiquity often tell 
us of God and God, but never of two Gods; Creator and Creator, 
but never ¢wo Creators; Saviour and Saviour, but never ἔσο Sa- 
‘giours; Lord and Lord, but never two Lords; Judge and Judge, 
but never too Judges; King and King, but never two Kings. 
These things are easily accounted for upon Catholic principles ; 
Father and Son are one Creator, one Saviour, one Lord, one Judge, 
one King, and one God, because their operations, attributes, 
powers, and perfections (and consequently the substance of both) 
are one. “To Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, all honour and 
“ glory be now and for ever.” Amen, 

Christ's Divinity proved from his Coequality with 
the Father : 



The fifth Sermon preached January 6, 1748. 

PHIL. 11. 5 —1I. 

Let this mind be tn you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being 
in the form of God, thought tt not robbery to be equal with God: 
but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of 
a servant, and was made tn the likeness of men: and being found 
in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath 
highly exalted him, and given him a name which ts above every 
name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things 
in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and 
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the 
glory of God the Father. 

THERE have been great disputes between the Catholics and 
Arians about this passage; both sides claiming it as their own, 
and as directly favouring their respective principles. They have 
neither of them been content to be on the defensive only, in 
respect of this, as in several other texts; but, interpreting tlie 
words differently, and taking them under contrary views, they 
urge them against each other, and appeal to them as decisive 
both ways, according to their respective tenets and persuasions. 

SERM. V. Equality of Christ with the Father. 108 

My design is to inquire carefully into the meaning of so remark- 
able a passage, and to fix it, where it ought to lie, on the 
Catholic side. It will be proper to take along with us the scope 
and intent of the Apostle in it, as a sure mark to direct us to 
the true and genuine sense of it. The two verses immediately 
preceding those of the text run thus: “ Let nothing be done 
“ through strife or vain-glory; but in lowliness of mind let each 
“esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on 
“ his own things, but every man also on the things of others.” 
Then follows; ‘“ Let this mind be in you, which was also in 
“ Christ Jesus,” &c. The Apostle proposes Christ as a perfect 
pattern and example of the virtue or virtues which he had been 
recommending. And what were they! Humility, modesty, phi- 
lanthropy, in opposition to vain-glory, ostentation, and self- 
seeking. He exhorts the Philippians to good nature and ten- 
derness, to wave all little niceties and punctilios of ceremony, 
and to be willing to sacrifice their reputation or honour, upon 
occasion, to the glory of God and the good of others. Thus far 
by way of preliminary. Now let us proceed to the instance 
given, a8 a powerful motive to incite them to put on that happy 
temper of mind. It is the example of Christ Jesus: “ Who 
‘“‘ being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal 
“ with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon 
‘him the form of a servant,” and so on. Here, every word 
almost will require ἃ minute and particular discussion. We must 
therefore be content to advance slowly, that we may clear our 
way a8 we go, and at length sum up the whole in a short para- 
phrase, concluding with a few brief observations upon it. And 
this is all the order, or method, that I propose to observe in my 
following discourse. 

I begin with the words, “‘ Who being in the form of God,” 
ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ. We do not meet with this. phrase elsewhere in 
Scripture. But there are two passages, one in the Epistle to 
the Colossians, the other in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which 
are near akin to it, and may help to direct us to the true sense 
of it. Our blessed Lord is by our Apostle styled the “image of 
“ the invisible God,’’ (Coloss. i. 15.) There is not much differ- 
ence between εἰκὼν and μορφὴ, betwixt image and form: and 
therefore, probably, the Apostle might intend the same thing 
by being “in the form of God,” and being “ the image of the 
“ invisible God.” Now, as to the meaning of Christ’s being the 


Equality of Christ SERM. V. 

‘‘image of the invisible God,” it is well explained by the words 
immediately there following: πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως : “ born 
““ (or begotten) before every creature ;” that is, as he was ‘“ Son 
“ of God,” before the creation of the world. Thus was he the 
“image of God,” bearing his figure and resemblance, as truly, 
fully, and perfectly, as a “son of man” has all the features, 
“ lineaments, and perfections belonging to the nature of man.” 
And thus antiquity *has constantly understood Christ to be the 
“image of God,” as he is God’s Son. In the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, chap. i. we find our blessed Lord described under the 
character of Son of God, and “ heir of all things, by whom God 
“ made the worlds,” ver. 2. And immediately after, he is said 
to be the ἀπαύγασμα. the shining forth of his Father's glory, and 
the “ express image of his person,” as we render it ; or, as others 
think the more probable construction to be, of his substance». 
This is a further confirmation, that those expressions of image 
or form of God relate to Christ's sonship or filiation, whereby he 
is, a8 it were, the exact copy or resemblance of God the Father, 
in respect of his divine nature, being as truly God of God, in 
that capacity, as he is man of man in another. Thus, as before 
said, the Ante-Nicene as well as Post-Nicene writers understood 
the phrases of Christ's being the image of God, and express image 
of his hypostasis: and not only go, but the very words of the text, 
his ete “in the form of God,” were by them ¢ believed to sig- 

® In effigie et imagine, qua Fikkus 
Patris, vere Dei predicatus est. Ter- 
tull. contr. Marc. lib. v. cap. 20. p. 

Ei ἔστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, 
ἀόρατος εἰκὼν---τῆς ἀ ἀκατονομάστου, καὶ 

ἀφϑέγκτου ὑ ὑποστάσεως τοῦ πατρὸς εἰ- 
πον ὁ χαρακτὴρ, λόγος, &c. Origen. 
Athan. tom. i. p. 233. 

Τὴν πατρικὴν ἐμφέρειαν ἀκριβῶς πέ- 
φυκε σώζειν ὁ vids τοῦ " πατρὸς, τὴν κατὰ 
πάντα ὁμοιότητα αὐτοῦ ἐκ φύσεως ἀπο- 
μαξάμενος, καὶ ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν τοῦ 
πατρὸς τυγχάνων, καὶ τοῦ πρωτοτύπον 
ἔκτυπος χαρακτήρ. Alexand. Theod. E. 
H. lib.1. cap. 4. p. 15. 

As to Post-Nicene writers, see Pe- 
tavius, who has collected their testi- 
monies, and who gives his judgment 
of all in these words: 

Porro ex vi et nativa conditione pro- 
ductionis suze hoc imaginem habere, ut 
auctorem representet : adeoque Ver- 

bum εἰκόνα, et imaginem ideo nomi- 
nari, quoniam ita procedit a Patre, ut 
eum necessario exprimat, antiqui om- 
nes Theologi demonstrant; qui tmagi- 
nem dici Verbum Dei asserunt, wraigirg 
a Patre gignitur. Petav. de 
vi. cap. 5. re 326. 

b Vide Petav. de Trin. lib. vi. cap. 
6. per totum. 

Τῆς θείας φύσεως ἀπαύγασμα κῃ xa 
paxrnp. Origen. contr. Cels. p. 

Compare the parallel ex τ in 
the apocryphal book of Wisdom. 

᾿Ατμὶς τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως" ἀπόῤ- 
ῥοια Τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος δόξης εἶλι- 
κρινής" ᾿Απαύγασμα φωτὸς ἀϊδίον᾽ ἔσο- 
πτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγερ- 
yeias’ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ. 
Cap. vil. ver. 25, 26. 

¢ AGque non erit Deus Christus 

vere, si nec homo vere fuit in 
hominis constitutue—quod si in efhgie 
et imagine, qua Feélius Patris, vere 

with the Father. 105 

nify his being God, or God of God, or Son of God ; all amounting 
to the same thing. This construction agrees also perfectly well 
with the context, which no other does. Nor the phrase of μορφὴν 
δούλον λαβὼν, “ taking upon him the form of a servant,” is 
plainly meant of his taking upon him Auman nature, becoming 
thereby a servant of God in that capacity. The Apostle himself 
interprets the “form of a servant” by the word immediately 
following, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, that is, being made in 
the likeness of man ; which is the same with being reaJly and truly 
man: being in the form of man, as Son of man, in like manner 
as he was before said to have been in the form of God, as Son of 
God. The ‘ancients have constantly interpreted the “ form of 
“a servant” in the sense which I have mentioned. Human 
nature was that “ form of a servant”? which our Lord assumed, 
and he became a servant by becoming man. The construction 
then now given of the words, ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, being agreeable to 
the context, as well as to the literal grammatical signification of 
the words ; and being besides countenanced by parallel places 
of Scripture, and received by the ancients in general, it is cer- 
tainly preferable to any other ; and we need not look out further 
for ἃ meaning, when we have so great reason to believe that 
this is the true and the only true one that can be assigned. Yet 
I must not conceal from you, that there is another interpretation, 
which has been taken up of late, and much contended for by 
some of the Arian persuasion. I must observe to you, in the 
way of preliminary, that all the appearances of God, under the 
Old Testament, were supposed by the ancients to have been in 
and by God the Son. It was he that called himself God of 


Dei preedicatus est, etiam in effigie et 
imagine hominis, qua Filius hominis, 
vere hominem inventum. Tertul.contr. 
Mare. lib. v. cap. 20. p. 486. 

Ὁ μονογενὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, Θεὸς 
ὑπάρχων ἐκ Θεοῦ, κεκένωκεν ἑαντόν, 
&c Hippolytus, vol. ii. p. 29. Fabric. 

Θεὸς μὲν κενώσας ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ 
εἶναι loa Θεῷ. Conc. Antioch. 1,αδὸ. 
νοΐ. i. p. 848. 

Ἢ δὲ μορφὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ὁ λόγος 
μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ Θεὸς, καὶ υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Dionys. 
Alex. contr. Paul. Samosat. p. 853. 

Quamvis esset in forma Dei, non 
eat rapinam arbitratus sequalem se 
Deo esse. Quamvis enim se ex Ded 

Patre Deum esse meminisset, nun- 
quam, &c. Novat. de Trin. c. 17. 

Ipse a Patre exaltatus sit, quis se 
in terris Sermo et Virtus, et sig ale 
Dei Patris humiliavit. Uni- 
tat. Eccl. p. 118. ed. Ox. 

The sentiments of Post-Nicene 
Fathers are well known, and need not 
be mentioned. 

ἃ Herm. Pastor. Simil. v. cap. 2. 
Clem. Alexandr. p. 251. Origen. in 
Joh. p.34. Hippolyt. vol. ii. p. 2, 3, 
20. Ni vat. cap. 17. Euseb. in Psalm. 
p- 616. Hilar. in Psalm. pag. 325. 
ed. Bened. Athanas. Orat. 1. p. 447. 
ed. Bened. Cyril. Hierosol. p. 322. 

ed. Ox. 

106 Equality of Christ SERM. V. 

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all along headed and conducted 
the people of the Jews. This notion, so far, is just, and the fact 
true, and it is of very good use against the Socinians especially ; 
and, I may add, against the Arians also, when rightly under- 
stood. But some amongst us, mistaking this matter, have been 
pleased to speak of those appearances, or transactions, of the 
Son of God, as being little more than what any angel or arcih- 
angel might have been capable of sustaining. They call it 
personating God, acting in his name, and speaking his words. 
And thus they understand that our Lord was, before his incar- 
nation, ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, ‘in the form of God,” being God’s legate, 
vicegerent, or representative. But against this there lie these 
following objections : 

1. That this construction of ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ is s attoully pre- 
carious. They cannot name any ancient Catholic writer that 
ever so understood it, nor bring any parallel text of Scripture 
to countenance it. 

2. In the next place, the very supposition itself of Christ’s 
personating God, in any such low sense, is a mere fancy and 
fiction, unsupported by Scripture or Catholic antiquity. The 
primitive writers who speak of it understood that our blessed 
Lord did not barely personate God, but was himself really 
God, and spoke in his own name, as well as the Father's ; 
being himself Lord and God, &c. as coeternal and coessential 
Son of the Father. So that this interpretation of ‘“ form 
“of God,” so far as there is any thing of truth in it, will 
at length resolve into the very same which I have before 

3. Admitting (but not granting) that God the Son personated 
the Father in any such low sense as is pretended, (though our 
adversaries cannot shew that he ever said, J am God the 
Father, as he might have said upon their hypothesis, which 
is worth observing,) yet that cannot be the meaning of ἐν μορφῇ 
Θεοῦ in the text; for this plain reason: because St. Paul going 
about to magnify the great condescension of God the Son, from 
the highest pinnacle of glory (if I may so speak) to the lowest 
instance of contempt and ignominy, would certainly begin with 
the mention of what he was in his highest capacity. Now his 
personating the Father is nothing so honourable a circumstance, 

¢ See my Defence, &c. vot. i. Query ii. p. 295, &c. 

SERM. V. with the Father. 107 

as what St. John speaks of in the first chapter of his Gospel, or 
what St. Paul himself has observed, (Coloss. i.15,16.) His 
being God from the beginning, and maker of the world, -are 
of much higher import than personating God, which any angel 
might do, in such a low sense as is here pretended. If then the 
Apostles argument did require that he should begin with the 
highest instance of perfection belonging to the Son, and if there 
be really a Atgher than is contained in this circumstance of person- 
ating God, (supposing it any thing more than a fiction,) it is a 
demonstration that St. Paul did not intend ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ (“ in 
“ the form of God’) in any such low sense, as would only lessen 
the miracle of Christ’s condescension, and weaken the force 
of the Apostle’s argument. So much for this. Having settled 
the meaning of the phrase ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, signifying as much as 
God of God, or essentially devine, we may next proceed to 
the following words : “ thought it not robbery to be equal with 
“ God.” 

The phrase, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, occurs not any where else 
in Scripture, nor, 80 far as I can find, in any profane writer ; 
(for there is a difference between ἅρπαγμα and ἁρπαγμόςΐ:) 
so that all the light we can have into it must be from the 
grammatical meaning of the word, and from ancient versions, 
and from ecclesiastical writers, and the context. Our trans- 
lators have rendered the words terally, and indeed very justly. 
It will not however be amiss to inquire what may be fairly 
pleaded for their interpretation. ‘ Thought it not robbery to 
“be equal with God.” The ancientest versions of the New 
Testament favour this rendering ; the Greek and Latin Fathers, 
from the fourth century downwards, do as plainly countenance 
it. Nay, Tertullian’, of the second or third century, seems to 
have understood it in the same sense. The words will, in strict 
propriety, bear it; and not only so, but more naturally and 
properly than any other. Let us then put the sense together, 
and see how it will stand. ‘‘ Who being Son of God, and 
“ therefore essentially God, thought it not robbery, that is, knew 
“ that he did not wrongfully or unreasonably assume ἐο be equal 

f Vid. Wooton. Preefat. ad Clem. § Deus erat Sermo—— Hic certe est 
Rom. p. 187. qui in effigie Dei constitutus, non 
5 Saree enim Deus, qui in effigie rapinam existimavit esse se equalem 
Dei constitutus, non rapinam existi- Deo. Ibid. p. 504. 
mayvit pariari Deo. Tertull. p. 329. 

108 Equality of Christ 
‘ with God: but, notwithstanding, was pleased to make himself 
of no reputation,” &. The Apostle having before told us that 
the Son was really God (which I have shewn to be the meaning 
of “ being in the form of God”) might very justly add, that he 
was “ equal with God;” which is only explanatory of what 
he had said, and more emphatically expressing the dignity 
and majesty of that Person, whose condescension he was going 
to illustrate. The phrase, εἶναι ἶσα Θεῷ, admits of no construc- 
tion so naturally as this, ““ to be equal with God.” The force 
of it lies in the word εἶναι. For, whatever instances may be 
brought of the use of the word ἶσα, it can never be shewn that 
εἶναι ἶσα signifies any thing so naturally as to be equal to, or equal 
with. What confirms this construction is, that the ancients 
ifrequently infer the equality of the Son with the Father, from 
his being the “ Son of God,” or the ““ image of God ;” either of 
which comes to the same sense with St. Paul’s “ form of God.” 
And why might not St. Paul make the same just inference from 
the same premises, since it flows so naturally from them, and 
was very pertinent to the argument on which he was treating? 
The most considerable objection against it is from the particle 
ἀλλὰ, following after; which some think should rather have 
been ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως, or the like. But this piece of criticism is easily 
got over: it is frequent ‘for the sacred writers to have the word 
ἀλλὰ instead of ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως, signifying howbett, or nevertheless: and 
so indeed -our translators should have rendered it here, 
agreeably to their rendering of the words preceding. I shall 
give two or three instances out of St. Paul’s own writings. 
1 Cor. ix. 12. “ If others be partakers of this power over you, 
“are not we rather! Nevertheless” (ἀλλὰ in the Greek) “ we 

SERM. Vv. 

“have not used this power.” 
“is not imputed when there 

h See Pearson on the Creed, Art. 
IT. p. 123. 

i Et bene qui dixit ipsum immen- 
sum Patrein in Filio mensuratum : 
mensura enim Patris Filius, quoniam 
et capit eum. fren. lib. iv. cap. 4. 

ὋὉ θεῖος λόγος, ὁ havepwruros ὄντως 
Θεὸς, ὁ τῷ Δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισω- 
θείς" ὅτι ἣν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν 
ἐν τῷ Θεῷ. Clem. Alez. p. 86. ed. Ox. 

Ἵν᾽, εἰκὼν αὐτὸς τυγχάνων τοῦ dopd- 
του Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐν τῷ μεγέθει σώζη τὴν 

So again, Rom. v. 13, 14. “ Sin 

18 no law: nevertheless” (ἀλλὰ 

εἰκόνα τοῦ πατρός" ov οἷόν τ᾽ ἦν 
εἶναι σύμμετρον (ἵν οὕτως ὀνομάσω) 
καὶ καλὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ, μὴ 
καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους παριστᾶσαν τὴν εἰκόνα. 
Orig. contr. Cels. p. 323. 

k Gen. xl. 15. 2 Chron. xxx. 11. 
lea. xlix. 15. Matth. xxiv.6. Mark 
ix. 13, 22. X. 43. ΧΙ, 7, 20, 24. Xiv. 
29, 36. Luke xvi. 30. xxi. 9. Joh. xi. 
11, 16. ae Acts vii. 47. 2 Cor. 
v. 16. vii. 6. xii. 16. Coloss. ii. §. 
2 Tim. i. 12. 2 Pet. iti. 14. τ Tim. 1. 
16. Rev. ii. 4, 6. 

SERM. V. with the Father. 109 

again) ‘death reigned from Adam to Moses.” There is 
therefore no sufficient ground for laying aside this construction 
on account of the particle; which may, and often does, signify 
the same as nevertheless, howbeit, notwithstanding, &c. Thus far 
I have been pleading for that sense of the words which appears 
in our English version. The sum of the plea is, that it is 
literal and grammatical; agrees with the oldest versions; is 
countenanced by Tertullian in the beginning of the third century, 
and by the Catholic Fathers in general! after the Nicene 
Council; is very pertinent to the Apostle’s argument, and 
there is no objection of weight from the context against it. 
If this construction be admitted, the Apostle’s reasoning 
so far, will run thus: “ Who being essentially God, as Son of 
‘“‘ God, knew that he was rightfully and naturally equal with 
“‘ God, and could not be said to usurp or arrogate in respect to 
“what was his own. Nevertheless he made himself of no 
“ reputation, appearing and acting much below his dignity, 
“ taking upon him human nature, &c.” It must be owned that 
some of the Ante-Nicene writers interpreted the words differ- 
ently. Origen™, understanding the whole passage, as it seems, 
of the man Christ Jesus, (whose soul he supposed to have 
preexisted,) interprets the phrase, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, &c. 
did not assume, or covet to be honoured as God. And this 
construction he was led into from this consideration, that the 
Adyos, or divine nature of Christ, could not be capable of any 
proper ezaltation. Novatian® understands the passage of the 
Λόγος, or divine nature, and makes the sense to be, that Christ 
did not pretend to an absolute equality with God the Father, 
considering himself as second only, or as Son of the Father. 
The churches of Lyons and Vienne (in a letter recorded by 

Manens enim in forma Dei, non vi 
aliqua sibi ac rapina, id quod erat, 
resumendum existimavit, scilicet ut 

1 I may give one or two for a speci- 
Quid est “non rapinam arbitratus 

est esse se equalem Deo?” Non usur- 
pavit sequalitatem Dei, sed erat in 1118 
in qua natus erat. August. Tract. tn 
Joh. 17. 

Non quasi rapinam habebat squa- 
htatem cum Patre, quam in substantia 
sui, tanquam Deus et Dominus possi- 
debat. Ambros. de Fid. lib. ii. c. 8. 

Non alienum arbitratus est, esse 
ques natus est. Aug. contr. Maz. p. 


eo esset sequalis. Erat enim in Dei 
forma, nihilque ei ex ejus gloria de- 
erat, in cujus forma manebat; sed 
formam servi sui per humilitatem ac- 
cepit, ἄς. Hilar. in Psalm. Ὁ. 325. 
ed. Bened. 

m Origen. in Job. p. 34, 4132. He 
seems to be of the same opinion in his 
book against Celsus. See p.167, 168, 

Τὰ Novatian. de ‘Trin. c. 17. 

110 Equality of Christ 

Eusebius°,) seem to understand it thus, that our Lord did not 
assume to himself, as he justly might have done, to be honoured 
as God, but waved his privilege, and declined all ostentation of 
his glory, for a pattern to, and for the good of others. The 
three interpretations now mentioned are different from each 
other, and all of them reconcilable with Catholic principles. 
Origen’s, though singular, is very safe, for one that would be 
only upon the defensive, in respect of this text, against the 
Arians. Novatian’s may serve either way; because, while he 
denies only such an equality as no Catholic contends for, he 
asserts the true equality of nature between Father and SonpP. 
The third interpretation is too loose and general to make 
any thing of on either side: ouly this is observable of them all, 
that they construe the words οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο &c. not as a 
part of the preceding character of Christ’s greatness, but as part 
of the consequent account of his humiliation, so far contrary to the 
interpretation which I have before been pleading for. You 
may have observed, from what has been already hinted, that, 
taking the words a3 a part of the consequent account of Christ's 
humiliation, they are still capable of a very good meaning, 
and no way favourable, but contradictory, to the Arian hypo- 
thesis. For let the sense of the passage appear as follows: 
“Who being essentially God, (and consequently having a 
“ rightful claim to be honoured equally with God,) yet did not 
‘“eovet or desire to be so honoured, did not insist upon his 
“ right; but, for the greater glory of God, and for the good of 
““ others, chose rather (in the particular instance of his incarna- 
* tion) to wave his pretensions, and, in appearance, to recede 
“from them.” This way of paraphrasing the words takes off 
the objection about the particle ἀλλὰ, and answers to that sense 


© Euseb. E. Hist. lib. v. cap. 2. 

P Pheebadius of the fourth century, 
a zealous defender of the Catholic doc- 
trine against the Arians, yet scruples 
not to interpret this text nearly in the 
same way with Novatian. 

Hic Sermo, cum tn forma Dei esset, 
sapientia et ratione, et spiritus ratione, 
et spiritus virtute constructus, hoc 
est, totam vim Dei pogsidens, non se 
Deo Patri adequavit, sed formam servi 

iptens humtitavit se usque ad mor- 
tem. Induerat enim quod servire, 
quod mori possit. Ῥλαδαά. contr. 

Arian. Bibl. Patr. tom. iv. p. 304. 

Cyril also of Alexandria seems, in 
one place, to have understood the 
words οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, as part 
of the consequent account of Christ’s 

‘O μὲν γὰρ τῶν ὅλων σωτὴρ καὶ 
Κύριος, καίτοι μετὸν αὐτῷ τὸ ἐν μορφῇ 
καὶ ἰσότητι τῇ κατὰ πᾶν ὁτιοῦν ὁρᾶ 
rar τὸν τοτίρα καὶ τοῖς τῆς θεότητος 
ἐναβρύνεσθαι θάκοις, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν 
ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἶσα Gee, ΔΚ - 

ν, ὅτε. Cyril. Alex. contr. Jul. lib. vi. 

p- 195- 

SERM. V. with the Father. 111 

of the phrase, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, which Origen, Novatian, 
and the churches of Lyons &c. took it in; and withal secures 
the main point which we insist on from this text, namely, the 
equality, the essential equality of the Son to the Father. In fine, 
either sense of the phrase, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, will suit very 
well with Catholic principles; but it is the latter only that can 
be any way drawn to favour the Arians: which indeed is the 
true reason why they contend so much for it. As to the two 
interpretations which I have given, the first, agreeing with our 
English version, seems to me preferable. It has been, in a 
manner, the standing interpretation for 1300 years. It has 
given indeed great uneasiness to the Arians; but they were 
never yet able, nor ever will be, to confute it. I pass on to the 
next words. ‘“ But made himself of no reputation, and took 
“ upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness 
“ of men.” Which words should have been turned thus: Never- 
theless he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made 
in the likeness of men. This rendering is not only more exact 
and conformable to the original, but also more suitable to the 
rendering of the words preceding. When our Lord is said to 
have “ made himself of no reputation,” or to have emptied him- 
self, which signifies much the same, we are not to suppose that 
he dlost any thing which he had before; or that he ceased to be 
in the form of God, by taking on him the form of man. No: he 
had the same essential glory, the same real dignity, which he ever 
had, but among men concealed it; appeared not in majesty and 
glory like to God, but divested himself of every dazzling appear- 
ance, and every outward mark of majesty and greatness, ™con- 

Q El δὲ καὶ σῶμα θνητὸν καὶ ψυχὴν 
ἀνθρωπίνην ἀναλαβὼν ὁ ἀθάνατος Θεὸς 
λόγος, δοκεῖ τῷ Κέλσῳ ἀλλάττεσθαι 
καὶ μεταπλάττεσθαι᾽ μανθανέτω ὅτι ὁ 
λόγος, οὐδὲν μὲν πάσχει ὧν πάσχει τὸ 
σῶμα, ἣ ἡ ψυχή. συγκαταβαίνων δὲ &c. 

igen. contr. Cels. Ὁ. 170. 

Non amittens quod erat, sed ac- 
cipiens quod non erat. Aust. tn Joh. 
Tract. 17. 

*Eopixpuvey αὐτοῦ τὴν be . Eu- 
seb. lib.i. cap. 13. ee 

Nam etsi apostolus semetipsum ex- 
inanisse dicit, formam servi suscipi- 
endo, non utique sic exinanitum acci- 
pimus ut alind quam quod fuerat idem 
Spiritus fieret : sed ut, seposito interim 

majestatis suze honore, humanum 
corpus indueret, quo suscepto, salus 
gentium fieret. Ut enim sol cum 
nube tegitur, claritas ejus comprimi- 
tur, non cecatur ; et lumen illud quod 
toto orbe diffusum claro splendore 
cuncta perfundit, parvo admodum 
obstaculo nubis includitur, non au- 
fertur : sic et homo ille quem Dominus 
Jesus Salvatorque noster, id est, Deus, 
Deique Filius induit, Deum tamen in 
illo non intercepit, sed abscondit. 
Pseud-Ambros. de Fid. Orthod. cap. 
Vili. p. 355. ed. Bened. 

τ Τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοὺς 
οὐκ ἦλθεν ἐν κόμπῳ ἀλαζονίας οὐδὲ 

[19 Equality of Christ SERM. V. 

descending to appear, and act, and converse as a man, like unto 
us in all things, sin only excepted. In this sense it is that our 
Lord emptted himself. He came not with any pomp and osten- 
tation of greatness, he laid aside his Godlike majesty, and dis- 
robed himself, as it were, of all outward glories, becoming a 
man, a miserable man, and in that nature suffering, bleeding, 
and dying for us. ‘“ Wherefore God hath also highly exalted 
“him.” Here we must make a pause, and inquire diligently 
what this evaltation means. One that is truly Son of God, and 
in ἃ proper sense God, cannot be properly evalted ; that is, 
cannot be preferred to any higher or better state than he ever 
enjoyed, nor receive any improvement of, or accession to, his 
essential dignity, glory, or happiness. Hence it is, that as 
many of the ancients as have understood the text of a proper 
exaltation, have interpreted it of the Auman only, and not the 
divine nature of Christ. This is true of the Ante-Nicene, as 
well as Post-Nicene writers, which appears from Origen® and 
Hippolytust: and I do not know of any direct testimony to the 
contrary. So that here again the Arians, understanding it of a 
proper exaltation to a better state, and of Christ considered in 
his Azghest capacity, run counter to the doctrine of the ancients 
before the Nicene Council, in a very material article respecting 
this controversy. 

The ancients were certainly in the right not to admit of any 
proper exaltation, in the sense before given, in respect of the 
divine nature of Christ. For, as “Athanasius and other Ca- 
tholics well argue in this case, how could he, that was with God, 
and in the bosom of the Father, be exalted, or become higher 
than he always was? How could the Giver and Dispenser of all 
graces receive any thing as a matter of grace or favour? How 
could he be then said to have attained the privilege of being 
adored, who had long before been adored both by men and 

ὑπερηφανίας, καίπερ δυνάμενος" ἀλλὰ 

᾿ ταπεινοφρονῶν, καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ 

ἅγιον περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐλάλησεν. Clem. Rom. 
Ῥ. cap. XVI. p. 70. 

Αὐτὸς μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἀφθάρτῳ αὐτοῦ 
δόξῃ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐλθεῖν ἠδύνατο' ἀλλ᾽ 
ἡμεῖς οὐδεπώποτε τὸ μέγεθος τῆς δόξης 
αὐτοῦ βαστάζειν ἠδυνάμεθα. Tren. lib. 
"Iv. cap. 38. p. 284. 

Ὅστις ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὧν, διὰ 
τοὺς κολληθέντας τῇ σαρκὶ καὶ γενομέ- 
vos ὅπερ σὰρξ, ἐγένετο σὰρξ, ἵνα χω- 

ρηθῇ ὑπὸ τῶν μὴ δυναμένων αὐτὸν βλέ- 
πεῖν καθὸ λόγος ἦν, καὶ πρὸς Θεὸν ἦν, 
καὶ Θεὸς ἦν. Orig. contr. Cels. lib. vi. 
p. 322. 

8 Ὁ yap λόγος ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν 
Θεὸν, ὁ Θεὸς v OS οὐκ Divers τὸ 
ὑπερυψωθῆναι. ig. in Joh. p. 412. 


t Ὑπερυψοῦσθαι λέγεται, καὶ ὡς οὐκ 
ἔχων, διὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον μονονουχὶ, &c. 

ippolyt. Fragm. vol. ii. p. 29. Fabric. 

a Athanas. Op. tom. i. p. 445, &c. 

SERM. V. with the Father. 113 

angels? He who was God from the beginning, who had glory 
with the Father “ before the world was,” who is himself the 
“Lord of glory,” and Creator and Preserver of all things, was 
infinitely too high, too great, and too divine, to receive any ac- 
cession to his dignity, any real increase ‘either ‘of perfection or 
glory. Thus far is very right; and therefore, if a proper exal- 
tation, in that sense, be intended, it can only be meant of Christ 
as God-man, receiving those honours and titles, in his human or 
mediatorial capacity, which he had always enjoyed in another. 
And thus the ‘ancients, for the most part, have understood 
Christ’s exaltation to be no more than a kind of new investiture, 
upon his new and late condescension; and his having those 
rights, titles, and honours confirmed to him as God-man, which 
as God he never wanted. This, in the main, is true and right ; 
and is a good account, in part, of what was in fact. But there 
is some reason to think that it is not precisely and accurately 
the meaning of this text. For if the exaltation be meant only 
of the human nature, it is more natural to suppose that St. Paul 
would not here have spoken of the condescension of the Logos, 
but would rather have told us only what the man Christ Jesus 
had done, how humbly and how righteously Christ had demeaned 
himeelf in that capacity, and how God had rewarded his services. 
And thus it is that Y Hermas, a very early writer of the first 
century, represents this matter. 7An ancient commentator upon 

X Ei δὲ ὑψοῦσθαι λέγεται, καὶ ἐν 
τάξει χαρίσματος τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα 
δέχεσθαι, εἰς ἐκεῖνο a peracapxds 
ἐπανάγεται, εἰς ὅπερ ἦν καὶ δίχα σαρκός. 
Cyril. Alex. Thesaur. p. 130. 

Vid. etiam Greg. Nyss. contr. 
Eunom. Orat. v. p. 597. Athanas. 

y Adhibito itaque Filo, quem carum 
et hzredem habebat, et amicis quos 
in consilio advocabat, indicat ea que 
servo suo facienda mandasset, qusz 
preeterea ille fecisset. At illi protinus 
gratulati sunt servo éiii, quod tam 
plenum testimonium Domini sui as- 
secutus fuisset. Ait deinde illis: Ego 
quidem huic servo libertatem promisi, 
δῖ custodisset mandatum meum quod 
dederam, et custodivit illud,et preeterea 
opus bonum adjecit in vineam, quod 
mihi quam plurimum placuit. Pro 
hoc igitur opere quod fecit, volo eum 
Filio meo facere cohzredem ; quoniam 


cum sensisset quod esset bonum, non 
omisit sed fecit illud. Herm. Simil. γ. 
p. 104. Coteler. 

2 Quibusdam tamen videtur ho- 
mini donatum esse nomen: quod est 
super omne nomen quod nullo genere, 
nulla ratione convenit. Si enim 
Christus Dei Filius idem ipse et 
homo est, non poterat Deus homo 
factus, sed manens Deus, his egere 
qué habebat: aut si secundum quod 
homo erat, his egebat quee Dei sunt, 
ipse sibi Dei Filius Deus dedisset que 

eerant ei juxta quod homo erat.— 
Neque caro hoc posset effici quod est 
Deus. Sed forte ut adoptione Deus 
easet: et hic color est. Incipiet enim 
ex parte Deus verus esse Christus, et 
ex parte adoptivus, aut duo Dii: sed 
aliud Scriptura significat. Illi enim 
donatum significat, qui se exinanivit, 

ul formam servi accepit, qui in simi- 
litudinem hominis factus est homo, 



Equality of Christ SERM. V. 

this text gives several reasons why the exaltation here spoken of 
is not, cannot be intended of the Man only, but of Christ in his 
whole Person. ‘1. Because, if Christ be God as well as Man, 
ἐς then all the time from his incarnation he must have had, along 
‘‘ with his humanity, all that pertains to God; and therefore 
ἐς gould not afterwards properly receive what he had before. 
“4. Supposing that he wanted any thing in respect of his man- 
‘“‘ hood, yet why should the Father be said to give what he him- 
‘* self, as God, could easily supply? 3. The things mentioned as 
“ given to Christ are too high and great for the man to receive, 
“unless the human nature be supposed to be divine, which is 
“ὁ absurd: or if it be supposed to have been made God by adop- 
‘“ tion, then either Christ is God partly by nature and partly by 
“ adoption, or the two natures are two Gods. 4. It appears 
“ from the text, that the ewaltation belongs to the same nature 
‘‘ which condescended and emptied itself. And what nature was 
“that but the Divine nature? Or what great matter would it 
“ have been for the Apostle to have told us, that a man did not 
‘“‘ pretend to be equal with God, or was obedient to God 2” 
There is a great deal of weight in the reasonings of this 
author, which made him at length ®conclude, that the text does 
not speak of any proper exaltation, or new accession to any thing, 
but of the more illustrious manifestation of him, for the solemn 
proclaiming him to be what he always was. And this, indeed, 
I take to be true in part, though not the full meaning of the 
text before us. Though the absolute, essential dignity of our 
blessed Lord was always the same, and in respect of which he 
was ever equal with God, yet his relative dignity towards us, 
founded in the obligations we have received from him, never so 
signally appeared as in that amazing and astonishing instance 
of condescension and goodness, his becoming man, and dying 
for us. We were hereby “bought with a price,” becoming 
servants to Christ, and Christ a Lord to us, in a peculiar sense», 

Els τοῦτο Χριστὸς καὶ ἀπέθανε 
καὶ ἀνέστη καὶ ἀνέζησεν, ἵνα καὶ νεκρῶν 

gui patri obedivit. Si Homo Deo 
atri obedivit, quid magnum est quod 

dixit Apostolus? Sed hoc magnum 
dicit, quia cum zqualis esset obedivit. 
Pseud-Ambros. in loc. p. 256. 

® Hoc ergo natus accepit, ut post 

crucem manifestaretur quid a Patre h 

dum generaretur acceperit. 
_ © 1 Cor. vi. 20. vil. 22, 23. 1 Pet. 
1, 10. 

καὶ ζώντων κυριεύσῃ. Rom. xiv. 9. 
Invisibilis visibilis factus, et incom- 
prehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, 
et impassibilis passibilis, et Verbum 
omo, Universa In semetipsum recapi- 
tulans: uti sicut in superccelestibus et 
spiritalibus, et invisibilibus pone 
est Verbum Dei; sic in visibilibus, et 

SERM. V. with the Father. 115 

and under a new and special title. Upon this occasion, and on 
this account, it pleased God, in the most solemn and pompous 
manner, to proclaim the high dignity of God the Son, to rein- 
force his rightful claim of homage, and to command heaven and 
earth, angels and men, to pay him all honour, reverence, and 
adoration suitable to the dignity of so great, so good, so divine 
ἃ Person as the Son of God. He had lately run through an un- 
paralleled work of mercy, had redeemed mankind and triumphed 
over death and hell: upon this his divintty is recognised, and 
his high worth proclaimed. We may observe how, under the 
Old Testament, it pleased God often to insist upon what great 
things he had done (though many of them slight in comparison 
to the work of redemption) in order to move the persons con- 
cerned to receive him as God. So he tells Abrain, “I am the 
“ Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees.” Gen. xv. 7. 
And to the children of Israel he says: “I will take you to me 
“ for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know 
“that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from 
“ under the burdens of the Egyptians.” Exod. vi. 7. And again, 
“ T am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the 
“land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have 
“no other Gods before me.” Exod. xx. 2, 3. Or when it pleased 
God to speak any thing higher of what he had done, he reminded 
his people of his being their Creator and Redeemer. “Thus 
‘“‘ gaith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed 

corporalibus principatum habeat, in 
semetipsum primatum assumens, et 
apponens semetipsum caput Ecclesie, 
universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto 
in tempore. fren. lib. iii. cap. 16. 
p. 206. 

Accipiens omnium _ potestatem, 
quando Verbum caro factum est, ut 
quemadmodum in celis principatum 
habuit Verbum Dei, sic et in terra 
haberet principatum, quoniam homo 
justus, “qui peccatum non fecit, nec 
“inventus est dolus in ore ejus;” 
principatum autem habeat eorum que 
sunt terra, ipse primogenitus mortu- 
orum factus: et ut viderent omnia, 
quemadmodum prediximus, suum 
regem, &c. Tren. lib. iv. cap. 20. 
P- 253- 

Per omnem venit setatem, et infan- 
tibus infans factus. Sanctificanes in- 

fantes: in parvulis parvulue——in 

juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juveni- 

us fiens, et sanctificans Domino. 
Sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit per- 
fectus magister in omnibus —— deinde 
et usque ad mortem pervenit ut sit 
“ primogenitus ex mortuis, ipse pri- 
““ matum tenens in omnibus,” princeps 
vite, prior omnium, preecedens omnes. 
Tren. Ὁ. 147, 148. 

The sense of all this is very dis- 
tinctly expressed by Hippolytus : 

*Os ἐπουρανίων, καὶ ἐπιγείων, καὶ 
καταχθονίων βασιλεὺς καὶ κριτὴς πάν- 
των ἀποδέδεικται. ἐπουρανίων μὲν ὅτι 
λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς πρὸ πάντων γεγενη- 
μένος fv’ ἐπιγείων δὲ, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος ἐν 
ἀνθρώποις ἐγεννήθη, ἀναπλάσσων δι᾽ 
ἑαυτοῦ τὸν ᾿Αδάμ᾽ καταχθονίων δὲ, ὅτι 
καὶ ἐν νεκροῖς κατελογίσθη---διὰ θανά- 
του τὸν θάνατον νικῶν. Hippol. de An- 
tichrist. cap. xxvi. p. 15. Fabric. 


116 Equality of Christ SERM. V. 

‘thee, Ὁ Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have 
“ called thee by my name; thou art mine.” Iea. xliii. 1. We 
see from hence, how even God the Father asserted his claim to 
the homage and adoration of his people, from the good and great 
things he had done for them. Not that he was not God and 
Lord before, but because the obligations laid upon them were 
apt to strike the more powerfully, and to bring the consideration 
of their duty towards him close and home to their hearts. To 
apply this to our present purpose; you may please to consider, 
that after God the Son had shewn such amazing and astonishing 
acts of goodness towards mankind, then was it proper to celebrate 
his name to the utmost, to recognise the dignity and majesty of 
his Person, and to recommend him to the world, as their God 
and Lord, with all imaginable advantage, with such endearing 
circumstances as could not but affect, ravish, and astonish every 
pious and ingenuous mind. And thus I understand the words, 
“ wherefore God also hath highly exalted him.” That is; on 
account of the great work of redemption, so full of love and 
goodness, so astonishing and so endearing, God hath remarkably 
proclaimed his dignity, and set forth his glory ; commanding all 
men hereupon to acknowledge him their God and Lord; their 
Lord always, but now more especially, by a new and distinct 
claim, as their Saviour, and Delverer, and only Redeemer®. As 
to the sense of the word evalted, nothing is more frequent in 

Scripture than such as I have here given. 

© God the Father had remained as 
glorious as now he is, although he had 
never created the world; for the 
creation gave much, even all they had, 
to things created, it gavé nothing un- 
to God, who was in being infinite: yet 
if God had created nothing, the atiri- 
bute of Creator could have had no real 
ground, it had been no real attribute. 
In like manner, suppose the Son of 
God had never condescended to take 
our nature upon him, he had remained 
as glorious in his nature and person 
as now he is; yet not glorified for, or 
by, this ἐξ or attribute of incarna- 
tton. Or suppose he had not “humbled 
““ himself unto death” he had re- 
mained as glorious in his nature and 
person, and in the attribute of incar- 
nation, as now he is; but without 
these glorious attributes of being “ our 

I shall mention 

““ Lord and Redeemer,” and of being 
the ‘‘ fountain of grace, and salvation 
“unto us.” All these are real atiri- 
butes, and suppose a real ground or 
foundation ; and that was “his hum- 
“‘ bling himself unto death, even the 
“ death of the cross.’? Nor are these 
attributes only real, but more glorious, 
both in respect of God the Father, 
who was pened to give his only Son 
for us, and in res of God the Son, 
who was pleased to pay our ransom 
by his humiliation, than the attribute 
of creatton is. The Son of God then, 
not the Son of David only, hath been 
exalted since his death to be our Lord, 
by a new and real title, by the title of 
redemption and salvation. Jackson on 
the Creed, vol. iii. lib. ii. cap. 3. p. 316. 
See also Bull Prim. Trad. p. 39, 40. 

SERM. V. with the Father. 117 

only two or three examples, referring to a Concordance for 
the rest. 

“ He is my God—and I will exalt him.” Exod. xv. 2. “ Ex- 
“ alted be the God of the rock of my salvation.” 2 Sam. xxii. 47. 
“ Let the God of my salvation be exalted.” Pesal. xviii. 46. 
“ Be thou exalted, Lord, in thine own strength.” αὶ. xxi. 13. 
“ Thou art my God, and I will praise thee; thou art my God, 
“and I will exalt thee.” Psal. cxviii. 28. “The Lord alone 
““ shall be exalted in that day.”’ Isa. ii. 11,17. These (besides many 
other instances of like kind) are enough to justify this interpre- 
tation of the word exalted‘. Besides that I would have it 
observed, that the word in the original is not ὕψωσε, but 
ὑπερύψωσεθ. The former very probably would have been used, 
had the Apostle intended only a proper local exaltation of the 
man Christ Jesus to the right hand of God. Further; the im- 
mediate words following confirm this sense of the word. For, 
how is Christ exalted ? God “hath given him a name which is 
“above every name.” That is, he has extolled and magnified 
his name above all names. Thus was the Son of God evalted, 
or glorified, for the great things he had done, and dignified (if 
I may so speak) with a very high and honourable title, (too big 
for any creature to have merited, or for any thing less than him- 
self to wear,) that of Redeemer and Preserver of man, and Lord of 
the whole universe. After the Apostle had taught us the great and 
supereminent dignity of God the Son, it was very proper to add, 
“to the glory of God the Father,” that we might not be so 
entirely taken up with admiring and reverencing the excellency 
and perfections of God the Son, as to forget that he is a Son 
still, referring all to God the Father! ; whose glory it is to have 
had always with him, and “ rejoicing always before him,” so 
great and so divine a Son, equal to himself, the express image, 
the perfect transcript and adequate resemblance of his Person &. 

4 “ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσε. vai ὁ 
Θεὸς λέγει τῷ Θεῷ μου ᾿ἸΙησοῦ 
sane 99 Δαβὶδ, Ὑψώθητι ἐπὶ τοὺς 
οὐρανοὺς ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν 
ἡ δόξα σου. ᾿Εδόξασεν αὐτὸν ὁ 
πατήρ’ ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ vids ἐδόξασε τὸν 
πατέρα, &e. Dionys. Ascript. Epist. 
contr. Samosat. p. 881. Labb. 

€ Σὺ εἶ Κύριος ὁ ὕψιστος ἐπὶ πᾶσαν 
τὴν γῆν; σφόδρα ὑπερυψώθης ὑπὲρ πάν- 
τας τοὺς θεούς. Peal. xcvi. 0. 

Αἰνῶ καὶ ὑπερυψῶ καὶ δοξάζω τὸν 

βασιλέα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Dan. iv. 34. 

{ Aiqualem ergo Patri credite 
Filium: sed tamen de Patre Filium, 
Patrem vero non de Filio. Origo 
apud illum, equalitas apud istum——— 
genuit autem Pater egualem sibi, et 
totum quicquid est Filiue, habet de 
Patre, quod autem Deus Pater est non 
habet de Filso. Itaque dicimus Patrem 
Deum de nuilo, Filium Deum de Deo. 
Augustin. Serm. 140. tom. v. p. 681. 

δ Σέβομέν ye τὺν πατέρα, θανμάζοντες 

118 Equalsty of Christ SERM. V. 

I may just observe to you the strict accuracy of the Apostle’s 
expression “ God the Father : not God, absolutely, nor God his 
Father, as some affect to speak, but “God the Father ;” inti- 
mating that the Son is God also, and therefore, for distinction 
sake, he adds, “the Father,” expressing it thus, to the “glory 
“ of God the Father.” 

I have at length run through the text, explaining the parti- 
culars of it in their order. I shall now subjoin a summary view 
of the whole, in ἃ paraphrase conformable to the explication 
before given. 

“Ver. 3, 4. Be ye not vain-glorious, or selfish, but . be 
“ willing to stoop and condescend even beneath yourselves, 
‘‘in some instances, for the glory of God and the good of 
“ others. 

“ Ver. 5. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ 
“ Jesus : 

“Ver. 6. Who, though Son of God, and, as such, rightfully 
“ and really equal with God ; 

“Ver.7. Yet notwithstanding chose, in the instance of his 
‘incarnation, to Arde his majesty, and to veil his glories under 
“ the garb of humanity; being content to become a man, and 
‘thereby a servant to God, though by nature a Son, and Lord 
“ of all. 

“Ver. 8. And having taken upon himself the nature and 
‘“ condition of a man, he submitted yet further, even to death 
“ itself; and that too in the most ignominious circumstances, 
“ nailed to a cross. 

“ Ver. 9. This amazing and astonishing instance of conde- 
““ scension, love, and goodness, God the Father himself has most 
“remarkably approved; and has thereupon more solemnly and 
‘‘ more illustriously proclaimed the supereminent dignity of God 
“« the Son, who had merited so highly of men. 

“ Ver. 10, 11. Commanding all persons to honour, worship, 
“and adore him as God and Lord; and under the new and 
“ special title of Redeemer, to the glory of God the Father, whose 
‘« Son he is; their honour inseparable, and their glory one.” 

This appears to be the most natural and obvious meaning of 
this celebrated passage, consonant to Scripture, and to the 
αὐτοῦ τὸν υἱὸν, λόγον, καὶ σοφίαν, καὶ Θεοῦ, οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸν γεννηθέντα ἀπὸ 
ἀλήθειαν, καὶ δικαιοσύνην, καὶ πάντα, τοῦ τοιούτον πατρός. Orig. contr. Cels. 
ἅπερ εἶναι μεμαθήκαμεν, τὸν νἱὸν τοῦ p. 387. 

ΒΕΕΜ.Υ͂. with the Father. 119 

principles of the primitive and Catholic Church. I should now 
make some reflections upon the whole, but have scarce room 
barely to hint them for your leisure thoughts to improve. 

Let the Socinians or Arians make as great ἃ matter as they 
please of a man’s, or of a creature’s becoming a servant to God ; 
we shall think it a still greater and more marvellous condescen- 
sion, for one that was above every thing servile, himself equal to 
God, to condescend as he did. 

Let them magnify his merits and performances, done for his 
own sake, to arrive at such an immense glory above all other 
creatures; we shall look upon them as more noble, more disin- 
terested, and truly divine, if done for others only, by one that 
was himself too great to receive any recompense. 

Let them value it as an extraordinary piece of condescension, 
that he did not lay claim to what he had no right to; we shall 
think it more pious and more decent to say, that he quitted his 
right, and receded from his just pretensions. 

Let them honour him as their Lord, made as it were but of 
yesterday; we shall honour him as Lord and God from the be- 
ginning ; the Creator first, and now, at last, Redeemer of man. 

Let them, lastly, look upon him as a servant still, a servant 
at least to God, (as all creatures are>;) while we, with angels 
and archangels, with things in heaven, and things in earth, and 
things under the earth, believe and confess that Jesus Christ is 
no servant, but Lord and God, to the glory of God the Father. 
“ To whom with the Holy Ghost, all honour, and praise, might, 
“‘ majesty, power, and dominion, be ascribed now and for ever.” 

h Ei τι γάρ ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν, ἢ ἀνάγκης ἐλευθέρα" ἡ δὲ κτιστὴ, δουλικὴ 
ἄκτιστος φύσις ἐστὶν, } κτιστή. ἀλλ καὶ νόμοις δεσποτικοῖς ἑπομένη. Pseudo- 
ἡ μὲν ἄκτιστος, δεσποτικὴ καὶ πάσης Just. Exp. Fid. 

Divine Titles ascribed to Christ in Holy Scripture : 



The sixth Sermon preached February 3, 17}8- 

JOHN XVI. 15. 

All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that 
he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 

‘THESE are the words of our blessed Saviour, speaking of the 
Spirit of Truth, otherwise styled the “ Spirit of God#,” and 
“ Spirit of the living God>,” and “ Spirit of the Father°,” and 
“ Spirit of the Lord4;” and sometimes the “ Spirit of Christ ¢,”’ 
and “ Spirit of Jesus f,” and emphatically “the Spirit ,” but most 
commonly the “ Holy Spirit,” or “ Holy Ghost,” who is the third 
Person of the ever blessed and adorable Trinity. Our Lord had 
intimated, in the verses foregoing, that this divine Person, the 
Spirit of Truth, should shortly come upon the disciples, and 
“ guide them into all truth ;” (ver. 13.) “for,” says our blessed 
Saviour, “he shall not speak of himself ;” that is, not of himself 
alone, separate from, or independent of, every other person}, 
but “ whatsoever he shall hear,” (that is, now in an ineffable 
manner, by his intimate union and communion in all things with 

® Matt. iii. 16. Rom. viii. 9, 14. & Luke iv.14. John iii. 8. vii. 39. 
xv. 19. 1 Cor. ii, 10, 11, 14. mi. 16. Acta ii. 4. Vill. 29. χ. 19. Rom. xv. 320. 

1.11. Eph. iv. 30. 1 Pet. iv. 14. h “Non enim loquetur a semet- 
b 2 Cor. iii. 3. “ipso.” Hoc est, non sine me et 
¢ Matt. x. 20. Eph. iii. 14, 16. sine meo et Patria arbitrio: quia in- 
4d Acts ν. 9. viii. 39. 2 Cor. iii. separabilis a mea et Patris est volun- 

17, 18. tate; quia non ex se est, sed ex Patre 
e Rom. viii.g. Gal. iv.6. 1 Pet. et me est: hoc enim ipsum -quod 

i. 11. subsistit et loquitur, a Patre et me illi 

f Acts xvi. 7. See Mill upon this est. Didym. apud Hieron. vol. iv. pag. 
place. Phil. 1. 19. 514. ed. Bened.  Christ’s Divinity proved from his Titles. 121 

Father and Son,) “that shall he speak: and he will shew 
‘you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive 
“ of mine’, and shall shew it unto you,” ver.14. That is, what- 
ever influences he shall shed, whatever truths he shall reveal, 
whatever miracles he shall perform, they will be all so many 
manifestations of my glory, as coming from me, acting and 
speaking in and by the “ Spirit of God.” Then follow the 
words of the text. “ΑἹ! things that the Father hath are mine : 
“« therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it 
** unto you.” 

As much as to say, Think it not strange that I ascribe to 
myself the operations and influences of the “ Spirit of God,” 
or “Spirit of the Father,” with the glory of them: for though 
these things do indeed of right belong to the Father, whose 
Spirit he is; yet this is very consistent with my claim, because 
“all that the Father hath is mine:” his power is my power, his 
works my works, his Spirié my Spirit ; our perfections common, 
our nature equal, and our glory one*. This is the most natural 
and obvious meaning of the text, consonant to other Scriptures, 
and to Catholic antiquity; as shall be shewn in the sequel. 
The text might lead me to discourse on the divinity of the Holy 
Ghost, as well as of the Son: but having hitherto confined myself 
to the single point of Christ's divintty, that I might the more 
fully and distinctly treat of it; I shall for the same reason do so 
still, and occasionally only touch upon the other, as it may fall 
m my way, or may be subservient to my main point. The words 
now under consideration will afford two distinct arguments of 
the divinity of God the Son; one particular and special, the 
other more general. | 

1. The first, which I call particular and special, is contained 
in this, that the operations, gifts, and graces of the Spirit of God 
with the glory of them, are ascribed to Christ. 

i“ De meo sumet,” inquit, sicut 
ipee de Patris. Ita connexus Patris 
in Filio, et ΕἾ in Paracleto, tres 

χαρίσματα, καὶ ἄλλα υἱοῦ, καὶ ἄλλα 
ἁγίου πνεύματος. μία γὰρ ἡ σωτηρία, 
μία ἡ δύναμις, μία ἡ πίστις. Cyril. 

efficit cohzerentes, alterum ex altero : 
qui tres uxum sint, non uxus; quo- 
modo dictum est, “ Ego et Pater unum 
““ sumus ;” ad substantie unitatem, 
non ad numeri singularitatem. Tertul. 
contr. Praz. cap. xxv. 

ὋὉ πατὴρ δι᾽ υἱοῦ σὺν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι 
τὰ πάντα χαρίζεται. οὐκ ἄλλα πατρὸς 

Hieros. Catech. xvi. p. 236. Ox. ed. 

k Licet a Patre procedat Spiritus 
veritatis, et det illis Deus Spintum 
Sanctum petentibus se: tamen quia 
““ omnia quae habet Pater mea sunt,’’ 
et ipse Spiritus Patrie meus est, et de 
meo accipiet. Didym. de Spir. Sanct. 
apud Hieron. tom. iv. p. 516. 

122 Christ’s Divinity SERM. VI. 

2. The second, which I call general, lies in the general reason 
given as the foundation of the former; that “all things that the 
“ Father hath,” our Saviour attributes to himself, and challenges 
as his own. Of these in their order. 

I. We are to observe, that the operations, gifts, and graces 
of the Spirit of God, with the glory of them, are ascribed to 
Christ ; “ He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” 
He shall glort/y me: the glory of whatsoever shall be done or 
taught by the Holy Spirit, our Lord ascribes to himself, as being 
(in conjunction with the Father) the author and fountain of it. 
The context indeed mentions only the Spirit's teaching; but the 
reason is the same for whatever should be done by the Holy 
Spirit of God, who is also the Spirtt of Christ: and therefore 
the miraculous works of the Holy Ghost are expressly ascribed 
to Christ by St. Peter, Acts ii. 33. ““ Being by the right hand 
“ of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise 
“ οὗ the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see 
‘and hear.” When therefore our Lord says, “he shall receive 
‘of mine, and shall shew it unto you,” it is but reasonable to 
understand it of every operation, gift, or influence of the Holy 
Spirit, (of whatever kind it were,) showered down upon the 
Apostles. All were derived from Christ; to him therefore (in 
conjunction with the Father and the Holy Ghost) is the glory of 
them to be ascribed, as is plain from the words, “ he shall 
“ glorify me,” ver. 14. 

Now, if the Holy Ghost himself be a dwwine Person, and one 
with God the Father, and adored together with him, as the 
Catholic Church has all along taught!, and Scripture itself bas 
sufficiently intimated ; then we have here a clear and irresistible 
proof of the divinity of Christ, who, as appears from this text, is 
at least equal to, or in some sense greater than the Holy Ghost™. 
But because the divinity of the Holy Ghost is what our adver- 
saries will no more admit than they will the other, and it 

1 Justin. Mart. 7 a i, cap. 16. est: quoniam nec Paracletus a Christo 
Athenagoras, "Ἢ 40,06. Irenzeus, lib. acciperet nisi minor Christo esset. 
iv. cap. 3). Clem Ὁ λιοὶ: a 1020.ed. Minor autem Christo Paracletus 
Ox. Tertullian, contr. Prax cap ES Christum etiam Deum esse hoc ipso 
xiii. xxv. Hippolytus contr. probat a quo accepit hae saat oh 
cap. xii. ee apud Basil. de Sp. s ut testimontam Christ 
p. 219. in Joh. p.124. Cyprian. Ep. grande sit, dum minor Christof Pa. 
ad Jubajan. p. 203. racletus repertus, ab illo sumit que 

™ Sia Christo accepit que nuntiet, ceseteris tradit. Novat. de Trin. cap. 
major ergo jam Paracleto Christus xxiv. 

ΒΒΈΜ. VI. 123 

proved from his Titles. 

would be here too great a digression for me to enter into the 
proof of it; I must be content to wave that point, and consider 
only whether, or how far, our argument may be conceived to 
stand independent of it. 

The Person of the Holy Ghost is described in Scripture as the 
immediate author and worker of miracles"; and even of those 
done by our Lord himself°; the Conductor of Christ Jesus in his 
human capacity, during his state of humiliation here upon earthP ; 
the inspirer of the Prophets and Aposties4; the Searcher of all 
hearts, and the Comforter of good Christians in difficulties". To 
Ke to him is the same thing as to ke unto God’. Blasphemy 
against him is unpardonablet. To resist him is the same thing 
as to resist God". He is in God, and knows the mind of God 
as perfectly as a man knows his own mind; and that in respect 
of all things, even the deep things of God*. Men's bodies are his 
templeY, and, by being his temple, are the temple of God®. He 
is joined with God the Father and Son, in the solemn form of 
baptism® ; in religious oaths, and in invocations for grace and 
peace>; in the same common operations‘; in the same authori- 
tative mission and vocation of persons into the ministry4; and he 
is joined with the Father in the same common mission, even of 
the Son himself¢: in a word, he is Lordf (or Jehovah) and Gods, 
and Lord of Hosts». This is a brief summary of what the 
Scriptures have taught us of the person, character, and offices 
of the Holy Ghost. Exceptions may be made (though of no great 
weight) to some particulars, which I have not here time to con- 
sider. The least that can be inferred from them, and what the 
Arians themselves will not scruple to admit, is, that the Holy 
Ghost is a Person of very high eminence, dignity, and majesty ; 
much superior to any angel or archangel, or any other person 

™ Acts ii. 4, 45, 46. Rom. xv. 19. 
1 Cor. ii. 4,5. xii. 4,8, 11, xiv. 2. 

Heb. ii. 4. 
© Matt. xii.18. Acts x. 38. 

P Matt. iv.1. xii. 18. Luke iv. 1. 

John i. 32. iii. 34. Acts i. 2. 

@ See the proofs in Clarke’s Script. 

Doctr. cap. itl. sect. 2. 

¥ See Script. Doctr. cap. iv. sect. 3. 

® Acts v. 3, 4. 
t Matt. xi. 31, 32. 
Ὁ Acts vii. 51. 
x 1 Cor. ii. 10,11. 
Υ 1 Cor. vi. 19. 

Σ 1 Cor. iii. 16. Eph. ii. 21, 22. 

® Matt. xxviii. 19. 

b 2 Cor. xiii. 14. Rev, i. 4, 5. 
Rom. ix. 1. 

© x Cor. xii. 4—7, &c. 

ἃ Acts xiii. 2. Compare Hos. ii. 
23. Acta ix. 15. 

© Isa. xlviii. 16. 

f Compare Exod. xxxiv. 34. with 
2 Cor. iii. 17. 

& Acts v. 3, 4. 

h Compare Isa. vi. with Acts xxviii. 
25, 26. 

124 Christ's Deointty SERM. VI. 

whatsoever, excepting only God the Father, and his Son Christ 
Jesus. Let it then be considered, that however great and glo- 
rious, however mighty and powerful, however wise and knowing, 
however venerable and adorable this Person is, and however 
intimate with, and united to, God the Father, whose Spirit he 
is; yet all that he is, and all that he does, is to be referred to 
Christ, as the author and fountain of it. He claims the glory of 
all, because all is his. Now if we consider the infinite distance 
there is between God and the very highest of his creatures, and 
how arrogant it must appear in any creature to make a claim of 
this kind and value, a claim upon God's own Spirit, a claim of 
glory (though in strictness glory can be due to God alone) as 
having a hand in all his works, and, as it were, assisting and in- 
fluencing the very “Spirit of the Father :” I say, if we consider 
this, and at the same time reflect that our blessed Lord (who 
was the most perfect pattern of humility, meekness, and modesty) 
has really made this claim, and has been thus faméhar with 
Almighty God; what can we think less than thia, that our 
blessed Lord is infinitely superior to all creatures, and conse- 
quently is himself really, truly, and essentially God, coequal and 
coeternal with God the Father'? Thus, and thus only, can his 
claim be justified, and his pretensions reconciled to the Scrip- 
tures, or to the truth and reason of things: which will appear 
further, if we consider, 

II. Secondly, the general reason, upon which our blessed Lord 
founds his paritcular claim. “ All things that the Father hath 
“are mine.” All things; and therefore the very highest of all, 
namely, those specified in that chapter. And indeed it is but 
reasonable, and even neceasary to suppose, that one who could 
justly ascribe so much to himeelf must be im all respects equal 
to the Father, excepting only (what the text intimates in 
the very name of Father‘) that he is not another Father, 

i Neque enim de creaturis sumebat = Procul hinc absint dialecticorum 

Spiritus Sanctus, qui Det Sptritus 
est; ut ex his videatur accipere, quia 
ea omnia Dei sunt. Hilar. de Trin. 
lib. ix. p. 1032. 

k Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ἀκριβῶς εἴρηκεν, 
ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ, ἵνα καὶ ὧδε λέγων τὸν 
πατέρα, μὴ καὶ αὐτὸς πατὴρ νομισθῇ" 
οὐ γὰρ εἴρηκεν ἐγώ εἶμι ὁ πατὴρ, ἀλλ᾽ 
ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατήρ. Athanas. Op. vol.i. 
p. 107. ed. Bened. 

tendicule et sophismata a veritate 
pellantur: que occasionem impietatis 
ex pia preedicatione capientia, dicunt : 
Ergo et Pater est Filius, et Filius 
Pater. Si enim dixisset, “ Omnia 
** queecunque habet Deus, mea sunt,” 
baheret impietas occasionem confin- 
gendi, et verisimile videretur menda- 
cium. Cum vero dixerit, “ Omnia 
*‘ que habet Pater, mea sunt ;” Pa- 

SERM. VI. proved from his Titles. 125 

but Son of the Father. This clearly accounts for his ascribing 
to himself all the influences, gifts, and graces of God’s Holy 
Sprv, and the glory of them. For if God the Son hath all 
things that the Father hath, then hath he all the attributes and 
perfections belonging to the Father; the same power, rights, 
and privileges; the same honour and glory; and, in a word, 
the same nature, substance, and Godhead. Then, indeed, every 
divine work is his work; the Spirit of the Father is also his 
Sprit; the operations of the Holy Ghost must, of course, be the 
operations of Father and Son too; and the glory of every 
thing must be referred to both, as to one common author and 
fountain thereof. On these principles, the sense of the whole 
passage is easy, expedite, and clear; and very consonant to our 
blessed Lord’s account of himself in other places of this Gospel : 
particularly where he says, “ What things soever he,” (the 
Father) “doth, these also doth the Son likewise,” John v. 19. 
“1 and my Father are one,” John x. 30. “He that hath seen 
“me hath seen the Father—I am in the Father, and the 
“ Father in me,” John xiv. 9, 10. ‘‘ Glorify me with thine own 
“ self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world 
‘“‘ was,” John xvii. 5. ‘All mine are thine, and thine are mine, 
“and I am glorified in them,” John xvii.10. These are very 
high and strong expressions, confirming that sense of the text 
which 1 have given, and which prevailed in the Christian Church 
(as appears from Tertullian above cited) before the Council of 
Nice, as well as after'. But my design is next to proceed 
to other Scriptures which expressly ascribe the same high titles, 
powers, and perfections to the Son which they do to the 
Father; therein justifying, or rather more fully and particularly 
declaring, what our Lord had but briefly intimated in the words, 
“ All things that the Father hath are mine.” My method 
shall be, 

1. To shew that the divine titles are ascribed to the Son 
in holy Scripture: and, 

2. That the divine attributes are also applied to him. 

tris nomine se Filsam declaravit; Pa- mus, Interpr. Hieron. OF tom. iv. p. 
ternilatem, qui Filius erat, non usur- 516. Ambros. de Fid. lib. i. cap. 4. 
pavit. Didym. de Sp. S. Hieron. p. 477. ed. Bened. Cyril. Alex. Thes. 
tom. iv. p. 516. ed. Bened. fib. ix. Augustin. contr. Maxim. lib. ii. 

1 Athanasius, vol.i. p. 106. Hila- p.697, 706. ed. Bened. Cyril. Hieros. 
rius de Trin. lib. ix. p. 1004. Didy- Cath. xvi. p. 236. 

126 Christ's Divinity SERM. VI. 

3. To sum up the force of the argument, and to obviate such 
general objections as tend to weaken our conclusion. 

I. The divine titles ascribed to the Son in Holy Scripture 
are as follows; God, God with us, Lord God, true God, great 
God, mighty God, God over all blessed for evermore, Jehovah, 
Almighty, Lord of Glory, King of kings, and Lord of lords, 
Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. Of these in their 

As to the title of God, our adversaries are pleased to allow, 
that “ the Person of the Son is in the New Testament” (and the 
Old Testament should not have been entirely omitted) “ some- 
“times” (and why is it not said frequently ?) “styled God ™.” 
But then we are told that it" is not “so much” (is it then at 
all?) “on account of his metaphysical substance—as of his 
“ relative attributes and divine authority,” that he is sometimes 
styled God. But this is more than our adversaries know, or 
can give the least shadow of proof to countenance. The Son 
of God may be proved from Scripture to be God, in the strict 
and proper sense, after the very same way, and by the same 
kind of arguments, that the Father himself can be shewn to be 
God, in the strict and proper sense. What is said about 
metaphysical substance (by which, it seems, is meant abstract 
metaphysical substance’) is trifling to the last degree. For 
undoubtedly the Trinitarians are not so destitute of common 
sense and understanding, aa to take the substance of Father, or 
Son, to be an abstract idea; which is all the sense of an 
abstract substance. They certainly mean a real, living, intelligent, 
and infinitely perfect substance, existing without, necessarily 
existing. And when they say that the Son is substantially or 
essentially God, they intend to prevent equivocations, and to 
assert, that the Son is not of a fading perishing nature, as 
creatures are; no precarious being, depending on the will 
and choice of another, but truly divine and necessarily existing. 
If this be admitted, we have no further occasion to speak 
a word of substance; which, after all, is nothing more than 
another name for betng or thing. And it must appear very 
strange, and savouring too much of delicacy or cavilling, that, if 
we are able to prove the Son to be eternal, divine, necessarily 

__ ™ See Clarke’s Scripture Doctr. Propos. xxiv. Ῥ. 263. and edit. 
» Ibid Propos. xxv. p. 263. © Clarke’s Scripture Doctr. p. 342. and edit. 

SERM. VI. proved from his Titles. 127 

exsting, &c. we may not be allowed to say that his substance 
is cernal, divine, &c., which is really neither more nor less than 
saying that he is eo. Attributes and powers must have something 
to reside and inhere in, which something is what we call substance, 
and considered with divine attributes, devine substance, or God. 
And this is what Scripture means in calling the Son God; as we 
are able to prove from the same topics, and in the same way of 
reasoning, which another might make use of to prove the one 
God (or the God of the Jews) to be the supreme, eternal, and im- 
mutable God, against any Marcionite, Valentinian, Manichee, or 
other heretic, that should presume to deny it. Let those who 
object to us the use of metaphysics try if they can come at the 
proof of the Father's being self-existent, underived, one simple, un- 
compounded, undivided, intelligent Agent, &c. without entering into 
metaphysics: and let them from thence learn to distinguish be- 
tween false metaphysics and true: and not presume to condemn 
both promiscuously. As to consequences, be they metaphysical 
or physical, moral or religious, it matters not, provided they are 
but just and true; which is the only thing to be inquired into. We 
are told, that “the Scripture, when it mentions God absolutely, 
‘‘and by way of eminence, always means the Person of the 
“ FatherP.” But this is an assertion not only void of proof, but 
impossible to be proved ; and is besides contrary to all antiquity, 
as I have shewn elsewhere?; and even to the sentiments of the 
ancient Arians ; whom our modern Arians would be thought to 
come up to at least, though they really fall short of them, 
as well in this as in many other instances. However, certain it 
is that the Church of Christ, down from the very times of the 
Apostles, have been in nothing more unanimous than in styling 
the Son God: and what they meant by that name, as applied 
to the Son, is well known to the learned from their worship 
of him, and their utter abhorrence of any tnferior deities ; from 
their arguing for the Son’s divinity considered as a Son, of the 
same nature with his Father; from their similitudes and illus- 
trations; from the divine titles, attributes, and perfections 
which they ascribed to him; and indeed from the whole tenour of 
their writings. This is a confirmation to us, that the Son 
of God, in Scripture, is so styled in the strict and proper sense 
of uncreated, eternal, and necessarily existing. 

P Clarke’s Scripture Doctr. Propos. xi. 
a Defence of some Queries, Qu. 2. vol.i. p. 278. 


Another divine title given to God the Son in holy Scripture 
is God with us, or Emmanuel™. Matt.i. 23. A late writer® would 
insinuate that the word God, in this place of St. Matthew, may 
be meant of the Father. But the text is plain and full to the 
contrary. ‘ Behold, a Virgin shall be with child, and shall 
“bring forth a Son, and they shall call Ais name (the Son’s, not 
“the Father’s name) Emmanuel.” Christ therefore is Emmanuel, 
or God with us. The same writer pretends that the name 
Emmanuel proves nothing more, in point of argument, than even 
the names of places, Jehovah-Jireh, Jehovah-Shammah, Jehovah- 
Shalom, Jehovah-Nisst, &c. But this Socinian surmise had been 
before sufficiently confuted by the learned and judicious Bishop 
Pearsont; whose reasonings upon this head should have been 
answered, instead of repeating a stale objection. I shall only 
take notice, that the early writers of the Christian Church 
constantly understood that Christ was really God with us, 
conformable to his name Emmanuel; and interpreted this text 
of St. Matthew as we dot. To proceed : | 

Another divine title given to God the Son in holy Scripture is 
that of Zord God, which answers to Jehovah Elohim, the incom- 
municable name of the one true God. The first text of the New 
Testament to our purpose is Lukei. 16,17. ‘“ Many shall he” 
(viz. John the Baptist) “turn to the Lord their God, and he 
“shall go before him,” &c. It is well observed by a late 
writer, that “these words (the Lord their God) are, in strict- 
“ ness of construction, immediately connected with the following 
“ word, him; which must necessarily be understood of Christ.” 
Now, since there is no apparent necessity in the case of receding 
from the strictness of construction, it is but reasonable to under- 

Christ's Divinity SERM. VI. 

¥ Μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός. God, by way 
of excellency, with the article ὁ pre- 

5. Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 71. 2nd 

t Pearson on the Creed, art. ii. p. 

_® Diligenter igitur significavit Spi- 
ritus Sanctus per ea que dicta sunt 
generationem ejus que est ex Virgine, 
et substantiam quoniam Deus, (Em- 
manuel enim nomen hoc significat,) et 
manifestat quoniam homo, &c. Iren. 
lib. iii. cap. 21. p.217.ed. Bened. Vid. 
et p. 205, 212, 273. 

Quod si Emmanuel nobiscum Deus 
est, Deus autem nobiscum Christus 
est, qui etiam in nobis est (quotquot 
enim Christum tincti estis, Christua 
induistis) tam proprius est Christus 
in significatione nominis, quod est 
nobiscum Deus, quam in sono nominis, 
ee est Emmanuel. Tertul. contr. 

are. lib. 111. cap. 12. p. 403. Vid. et 
contr. Prax. cap. 27. It. Novat. cap. 
12. Cyprian. ‘lestim. lib. i. cap. 6. 
p- 36. Euseb. Comment. in Isa. vii. 
14. p. 381. 

x Dr. Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 72. 
2nd edit. 

SERM. VI. proved from his Titles. 129 

stand the words (Lord their God) of Christ. What confirms 
this construction is, that the same St. Luke, in the third chapter 
of his Gospel, speaks of John the Baptist’s “crying in the 
*‘ wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord,” chap. iii. 4. 
which answers to what he had observed chap. i. 16,17. of John 
the Baptist’s “going before him,” that is, Christ, here called 
Lord God, as there the Lord: and this is further confirmed 
from Malachi iii. 1. ‘‘ Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall 
‘“‘ prepare the way before me: and the Lorp, whom ye seek, 
“ shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the 
“covenant,” &c. And from verse the 76th of the first of 
St. Luke, where he, before whom John the Baptist was to 
go, 1s called the Zord. There is no reasonable doubt to be 
made, after the comparing these passages together, but that the 
Lord (Κύριος) in St. Luke thrice, and in Malachi once, is to be 
understood of the Person of Christ. Neither is this construction 
of St. Luke strange or new, being countenanced by Irenzeusy, 
an early Father of the second century. I pass on to other 
texts, which style the Son Lord and God. St.Thomas’s con- 
fession, John xx. 28. “My Lord and my God,” is pertinent 
to our purpose. The application of this to Christ is so manifest 
of itself, and, besides, hardly now disputed, that I need not 
say more of it. Isa. xl. 10, 11. we read thus: ‘Behold, the 
“ Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule 
“ for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before 
“him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd,” &c. This is to 
be understood of Christ, and his second advent to judge the 
world; as Eusebius’ well interprets it. The words, “his 
“reward is with him,” (comp. Rev. xxii. 12.) and, “he shall 
“feed his flock like a shepherd,” (comp. John x. 11.) are 
sufficient indications of the Person there intended. Christ 
therefore is Lord G'od in the Scripture-style, as well as the 
Father. As to the sentiments of the ancients, many testimonies 
might be cited, where they call the Son God and Lord, or Lord 
and God: but it will be sufficient to observe their application 
of several texts of the Old Testament to God the Son. For 
instance: Genesis iii. 8. ‘They heard the voice of the Lord 

Υ Iren. lib. iii. cap. 10. p. 185. art. li. p. 131. 
z if any one doubt of it, Ὁ ma 8 Euseb in loc. p. 509. 
consult Bishop Pearson on the Creed, 


180 Christ’s Dwintty 

“God walking in the garden>.” Gen. xxviii. 13. “I am the 
“ Lord God of Abraham thy Fathere.” Exod. iii. 14. “The 
“ Lord God of your Fathers4.” Exod. xx. 2. “I am the Lord 
“thy God¢:” and Hos. i. 7. “1 will save them by the Zord 
“ their Godf.” These, with many other like textas, were under- 
stood by the ancients in general, long before the Council of 
Nice, of God the Son. From whence it is evident, that the 
atyle and title of Lord God was thought to be very applicable to 
God the Son, and not peculiar or appropriate, in holy Scripture 
to God the Father. 

True God is another divine title belonging to the Son of God. 
“ We are in him that is true, even in (or by) his Son Jesus 
“ Chnst. This is the true God, and eternal life».” 1 John v. 20. 
We have sufficient reason to believe that God the Son is here 
called “true God,” and “eternal life.” It is on all hands con- 
fessed that “ eternal life,” in the style of St. John, (see 1 John 
i. 2.) is an epithet appropriate to the Son, and is to be under- 
stood of him in this very passage. And thus a late Arian 
writer! interprets the last words. “This is the true God, even 
“the Father; and this is the way that leads to him, even 
“ Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the 4fe;” under- 
standing eternal life as another name for, or as appropriate to, the 
Person of Jesus Christ. But it is manifest that the pronoun thés 
(οὗτος) is the subject of both the predicates, true God and 
eternal ife. To make good construction of it the other way, 
the sentence should have run, 7/ts (οὗτος) is the true God, and 
that other (ἐκεῖνος) ἐδ eternal life. But the words are, ‘This 
‘“‘ (person, οὗτος) ἐδ the true God (ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς) and eternal 
“ life’? (καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος). There is no other subject of the latter 
predicate besides the otros, this, going before. If it be said that 
the particle 7 may stand for αὕτη, and so the sense be, This ts 
the way, pointing as it were to Jesus Christ before mentioned ; 
yet so the construction is very harsh and unnatural: besides 


b Theoph. Antioch. p. 129. Tertall. 

contr. Prax. cap. 16. 

¢ Just. Mart. p. 218. Clem. Alex. 

Peed. lib.i. cap. 7. p. 131. 

4 Tren. lib. iii. cap. ὄ lib. iv. cap. 
p12 12. Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 123. 

e Clem, Alex. Peed. lib. i. cap. 7. 
p. I3t. 
{Novat. Trin. cap. 12. 

& See Defence of some Queries, 
vol. i. Qu. 2. p. 201, &e. 

" Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἥκει, καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ja 
γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινὸν (Θεόν). καί 
ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἀλ ηθινῷ, ἐ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ 
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ" οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ αληθινὸς 
Θεὸς καὶ (ἡ) ζωὴ αἰώνιος. 1 Jobn ν. 

i Modest Plea, &c. p. 264. 

proved from his Tttles. 131 

that the particle ἡ is observed to have been wanting in the 
Alexandrian and several other manuscripts. Our interpretation 
therefore agrees much better than the other with the words 
following after οὗτος, this. And I must observe further, that it 
agrees also better with the words going before it: “‘We are in 
“ him that is true, even é (or even by) his Son Jesus Christ.” 
Then follows immediately otros, this, this Person, immediately 
before mentioned, viz. Jesus Christ. For, allowing that a pronoun 
may sometimes refer to a remote antecedent, yet is it not so usual 
nor so natural; neither should it be presumed to do so, without 
& manifest necessity. Having shewn that the context plainly 
favours our construction, let us next examine the pretences on 
the contrary side. 

It 1s said, that the most and best MSS. read τὸν ἀλεθινὸν Θεὸν, 
the true God, instead of τὸν ἀληθινὸν, him that is true: and so 
the words will run thus: “ We know that the Son of God is 
‘“‘ come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know 
“‘ the true God, (viz. the Father,) and we are in him that is true, 
“‘ (the true God before spoken of,) in (that is, dy) his Son Jesus 
‘ Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” But admit- 
ting this reading of the words, it is so far from confronting the 
sense before given, that it rather confirms it. For then it comes 
to this; that we are in the true God, viz. the Father, by being 
en his Son, because that Son is the true. God. This con- 
etruction is so far from being absurd or flat, that it is very ex- 
pressive and significant; intimating that there is none so certain 
way of knowing the true God, as by a teacher who is himself 
true God; nor any other way of being reconciled to God, but 
by being united with one who is God: that the Son of God 
alone can be able to unite us to the true God, and that because 
he himeelf is true God; who by being incarnate could join the 
divine and human natures, God and man, in one. This kind of 
reasoning is very much insisted on by the ancient Fathers! ; 



k Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 51. 
and ed. 

1 ᾿Ανακρινεῖ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ᾿Ηβιώνους. 
Πῶς δύνανται σωθῆναι, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἣν 
ὁ τὴν σωτηρίαν αὑτῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἐργασά- 
μένος; ἣ πῶς ἄνθρωπος χωρήσει εἰς 
Θεὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐχωρήθη εἰς ἄνθρω- 
πον; Iren. Ὁ. 271. 

᾿Εδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Κύριος, ὅτι Θεὸν 
εἰδέναι οὐδεὶς δύναται μὴ οὐχὶ Θεοῦ 

δοξάζοντος (leg. διδάξαντος) τουτέστιν, 
ἄνευ Θεοῦ μὴ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεόν. 
Ibid. p. 234. 

Ei μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτη- 
ρίαν, οὐκ ἂν βεβαίως ἔσχομεν αὐτήν. 
καὶ εἰ μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῴ, 
οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήθη μετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρ- 
σίας" ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ 
ἀνθρώπων, διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους 
οἰκειότητος, εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν 

K 2 

132 Christ’s Divinity SERM. VI. 

and upon this account the divinity of our blessed Lord was 
looked upon by them as an article of the utmost importance to 
salvation. Now we see from whence they borrowed their notions, 
namely, from the Apostles, from St. John especially; who, as he 
began his Gospel with observing that the Father is God, and 
the Son God also; so he ended his Epistle, teaching us to believe 
in the Father, as the true God, and in the Son, as the true God 
too; which comes to the same with the other. Add to this, 
that St. John, very probably in his Epistle, as well as Gospel, 
(which were not wrote long after one another,) had a particular 
respect to the Heresies then growing up, namely, of Cermthus 
and the Ebionites, who, as they denied the divinity of our 
Saviour, so also denied any divine Sonship, antecedent to the 
birth of the Virgin. Hence it is that St. John so often inculeates, 
through this Epistle, the necessity of believing in the Son. “He 
‘‘ that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of 
«ς God hath not life,” chap. v. ver. 12. (See also ver. 10, 11, 13. 
and chap. iii. ver. 23.) Now, what sort of Son, or Son of God, 
St. John must have meant, appears sufficiently from the first 
chapter of his Gospel: he was the only-begotten Logos, that was 
with God, and was God, and “ by whom all things were made.” 
Such a Son of God as this, the Cerinthians and Ebionites denied 
our Lord to be; believing him to be a mere man, that had no 
existence before he became man. Nothing therefore could be 
more directly levelled against those heresies than this very verse 
of St. John’s Epistle, asserting at once Christ’s proper Sonship 
and his true divinity ; which indeed amount to one and the same 

τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν. fuisse, unde et compulsus est, divinam 

Ibid. p. 


See passages οὗ like import with 
this last citation from Irenzus, in the 
authors following : 

Tertullian, Apol. ig ae De Carn. 
Christi, cap. 5. De Resurr. cap. 63. 
Contr. Prax. cap. 28. Novatian, cap. 
18, 19. Clemens aig 251. Origen. 
contr. Cels. Ρ. 121. Hippolytus, vol. 
ii. p. 45. Cyprian. de Idol. Van. p. 1:5. 
Testim. p. 37. Lactantius, lib. iv. cap. 
13, 25. 

™ Scripsit Evangelium, rogatus ab 
Asie Episcopis, adversus Cerinthum, 
aliosque heereticos, et maxime tunc 
Ebionitarum dogma consurgens, qui 
asserunt, Christum ante Mariam non 

ejus nativttatem edicere. Hieron. Catal. 
Script. n. ix. p. 105. 

Irenzus, before Jerome, testifies 
that St. John’s Gospel was wrote par- 
ἘΟΒΙΜΗΥ against the error οὗ Cerin- 
thus. /ren. lib. iii. cap. τι. 

The same Irenzeus intimates, that 
St. John’s Epistle pointed at the same 
heresy. Vid. Iren. lib. iii. cap. 16. p. 
206. And Tertullian is still more par- 
ticular in these words : 

In Epistola, eos maxime Antichri- 
stos vocat, qui Christum negarent in 
carne venisse, et qui non putarent 
Jesum esse Filtum Det: illud Mar- 
cion, hoc Hebion vindicavit. Tertuli. 
Prescript. adv. Heres. cap. 33. 

SERM. VI. proved from his Titles. 133 

thing. These considerations put together abundantly make 
good our interpretation of this controverted text. But the 
author of Scripture Doctrine™ is pleased to censure our con- 
struction of this passage of St.John as modern. “Some mo- 
“ derns,” he says, “refer this to Christ; but others, with all 
“the ancients, understand it of God the Father.” It may 
be thought somewhat hard to have a construction censured 
as modern, which has undoubtedly prevailed in the Christian 
Church thirteen centuries upwards®, if not higher. The Catho- 
lics of the fourth century cited it in this sense, without the 
least scruple, and without any intimation, so far as I can find, 
that it was ever otherwise understood. The Arians themselves, 
as seems very probable, admitted this construction?; or certain 
it is that many of them allowed that the Son was Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς, 
true God, ([ suppose in virtue of this text, since they objected 
not against the ttle as unscriptural,) but they eluded the Catholic 
sense of itd. The Ante-Nicene Fathers probably understood 
the texts just as the Post-Nicene Catholics did; only they had 
less occasion to cite it, having so many other texts, both of the 
Old and New Testament, to produce in proof of the Son’s being 
God; which was the same with them as true God, the distinction 
between God and true God being hardly ever started before the 
Arian controversy. It is a very singular way of speaking, which 
the author of Scripture Doctrine makes use of, when he says, 
all the ancients understood this text of God the Father. Who 
would not imagine from hence, that some one, at least, of the 
ancients might be produced, interpreting the text as he pretends 
they did? Yet certain it is, that he cannot produce one. The 
fact is only this; that none of the writers of the three first 
centuries interpreted this text at all: from whence this author, 
I suppose, concludes (if we may judge of him from a friend of 
his, without a name’) that the text must, in course, have been 
understood of the Father. This precarious, groundless inference 
(without letting his readers know that it is no more than an 

m Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p.5t.2nd p. 65. August. contr. Max. lib. ii. 

edition. p. 705. Serm. cxl. p. 681. 
o Athanasius, p. 99, 283, 558; 684, P See Ambrose, Epist. Class. i. p. 
888. Basil. contr. Eunom. lib. iv. p. on ed. Bened. 

106. Didym. in loc. Cyril. Alex. Dial. 14 Theodor. Eccl. Hist. lib. i. p. 28. 
8. ad calc. Ambros. de Fid. lib. i. τ Modest Plea, &c. p. 261. 
cap. 17. p. 467. Hieron. Not. in Is. 

184 Christ’s Divinity SERM. VI. 

inference) he puts upon us as undoubted fact in Screpture Doc- 
trine; which is greatly abusing his.readers. 

The sum then of what hath been pleaded for our interpreta- 
tion of the passage is, that it is literal and grammatical; agree- 
able to the context, and to the doctrine of St. John in other 
places; that it suits perfectly well with the analogy of faith, and 
the undoubted principles of the primitive Church; that there 
is no one instance of any contrary interpretation of the text in 
all antiqusty, but all that there are, are fully and clearly for it; 
that the objections against it are truly modern, and, besides, of 
little or no weight in themselves. Upon the whole, every reason- 
able man may be left to judge whether this or the other interpre- 
tation ought to be preferred. To proceed: 

Another divine title given to the Son, in holy Scripture, is 
great God. ‘“*Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious 
‘‘ appearing of the great God and our Saviour” (or, our great 
God and Saviour) ‘Jesus Christ.” Tit. i. 13. What we insist 
upon here is, that the titles of great God and Saviour are, in 
this passage, equally applied to Οὐγίδίέ. Our adversaries them. 
selves cannot but confess that the words will grammatically bear 
this constructiont: and we have good reason to believe, that, 
all things considered, they can fairly bear no other. 1. Because 
of the omission of the article τοῦ before σωτῆρος, which, in strict 
propriety of language, should have been inserted, had the Apo- 
stle been speaking of two Persons; as the article generally is 
(though not always) in such cases, where different subjects are 
intended": and it is observable, that the Apostle goes on in 
speaking of Christ only, without a word of the Father, ver. 14. 
which makes it still the more probable that the article τοῦ would 
have been inserted, had he intended different persons. 2. Be- 
cause ἐπιφάνεια, the appearing, is always*, in the New Testament, 
ascribed to the Son alone, and never to the Father. For though 
it be said, Matt. xvi. 27. that “the Son of man shall come or 
‘‘ appear in the glory of his Father,” yet it is no where in the 
New Testament said, that the Father shall appear, but the Son 
only. If it be replied, that it is not here said that the great God, 
sid, an expasnce τὰ δόξης = ἐμ εἰ vid: ΜΝ. Martin, Traité de la 
γάλον Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Relig. Revel. part ili. p. 262, δες. 

Χριστοῦ. Tit. ii. 13. x See 2 Thess. ui. 8, 1 Tim. vi. 14. 
τ Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 77. 2 Tim. 1. 1o. iv. 1, 8. 

SERM. VI. proved from his Titles. 135 

or Father, shall appear, but his glory only; I answer, that 
ἐπιφάνεια τῆς δόξης does not necessarily signify the appearing of 
glory, but may properly signify the glorious appearance; as it is 
rightly rendered in our English versiony. Against this construc- 
tion of the text it is objected?, that the title of great God 1s, in 
the Old and New Testament, the character of the Father: which, 
if true, does not prove that it may not, in this place, be the cha- 
racter of the Son too. But the fact is very uncertain, and may 
as easily be denied as asserted. As to the texts of the Old 
Testament, since there is nothing to distinguish whether they 
are meant of God the Father, or Son, or both, or of the whole 
Trinity, no certain argument can be drawn from them. The 
God of Israel is the great God there spoken of; and it 1s begging 
the question to interpret the passages of the Father only. As 
to the New Testament, there is but one single text cited to this 
purpose; and it is Rev. xix. 17. where (if that be the true 
reading) mention is made of the supper of the great God; which 
the objectors imagine to be spoken of the Father. But if it be 
considered that our blessed Saviour is styled “ King of kings, 
“ and Lord of lords,” ver. 16. but ἃ very little before the supper 
of the great God is mentioned; and that the Apostle goes on 
speaking of Ohrist (not God the Father) described as sitting on 
the horse, ver. 19. comp. ver. 11. and as slaying those whose flesh 
was to be given to the fowls, ver. 21. that is, as providing that 
very supper which is called, ver. 17. ‘“‘the supper of the great 
“ God,” because of the great God's providing or making wt: I say, 
if we lay these things together, we shall be inclined to think 
that this text of the Revelation, instead of answering the pur- 
pose of the objectors, is another evidence of the Son’s being 
styled great God; and so helps to confirm our interpretation 
of the text in Titus, whereof we have been treating. We have 
seen then that there is no objection of weight to be made against 
our interpretation. 

In confirmation of what hath been urged in favour of our 
construction of the place, I may observe further, that *Baail, 
Gregory Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Austin, of the 

Υ See acre balan de la Relig. ® Basil. contr. Eunom. lib. iv. p. 
Revel. part ili . 271, &e. 107. Greg. Nyss. contr. Eun. che 265. 
z Clarke’s Reply, 1: 56. Modest Epiphan. Ancor. p. 74. 
oe Ρ. 250. iy True Script. tom. i. hom. 30. p. 341. Hom. it in 
Doctr. p. 26. and True Script. Doctr. Joh. p. 36. 
continued, p. 84, &c. 

196 Christ’s Divinity SERM. VI. 

fourth and fifth centuries, interpret the text as we do. And if 
we may judge of the Arians from Maximin, a celebrated Bishop 
amongst them of the fifth century, they also admitted the same 
interpretation>; so uncontested a thing was it at that time. 
We have the less reason to wonder at it, because the Ante- 
Nicene Catholics before, very probably, understood the text in 
the same sense. For we find ‘Clemens of Alexandria, of the 
second century, and ¢ Hippolytus of the third, interpreting it in 
the same way: nor is there any instance in all antiquity, so far 
as appears, of any contrary or different interpretation. I shall 
only add, that the title of great God was without scruple applied 
to God the Son by the anctents, as appears from express testi- 
monies®, and as we may reasonably judge from Eusebius’sf so 
applying it, had we no other testimonies for it. 

Mighty God is another divine title given to God the Son 
in holy Scripture. ‘His name shall be called Wonderful, 
“ Counsellor, The Miaury Gop,” &c. Is. ix. 6. El gibbor, the 
same title which is given to the one supreme God of Israel, 
Is. x. 21. Besides that the Hebrew word 157, as Jerome ob- 
servess, is for the most part the proper title of the one true 
God. The LXX, as the same Jerome remarks) in rendering 
Is. ix. 6, have took a very unusual freedom. For, thinking it 
strange and harsh to apply the name of God, and Mighty, &c. 
to a person just before called a child, they chose rather to vary 
the sense, and to make a comment, instead of a translation, 
putting μεγάλης βουλῆς “Ayyedos, Angel of the great counsel, 
instead of those other higher titles and epithets. But, more 

Ὁ Vid. August. Oper. tom. vill. p. takes this passage. 

656. f Euseb. in Psalm. p. 629. 
© Clem. Alex. P- 7. ed. Ox. & Deus separatim, qui Hebraice Εἰ 
4 Hippolytus de Antichristo, cap. dicitur. Denique in consequentibus 

lxiv. Ixvii. p. 31. 33. Fabric. It may ubi legimus: “Τὺ es enim Deus et 
be doubted whether this piece be ge- “ nascehennae’? Et iterum: “ 

nuine. ‘* sum Deus, et non est alius preter 

ο Clem. Alex. Pedag. lib. i. cap. ‘ me,” et multa his similia, pro eo 
5. p. 112. Testament. Patriarch.Grab. quod in Latino dicitur Deus, in 
Spic. vol. i. p. 156. Origen. contr. Hebraico El scriptum est. Hieron. 
Cels. lib. vii. p. 342. Comm. tn Is. p. 85. ed. Bened. 

Origen’s meaning isexceedingclear, |" Qua nominum majestate perter- 
that to say that God the Word, (as ritos LXX reor non εὐδι ausos de 
such,) or Truth, or Life, &c. should puwero dicere quod aperte Deus appel- 
die, is as much as to say, that the dus sit, et cetera: sed pro his sex 
great God should die, or become a nominibus posuisse quod in Hebraico 
servant. The Modest Pleader there- non habetur | consils Angelum, 
fore (Modest Plea, &c. p. 251.) mis- &c. Hieron. ibid. p. 86. 

SERM. VL proved from his Titles. 187 

probably, the fault lay not in the LX X Interpreters, but in the 
Jews, who after Christ’s time had corrupted some copies of the 
LXX. Certain it is that Irenzeus, who was a professed 
admirer and follower of the version of the LX X, (looking upon 
it as an inspired performance!,) yet quotes not this text of 
Isaiah, viz. ix. 6. according to the Septuagint, as it now is, or as 
it was, in some copies at least, in the time of St. Jerome, 
Eusebius, and even Justin Martyr; but according to what 
it should be, and as it lies in the Hebrew text!; citing it 
in proof of the divintty of Christ. In like manner, Clemens of 
Alexandria, though equally an admirer of the Septuagint ver- 
sion™, yet cites the same text of Isaiah, much after the same 
sense with Irenzeus, and not according to the LX X"; drawing 
an argument from thence of the greatness, majesty, and essen- 
tial divinity, of the Son of God. It is the less to be wondered 
at, if afterwards we but seldom meet with this text cited in 
proof of Christ’s divinity, since the Septuagint, which the 
primitive fathers chiefly followed and quoted from, exhibited 
another sense of the passage. Yet we find it cited by Atha- 
nasius° (if that piece be his) and the elder Cyril?, for that purpose. 
And there the verse is cited according to the Hebrew original ; 
only taking in part of the LX-X’s translation: from whence one 
might suspect that there had been two versions of the same 
words, and both, by degrees, taken into the text, and tacked 
together. To what hath been said I shall only add, that the 
mighty God, spoken of Psalm |. 1. has been generally believed by 
the primitive fathers to be God the Sona. But there the words 
mighty God are the rendering of El Elohim, and signify God 
1 Vid. Iren. lib. iii. 

21. τὰ 218. 
κ See Dial. p. 229. en Jeb 
1 Vocatur nomen ejus saaeatiie 
consiliarius, Deus fortis. Deus fortis 

βουλος, Θεὸς ἰσχυρὸς, ἐξουσιαστὴς, 
ἄρχων εἰρήνης, πατὴρ τοῦ μέλλοντος 
αἰῶνος. Athan. de Incarn. contr. Arian. 
cap. xxii. p. 889. Comp. Apost. Con- 
atit. lib. v. cap. 16. Pscud. Ignat. ad 

est, et inenarrabile habet genus. Iren. 

. 273. 
ma id. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 410. 

B Θαυμαστὸς σύμβουλος, Θεὸς δυνα- 
στὴς, πατὴρ αἰώνιοε------ὦ τοῦ μεγάλου 
Θεοῦ ὦ τοῦ ὃ τελείου παιδίον" υἱὸς ἐνπατρὶ 
καὶ hd ἐν vig. Clem. Alex. Ped. 
lib. i. p. 112. 

poe i y hag hen Θεὸν aia Plat 

Paul. Sa- 

mie p- der: Lath 
© Καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μεγάλης 
βουλῆς “AyyeAos, θαυμαστὸς, σύμ- 

Antioch. cap. 3. 

P Καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μεγάλης 
βουλῆς τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς “Ayyedos, θαυ- 
μαστὸς σύμβουλος, Θεὸς ἰσχυρὸς, &c. 

Ei οὖν Θεὸς ἰσχυρὸς τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον, 
περὶ αὐτοῦ δῆλον εἴρηκε Δαβίδ. ᾿οΟφθή- 
σεται ὁ Θεὸς τῶν Θεῶν ἐν Σίων. Peal. 
Ixxxiii.8. Cyril. Hierosol. p. 332. Ox. 

4 See Iren. lib. iti. cap. 6. p. 180. 
C . adv. Jud. lib. ii. cap. 28. p. 

hietd et de Bon. Patient. p. 220. Euseb. 
in Pagal. p. 209. 

138 Christ’s Divinity SERM. VI. 
of gods ; which however, in sense, are at least tantamount to the 

Another divine title ascribed to the Son in holy Scripture is, 
‘“‘ over all God blessed for ever,” Rom. ix. 5. That this is said 
of Christ, not of God the Father, appears from the whole 
context, and the very form’ of expression. ‘O ὧν naturally 
refers to the person of Christ immediately before spoken of: and 
the antithesis® between what he is according to the fresh, and 
what according to the spiri, requires it. Thus all the anctents, 
tCatholics and heretics, constantly understood the words, re- 
ferring them to Christ, as here called “ over all God blessed for 
« ever.” The author of Scripture Doctrine says, that “the word 
“© Θεὸς, God, ἐδ wanting in many MSS».” But, I presume, Bp. 
Pearson and Dr. Mills, who both declare all the manuscripts 
have it*, may be believed, till he produces his vouchers, or 
explains his meaning. The reading of the place being fixed and 
certain, and its reference to Cérist no less certainy, as well from 
the context itself, as from the constant, uniform sense of 
all antiquity, we may now proceed to consider the force and 
significancy of the phrase, “over all God blessed for ever.” Our 
blessed Lord is not only here called God, but God with a very 
high epithet, over all, ἐπὶ πάντων, the very same that is applied 
to the Father himself, Eph. iv. 6. and is there rendered above 
all. Besides this, there is the addition of εὐλογητὸς els τοὺς 
αἰῶνας, blessed for ever: which again is the very same that 
St. Paul applies to the eternal Creator, Rom. 1.25. Add to 
this, that the title of blessed, as Bishop Pearson observes, “ of 
“ itself elsewhere signifies the supreme God, and was always 
“used by the Jews to express that one God of Israel:.” 


τ Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 31. 

5 Comp. Rom. i. 3, 4. See Grabe’s 
Not. in Bull. Def. F. N. sect. ii. cap. 3. 

t See the testimonies referred to in 
Dr. Mills. To which may be added 
Hippolytus contr. Noét. cap. vi. p. 10. 
ed. Fabric. vol. 2. 

ἃ Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 75. 2nd 
ed. Comp. Reply, p. 86. and Modest 
Plea, p. 142. 

x The pretence of Erasmus from 
the fathers is vain; and as vain is 
that of Grotius from the Syriac trans- 
lation, which hath in it the name of 
God expressly, as well as all the copies 
of the original, and all the rest of the 

Pearson on the Creed, 
art. ll. Ὁ. 133. 

Non tantum codd. omnino nulli 
omittunt Θεὸς, sed neque ipsa Syriaca 
versio. Verbo dicam lectionem hanc 
ἘΠΕ τοδὶ MSS. omnes. Mills ἐπ 


Υ Some have pretended to under- 
stand the words “over all 
“ blessed,” &c. of God the Father, 
whose pretences see confuted by Dr. 
Grabe in his Remarks on Mr. Whis- 
ton’s Collection of Testimonies, p. 23, 
24, &c. 

Σ Pearson on the Creed, art. ii. 
p- 133- 

SERM. VI. proved from his Titles. 189 

In answer to our argument from this text, it is said, that if 
“ Christ be God over all, yet it is manifest that he is excepted, 
“by communication of whose divine power and supreme au- 
“ thority Christ is God over all@.”. Without doubt, the Father 
is excepted out of the number of those things, over which the 
Son is God. No Catholic ever pretended otherwise. Those 
general expressions, over all, &c. leave room for such tacté ex- 
ceptions as either other Scriptures or the reason of the thing 
shews, ought to be made. And this, we hope, will be remem- 
bered, in favour of the Son and Holy Spirit, as often as the 
Father is said to be above all, &c. that such expressions may not 
be strained beyond their just and proper meaning. As to what 
is hinted under the word communtcation, by way of lessening, it 
is hardly deserving notice. Supreme power, whether com- 
Του σα θα or uncommunicated, is supreme power: and if the 
Son has it communicated, then certainly he has it; which is 
sufficient to our purpose. Only we must observe, that the text 
now under consideration says nothing of what is communicated, 
but of what ts: ὁ ὧν, who is, not ὁ διατεταγμένος, who is ap- 
pointed, over all, &. It is very trifling in our adversaries to 
refer us to 1 Cor. xv. 27, where it is said, that “all things are 
“put under” Christ: as if the force of our argument lay more 
in the words “over all,” than in the words “God blessed for 
“ever ;” or as if Christ’s mediatorial kingdom, commencing 
at the resurrection, can any way account for his being God, 
which he certainly was before the creation. See John i. 1. com- 
pared with Coloss. 1.15, 16, &c. 

Another divine title given to the Son in holy Scripture is 
Jehovah, the incommunicable name of the one true God. The 
fact I need not here prove, having done it elsewhere»; besides 
that it is readily confessed by our adversaries®. That the name 
Jehovah has reference to the necessary existence of the person so 
named in his own right, is acknowledged by the best critics, 
ancient and modern; and admitted even by our adversaries4. 
And since they have no good reason to suspect that the Son of 
God hath it not in his own right, we may have leave to infer 
that he is necessarily existing, as well as the Father. To this it is 

® Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 75. c¢ Clarke’s Reply, p. 142, 163. 
and ed. Modest Plea, p. 21. 

b Serm. i. p. 42. &c. Defence of ἃ See Clarke’s Reply, p. 164. 
Queries, vol. i. p. 308, 309. Comp. Script. Doctr. p. 264. and ed. 

140 Christ’s Divinity SERM. VI. 

objected, that then there will be two Jehovahs, Father and Son°. 
To which it is answered, that two necessarily ertsting persons 
may as well be one Jehovah, as one God; and to assert the 
contrary is only taking for granted the main thing to be proved. 
It is further pretended, that Jehovah is not the name of the 
essence or substance, but of the person whose it is. Had it been 
said of the persons, instead of the person, whose it is, we should 
have no occasion to differ: but to suppose it the name of 
one person only, is begging the question. Jehovah is the name 
of as many persons as are of the same xecessarily existing 
substance; and is sometimes taken essentially and sometimes 
personally, in like manner as the name God. It is further said, 
that Jehovah is the name of a living person, not of an abstract 
substance’. As if they, who suppose it the name of three hving 
persons, were not as clear of this charge of making it the name 
of an abstract substance, as they who make it the name of one 
only. No one supposes it to be the name of an abstract 
substance, but the name of a person, or persons, expressing Ais or 
their substance considered as necessarily existing. Whatever 
abstraction there is, in this partial way of considering any thing, 
or things, under such precise formality, as necessarily exrsting, 
it holds equally, whether Jehovah be the name of one person, 
or more: for neither one person nor more are called Jehovah, 
ὁ ὧν, or τὸ ὧν, any otherwise considered than as necessarily 
existing. This being really the case, our adversaries, upon their 
own hypothesis, may as well suppose it the name of an abstract 
substance, as they may upon ours. For whenever they consider a 
person merely as necessarily existing, they do not, under the 
same notion, conceive him under a different notion; the same 
tdea being neither more nor less than the same tdea. They 
must in this case abstract from the idea of personality, and 
consider the person no further than as the subject or sudstratum 
of that one property of necessary existence: and consequently 
they make Jehovah, thus precisely considered, the name of an 
abstract substance, as much as we: though, in strict propriety of 
language, neither they nor we do it at all. For, abstract sub- 
stance is indeed solecism in speech; nothing being properly 
abstract except ideas. But I proceed : 

© See Modest Plea, &c. p. 274. See the same objection repeated, p. 
€ See Modest Plea, &c. p. 293. 160, 163, 252, 273, 274, 281. 

SERM. VI. proved from his Titles. 141 

Another divine title ascribed to God the Son, in holy Scrip- 
ture, is Almighty, as we imperfectly render the Greek word, πα»- 
toxparep. The most remarkable passage to our purpose is in the 
first chapter of the Apocalypse. “Behold, he cometh with clouds; 
““ and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him : 
“ and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even 
“80, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the 
‘* Ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is 
““ to come, the ALmicuty.” Rev. i.7,8. ΑἹ] the ancients, both 
before and after the Council of Nice, understand this of God the 
Song. This alone is ἃ strong presumption in favour of our con- 
struction ; especially when there is nothing in the context but 
what confirms it, rather than otherwise. The verse immediately 
preceding relates to Christ, who is to “ come in the clouds,” and 
whom every “eye shall see :” and the title of Alpha and Omega 
in the same verse is applied to Christ more than once in the 
Revelations». A late writer, on the contrary, objects! that, 
ver. 4. of this chapter, the words, “he which is, and which was, 
“and which is to come,” are used as the distinguishing character 
of the Person of the Father. He might as well argue that the 
words “ Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End,” chap. 
xxi. 6. are used as the distinguishing character of the Person of 
the Father; and therefore that character cannot be applied to 
Christ in Rev. xxii. 13. or in Rev. i.17. where Ferst and Last 
amounts to the same. It is no strange thing to find the same 
characters, in the same Scriptures, applied both to Father and 
Son. It is what we assert and contend for, and from thence 
prove that Father and Son are equally divine. It is mere petiito 
principit, or, taking for granted the thing in question, to sup- 
pose that such characters are to distinguish the Father from the 
Son, only because they are applied to the Father. For we can 
more justly argue on the other side, that they are not distin- 

& Tertull. contr. Prax. cap. 17. 
Hippolyt. contr. Noét. cap. vi. p. 10. 
Fabric. Origen περὶ ’Apy. lib. i. cap. 
2. Athanasius, p. 416. 554, 684, 762. 

ed. Bened. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 
xxxv. p.573. Phebad. B. P. tom. 4. 

e Fid. lib. ii. cap. 4. p. 476. 
Hieron. in Zech. ii. p.1718. ἃ. Bened. 
Epiphan. vol. i. p. 488. ed. Petay. 
August. de Symb. ad Catech. lib. 2. 

Andr. Ceesariens. in loc. See my De- 
fence, vol.i. p. 537,538. 

bh Revel. i. 11, 17. ii. 8. xxii. 13. 
chap. i. ver. 17, and 18. the words 
are, ὁ πρῶτος, καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, καὶ ὁ 
ζῶν, &c. The lving One: comp. 
Numb. xiv. 21. καὶ ζῶν τὸ ὄνομά 

μου. Septuag. 
i Clarke's Script. Doctr. p. 53. 
and ed. 

142 Christ's Dimnity SERM. VI. 

guishing of the Father, as Father, because we find them equally 
applied both to Father and Son. Another objection is, that the 
best manuscripts read Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς, the Lord God, instead of ὁ 
Κύριος, the Lord : which is not of great weight, since many other 
MSS. favour the present reading ; besides that if all the MSS. 
had Lord God instead of Lord, it would be only a further proof 
that Christ is Lord God, consonant to other Scriptures, and to 
all antiquity. Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome suppose Lord God 
to be in the text; and yet scruple not to understand it of God 
the Son; as indeed they had no reason for scruple. It is objected 
further, that παντοκράτωρ, Almighty, is always applied to the 
Father only, in the most ancient writers: which 1s notoriously false 
in fact, as appears from their understanding this very text of the 
Son; besides other collateral evidences!. The last pretence is 
that the title of παντοκράτωρ, Almighty, is always elsewhere, in 
Scripture, applied to the Father only. To which I answer, 1st, 
that it is mere groundless presumption to suppose that as often 
as that title is applied to the one God in the Old Testament, it 
is applied to the Father only: since it may often be understood 
indifferently either of Father, or Son, or of the whole Trinity. 
And 2dly, that there are several texts of the Old Testament, 
which we have good reason to believe are to be understood par- 
ticularly of God the Son. Psalm the xxivth has by the primitive 
Fathers™ been interpreted of Christ. Now that Κύριος δυνάμεων, 
Lord of hosts, applied to Christ in that Psalm, is equivalent to 
Κύριος παντοκράτωρ, Almighty, appears from hence, that the LXX 
Interpreters render the same words indifferently by one or other, 
as is observed" by Ambrose and Jerome; and may be easily 
seen in ὦ multitude of instances, by looking into Trommius’s 

k Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 53. iv. cap. 1. p. 523. 
and ed. n Nam et hic sic positum plerique 
1 Justin. Mart. Application of Ps. codices habent, quod Dominus Sabaoth 
xxiv. 10. Dial. p. 107. Jeb. Clem. tpse sit Rex glorie: Sabaoth autem 
Alex. p. 277, 647, 821. Tertullian. interpretes alicubi Dominum Virtutum, 
adv. Prax. cap.17. Origen epi’ Apy. alicubi Regem, alicubi Omnipotentem 
lib.i. cap. 2. Hippolyt. contr. Noét. interpretati sunt. Ambros. de Fid. lib. 
vol. ii. "Ἢ 10. Fabric. Euseb. Demon- iv. σ8ρ.1. Ρ. 524. ed. Bened. 
strat. Evang. lib. vi. cap. 16. p. 281. Sciendumque quia ubiquumque 
Comp. Euseb. in Psalm. Ὁ. 417. Septuaginta Interpretes Dominum Vir- 
Comm. in Isa. ν᾽. 474, 4: tutum, et Dominum Omnspotentem ex- 
m Justin . Dial. p. 197. presserint, in Hebreo sit positum Do- 
Cyprian. adv. Jud. lib. ii. cap. 49. ménus Sabaoth. Hieron. tom. iii. p.519. 
- 49,50. Origen in Matt. p. 438. Vid. etiam tom. iii. p. 1718. 
useb. in loc. Ambros. de fia. lib. 

SERM. VI. proved from his Titles. 148 

Concordance. Besides that St. John himself in his Apocalypse, 
iv. 8. alluding to a passage of Isaiah, vi. 3. “ Holy, holy, holy, 
“is the Lord of hosts ;” instead of Κύριος δυνάμεων, (or σαβαὼθ,) 
“< Lord of hosts ;” puts Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, “ Lord God 
“ Almighty.” It may be proved likewise from Isa. vi. 5. com- 
pared with John xii. 41. (as I have formerly observed °,) that 
our Saviour Christ is “ Lord of hosts,” that is, Κύριος παντοκρά- 
τωρ, or Lord Almighty. The same may be further proved from 
Zech. 11. 8. as is noted by the learned Eusebius P; who is therein 
followed by Ambrose and Jerome. And a further proof of the 
same thing may be evidently drawn from Zech. xii. 5,10. com- 
pared with John xix. 34,37. These instances are sufficient to 
check the confidence of such as roundly affirm, without a syllable 
of proof, that the title of παντοκράτωρ, Almighty, is in holy Scrip- 
ture applied always to the Father only. 

As to the three remaining divine titles given to the Son in holy 
Scripture, I shall but just mention them, not having room to 
enlarge. He is called “ the Lord of glory,” 1 Cor. ii. 8; which 
if compared with the title of ““ King of glory,” Psalm xxiv. and 
the description there given, will appear to be a title of great 
weight and significancy. ‘ King of kings and Lord of lords,” 
is another divine title attributed to Christ, Rev. xvii. 14. xix. 16. 
This very title is made the distinguishing character of the one 
true God by St. Paul, in these words: ‘* Who is the blessed and 
“ only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords,” 1 Tim. 
vi.15. The last divine title I intend to mention, and barely to 
mention, is that of “ First and Last, Alpha and Omega, the 
“ Beginning and the End,” Rev. i. 17. xxii. 13. the same that is 
applied to the one supreme God,” Isa. xli. 4. xliv. 6. and to God 
the Father, Rev. xxi. 6. The force of these expressions I have 
elsewhere’ opened and explained, and need not here add any 
thing further. 

ο Serm. i. p. 42, 42. 

P Vid. Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. 
hb. vi. cap. 16. p. 281. Hieron. ia loc. 
p-1718. Ambros. de Fid. lib. ii. cap. 
4. p. 476. 

4 See Defence of some Queries, 
vol. i. P. 340. and Chaldee Paraphrase 
upon Isa. xli."4. 

N. B. The anonymous author of 
Modest Plea continued, p.12. endea- 
vours to elude the force of these texts. 

1st, By referring to the words, “ I am 
“he that liveth and was dead,” &c. 
Rev. i. 17, 18. But he would have 
done well to have considered the force 
of ὁ ζῶν. See the first Letter to the 
Author of the History of Montanism, 
p-92. adly, By referring to Rev. iti. 
14. which I have explained Serm. ii. 
and which Som Mo meres ae 

iven of Alpha an ega. 3dly, By 
Feenitting ὦ to Rev. xiii. 16. Shih is 

144 Christ's Duointty proved from his Titles. SERM. VI. 

Thus far I have proceeded in recounting, explaining, and 
vindicating the several divine titles ascribed to God the Son in 
holy Scripture. Particular objections to this or that, I have 
took care to answer in their proper places: general objections 
against the whole, intended to weaken the conclusion we draw 
from them, shall be considered hereafter. But it will be pro- 
per, in the mean while, to take a view of the divine attributes 
applied, in Scripture, to our blessed Saviour. These therefore, 
if God permit, are to be the subject of discourse at our next 


no explication of the phrase of First 
and Last, but very wide and foreign. 
athly, By referring to Heb. xii. 2. 
which if it be a good comment upon 
Isa. xli. 4. xliv. 6. xlviij. 12. and Rev. 
i. 8. xxi. 6. then let it be also a just 
explication of the parallel texts, Rey. 
1.11, 1ἢ. ii, 8. xxii. 13. But if the 
contrary be manifest in one case, we 
must have something more than mere 
conjectures and fancies, before we 

admit it in the other. The phrase 
First and Last expresses, ist, the 
peerless Po pd of God, who is he, 
the true » Is. xlii. 4. adly, Etern- 
ity. Comp. ots xiii. ἴον dly, ao 
reme power, dignity, and glory. See 
ga. xliv.6,7,8. 4thly, Creation and 
government of all things. See Isa. 
xlvii. 12, &c. 

Vid. M. Abbadie on the Divinity 
of Christ, p. 77, &c. 183. 

Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ : 


* The seventh Sermon preached March 2, 1748. 

JOHN Xvi. 15. 

All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore satd I, that he 
shall take of mine, and shall shew tt unto you. 

IN a former discourse upon these words, I observed that they 
contained two arguments to prove the divinity of our blessed 
Lord : the first of which arises from this consideration, that the 
influences, gifts, and graces of God’s own Spirit, with the glory 
of them, are ascribed to Christ ; and the second is, that all things 
which the Father hath are by our blessed Lord claimed as his 
own. After a brief account of the first argument, I proceeded 
more at large to open and illustrate the second, proposing these 
three particulars : 

1. To shew that the divine titles are ascribed to the Son in 
holy Scripture. 

2. To shew that the divine attributes are likewise ascribed to 

3. To sum up the force of the argument arising from thence, 
and to obviate such general objections as tend to weaken our 

I had then only time to go through the first of these three 
particulars; recounting the several divine titles, which are in 
Scripture applied to God the Son, as well as to God the Father. 
I proceed now, 

IT. To shew that the same divine atiributes are likewiso 


146 Christ’s Divinity SERM. VII. 

ascribed to both. I shall inaist particularly upon four ; eternity, 
immutability, omniscience, and omnipresence; of which in their 

1. The Scripture-proofs of the eternity of God the Son are 
many and clear; and may be divided into two sorts, being either 
implicit and indirect, or explicit and direct. The implicit or in- 
direct’ proofs I shall but briefly mention, as belonging to other 
parts of my design, and not so properly coming in here. If the 
Son be God in the strict and proper sense, as I have before 
shewn, he is of course efernal. But this I pass over here, my 
design being now, not to prove him to be eternal because he 18 
God, but to prove that he is God because he is eternal ; founding 
thereupon a new and distinct argument of Christ’s deviity. 

I have before shewn that Rev. i. 8. is to be understood of God 
the Son. And now I must observe, that that single text affords 
two arguments of his eternity. He is “ Alpha and Omega, the 
“. Beginning and the Ending:” which is the very description 
given of the eternity of the one God of Israel4; and which our 
adversaries themselves would not scruple to interpret as we do, 
provided only they might be permitted to understand the text of 
God the Father. Besides this, the Son is also “he which is, 
‘‘and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Our 
adversaries allow that these words denote independent eternity. 
Only they are pleased, without any grounds for it, to under- 
stand them of God the Father; having beforehand settled it as 
a rule of interpretation with themselves, that every text of this 
kind shall be understood of God the Father; or else that the 
very same phrases, when applied to God the Son, shall lose their 
significancy, and bear a very different meaning from what they 
do when applied to God the Father. 

The Son’s being Jehovah is a further proof of his eernity ; 
that name expressing, as critics allow, necessary existence. Our 
adversaries would never scruple this construction of the name 
Jehovah’, could they but find a way to confine the name, as they 

® See my Defence, vol. i. p. 340. seff-existent instead of necessarily ex- 
Serm. vi. Ὁ. 143 144. isting. Compare Reply, p. 164. and 
Ὁ Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 264. Script. Doctr. p. 264. See also Modest 
2nd edit. Plea, p. 163. where the author admits 
¢ See Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 88. that the word Jehovah alludes to self- 
2nd ed. where he interprets ὁ ὧν and existence, (he should have said neces- 
τὸ by, the self-existent Being,orPerson; sary existence ;) and tells us that dt 
and, to confound his readers, puts signifies him, whose that essence ts, 

SERM. VII. proved from his Attributes. 147 

do the thing, to the Father only. But having an hypothesis to 
serve, and resolving that words shall not signify what they really 
do, any further than is consistent with their preconceived opin- 
ions, they are forced either to deny that the name Jehovah sig- 
nifies necessury existence at all, or at least to deny that it so 
signifies when applied to God the Son. Such is their partiality 
in this momentous cause, in which the honour of their God and 
Saviour is so nearly and deeply concerned. But I proceed. 
The eternity of God the Son is further proved from his creative 
powers, which I have before explained and vindicated at large. 
and more directly from those passages of holy Scripture which 
declare him to have existed before all creatures4. For if he 
existed before any thing was made, he must of consequence be 
unmade, and therefore efernal. 

There is a famous passage of the Prophet Micah relating to 
this head, which is too considerable to be omitted: “ But thou, 
“‘ Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands 
“ of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is 
“to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of 
“ old, from everlasting.” Mic.v.2. Here is a plain description 
of two comings forth: one when Christ should be born in Beth- 
lehem; the other long before “ from of old,” and “ from ever- 
“lasting.” This passage is a full and clear proof of Christ's 
preexistence before his birth of the Virgin, and a probable proof, 
at least, of an eernal® preexistence. Here are two expressions, 
“from of old,” and “ from everlasting ;” the rendering of two 
Hebrew phrases, either of which singly does sometimes denote 
eternity in the strict sensef, and therefore both together may be 
thought to do so much rather: especially if it be considered 
that here is no limitation of time intimated in the context; nor 

meaning the Father only; adding a 
weak reason or two, why the same 
name, when applied to God the Son, 
shall not signify the same thing, viz. 
necessary existence. 

Coloss. i. 16. 

4 John i. 3, 10. 
1 Cor. viii. 6. 
6 Cyril’s note upon this text is 
worth observing: Μὴ οὖν πρόσεχε τῷ 
νῦν ἐκ τῆς Βηθλεὲμ, ἀλλὰ προσκύνει τὸν 
ἀϊδίως ἐκ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα. μὴ χρονι- 
κὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ καταδέξῃ τινὸς λέ- 
γοόντος, ἀλλὰ ἄχρονον ἀρχὴν γίνωσκε τὸν 
πατέρα. Ουγὶϊ. Catech. xi. Ὁ. 145. 

Αὐτοῦ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ δύο ἔξοδοι, 
ἤγουν πρόοδοι, ἡ μὲν πρωΐας πρὸ πάντων 
τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ πατρὸς γενομένη, κατὰ 
τό" αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ an’ ἀρχῆς, ἐξ ἡμερῶν 
αἰῶνος ἡ δὲ ἑσπέρας, ἡ ἐκ παρθένου, 
ἥτις ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων ἀπήντη- 
σεν. Athanasti, ἜΜΕΝ Me Cyrilli 
Fragm., in Psalm. αἱ than. tom. i. 
p- 386. ed. Seno” Vid. et Hieron. 
in loc. Epiphan. Ancor. p. 32. Euseb. 
Dem. Ev. hb. vii. cap. 2. 

f For the first, see Psalm lv. 19. 
Hab. i. 12. 
ΧΟ. 2. XCili. 2. 

For the second, Psalm 

Ι, 2 

148 Christ's Divinity SERM. VII. 

is there any deducible from the nature or reason of the thing it- 
self. However, I pretend to call this construction of the passage 
no more than probable ; since there is not ground sufficient for 
calling it certain and indisputable. Only this I may add, by way 
of remark, that whosoever should undertake to prove the eerniy 
of God the Father from any express words, either of the Old or 
New Testament, would find his proof of it liable to the same 
difficulty and uncertainty, from the ambiguity of the Hebrew or 
Greek phrases used to denote eternity. 

Another argument, of like kind with the former, to prove the 
eternity of God the Son, may be drawn from Solomon’s descrip- 
tion of Wisdom, Prov. viii. 22, 30. The Jews of olds, and the 
Christian Church from the beginning, understood that passage 
of a Person, the substantial Wisdom of God}, (either the Worn, 
or the Holy Spirit, but generally the former.) And this was no 
matter of dispute between the Catholics and Arians formerly ; 
neither is it, as I conceive, at this day. The only dispute is, 
whether we are right in our interpreting the phrases, from the 
beginning, from everlasting, &c. (Proverbs viii. 23.) of a strict 
eternity. It must be owned that our argument, so far as it is 
built merely upon the critical meaning of the phrases, and their 
usage in Scripture, amounts only to a strong probability ; as in 
the text of Micah before spoken of. But it may receive some 
additional strength from several other considerations, which it 
may be proper to mention. Wisdom is here said to have been 
with the “‘ Lord in the beginning of his way, before his works 
“* of old ;” (ver. 22.) that is, before the works of creation ; before 
there were any creatures; consequently from all eternity. Wis- 
dom 1s further said to have been “ by him, as one brought up 
‘‘ with him ;” (ver. 30.) which seems to be a very easy and 
natural description of two that had been always together co- 
eternal with each other: which is further confirmed from the 
following words, “ and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always 
“before him;” (ver. 30.) intimating, as Origen has well 
observed ', that the Father can no more be supposed to have 

© See Allix, Judgment of the Jewish 46. foes ala p. 40. Theoph. An- 
Church. hoch. » P 82. 

h Just. Mart. Dial. p. 184, 375, ed. Ov θέμις ἐστὶν, οὐδὲ ἐπεθήρυτν διὰ 
Jebb. Iren. lib. iv. cap. 20. p. 253. τὴν ἀσθένειαν ἡμῶν τὸ, ὅσον ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, 
Clem. Alex. p. 832. ertull. contr. ἀποστερεῖσθαι τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ ἀεὶ συνόν- 
Herm. cap. xviii. contr. Prax. cap. vi. ros αὐτῷ λόγου μονογενοῦς, “σοφίας 
Origen. Comm. in Joh. p. 11,17, 33, ὄντος 7 προσέχαιρεν. οὕτω γὰρ οὐδὲ 

SERM. ὙΠ. proved from his Attributes. 149 

been ever without the Worp, or Adyos, (here signified under the 
name of Wispom,) than he can be supposed to have ever wanted 
joy and happiness. But what most of all confirms us in this 
sentiment is, the Son’s being here represented, as we are now to 
suppose, under the name and figure of Wisdom ; intimating that 
he is as near to, and inseparable from, God the Father, as his 
own wisdom is; and consequently coeternal. This also is taken 
notice of by Origen; who from thence draws an argument for 
the eternity of the Logos, or Word *. 

What has been here said reminds me of some other argu- 
ments, near akin to that now mentioned, of the eterntty of God 
the Son, drawn from the several names ascribed to him in holy 
Scripture: such as, Λόγος, Δύναμις, Φῶς, ᾿Αλήθεια, Ζωὴ, that is, 
Word, Power of God, Light, Truth, Life, and the like. The 
ancients were of opinion that the eternity of God the Son was 
insinuated in those names!: that the Father could no more be 
without the Son, than without thought, or power, or light, or 

ἀεὶ χαίρων νοηθήσεται. Origen. apud 
Δίλαπας. Decret. S. Nic. Ὁ. 233. 

k Origen. Comm. in Joh. p. 43, 44. 
Comp. Bam h. Apolog. p. 230. ed. 
Bened. int. 6p. Hieron. vol. v. 

1 Ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς, νοῦς ἀΐδιος 
ὧν, εἶχεν αὐτὸς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν λόγον, 
ἀϊδίως λογικὸς ὧν. Athen. Leg. cap. x. 

P- 99. Seer 

lus autem, guia nihil aliud ex- 
trinsecus preter illum. Ceterum, ne 
tunc quidem solus ; habebat enim se- 
cum, quam habebat in semetipso ; 
Rationem suam scilicet. Rationalis 
enim Deus, et Ratio in ipso prius ; et 
ita ab ipso omnia. Tertull. contr. Prax. 
cap. Iv. p. 503. 

Κατανοείτω yap ὁ τολμῶν καὶ λέγων, 
ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς, ὅτι ἐρεῖ καὶ 
τό. σοφία ποτὲ οὐκ ἦν, καὶ dr οὐκ ἦν, 
καὶ ζωὴ οὐκ ἦν. Orig. apud Athanas. 
tom. 1. p. 233. 

Αὐτῷ yap πειθόμεθα τῷ εἰπόντι--- 
"Eye εἶμι ἡ ᾿Αλήθεια᾽ καὶ οὐχ οὕτω τις 
ἡμῶν ἐστιν ἀνδράποδον, ὡς οἴεσθαι ὅτι 
ἡ τῆς ᾿Αληθείας οὐσία πρὸ τῶν χρόνων 
τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπιφανείας οὐκ ἦν. 
Origen. contr. Cels. lib. viii. p. 386. 

Αὐτὸς δὲ μόνος ὧν πολὺς ἦν, οὔτε 
γὰρ ἄλογος, οὔτε ἄσοφος, οὔτε ἀδύνατος, 
οὔτε ἀβούλευτος ἦν. Hippolyt. contr. 
Noét. cap. x. p. 18. Fabric. 

᾿Αεὶ δὲ ἦν, εἴ ye ἐν τῷ πατρί ἐστιν 

καὶ εἰ λόγος, καὶ σοφία, καὶ δύναμις ὁ 
Χριστός.---ταῦτα δὲ δυνάμεις οὖσαι τοῦ 
Θεοῦ τυγχάνουσιν. εἰ τοίνυν γέγονεν ὁ 
υἱὸς, ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ταῦτα ἦν ἄρα καιρὸς, 
ὅτε χωρὶς τούτων ἦν ὁ Θεός. ἀτοπώτατον 
δὲ τοῦτο. Dionys. Rom. apud Athan. 
tom.i. p. 232. 

᾿Αεὶ τὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι, λόγον ὄντα, 
καὶ σοφίαν, καὶ δύναμιν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ 
τούτων ἄγονος ὧν, ὃ Θεὸς εἶτα ἐπαιδο- 
ποιήσατο---ἀππααύγασμα δὲ ὧν φωτὸς 
ἀϊδίου, πάντως καὶ αὐτὸς ἀΐδίος ἐστιν.--- 
ὄντος οὖν αἰωνίου τοῦ πατρὸς, αἰώνιος ὅ 
υἱός ἐστι, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς ὧν---οὐδέ ἐστιν 
οὔτε ὁ νοῦς ἄλογος, οὔτε ἄνους ὁ λόγος. 
Dionys. Alex. apud Athanas. tom. i. 
P- 253, ἄς. 

Τὶ δὲ οὐκ ἀνόσιον τὸ λέγειν, ποτὲ 
μὴ εἶναι τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν λέ- 

υσαν---ἐγὼ ἤμην ἡ προσέχαιρεν. ἣ τὴν 

ὕναμιν τοῦ Θεοῦ μὴ ὑπάρχειν ποτέ. i 
τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἠκρωτηριᾶσθαι ποτὲ, 
τὰ ἄλλα ἐξ ὧν ὁ υἱὸς γνωρίζεται καὶ ὁ 
πατὴρ χαρακτηρίζεται. τὸ γὰρ ἀπαύ- 
γασμα τῆς δόξης μὴ εἰναιλέγειν, συναναι- 
ρεῖ καὶ τὸ πρωτότυπον φῶς, οὗ ἐστὶν 
ἀπαύγασμα. Alezxand. Alex. Epist. ap. 
Theod. lib. i. cap. iv. Ῥ 13. 

Πῶς δὲ, εἰ λόγος καὶ σοφία ἐστὶ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ὁ υἱὸς, ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν; ἴσον 
γὰρ ἐστὶν αὐτοὺς λέγειν ἄλογον καὶ 
ἄσοφον ποτὲ τὸν Θεόν. Id. apud Socr. 
lib.1. cap, 6. p. 11. 

160 Christ's Divinity SERM. VII. 

truth, or life; the Son being deciphered and figured under 
those names or characters, on purpose to express his near rela- 
tion to the Father, and his inseparable coeternitty. This argu- 
ment of the primitive Catholic Fathers I am the more willing 
to take notice of, because it has been strangely, though perhaps 
undesignedly, misrepresented by some late writers™. We are 
told that to argue, as the ancients did, that the “ Father con- 
“ sidered without the Son would be without reason and without 
“‘ wisdom, is supposing the Son to be nothing but an attribute 
“of the Father.” But this is grossly mistaking the sense of 
those primitive writers, who were no less men than Athenagoras, 
Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Dionysius of Rome, with the 
other Dionysius of Alexandria, and Alexander bishop of Alex- 
andria: men that had not quite lost their senses when they 
wrote these things; most of them notoriously known to have 
been strenuous opposers of the Noétian or Sabelhan principle, 
which supposes the Son to be nothing more than an attribute of 
the Father. The truth is, these primitive writers did suppose, 
since the Son had the same names given him in Scripture that 
God’s attributes have, (being called the wisdom, the reason, and 
the power, &c. of God,) that there was some meaning and sig- 
nificancy in those names: and they took it to be this; that the 
Son was near and dear unto the Father as his own attributes ; 
tnseparable from him, and coeternal with him. Some moderns 
may indeed assign other reasons for the Son’s having those 
names: they may tell us that he is called the wisdom of God 
and the power of God, because ““ God’s wisdom and power are 
““ manifested by him.” But then let them own that this is but 
conjecture at most, novel conjecture; and that the reason assigned 
by the primitive Fathers may be true, for any thing that appears 
to the contrary; nay, is much more likely to be true, consider- 
ing how near many of those writers lived to the apostolic time, 
and how unanimous they were in those sentiments, and how 
suitable those sentiments are to the other high things said in 
Scripture of the Son of God: besides that these names and 
characters are not common to other things; not given to pro- 
phets or apostles, nor to the very angels, (though God’s wisdom, 
&c. 18 manifested by them,) but are, in a manner, peculiar to the 

m Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 255, Plea, &c. p. 308, 39. 
257-2nd ed. Reply, p.177. Modest. See Clarke's Reply, Ρ. 173. 

SERM. VI. proved from hs Atiributes. 151 

Son of God. We find the Catholics afterwards, following the 
example of their predecessors, frequently insisting upon the same 
way of reasoning in proof of the Son’s eernity®: which I the 
rather observe, because it is evident that those later writers 
especially were very far from supposing the Son to be nothing 
but an attribute: and indeed it is but misrepresentation, without 
so much as any probable ground, to charge it upon the Ante- 
Nicene writers; though they may sometimes have expressed 
themselves more briefly or obscurely on that head. 

There is another argument of the Son’s eternity insisted on by 
some, even of the Ante-Nicene Catholics P, drawn from the con- 
sideration of the Son’s being the express image of the Father’s 
Person, according to Heb. i. 3. and consequently resembling him 
in every perfection, and particularly in his eferntty, the prime 
perfection of all. But I proceed: 

There is one passage more in the New Testament, which has 
been usually brought in proof of Chrtst’s eternity. The author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. vii. introduces Melchisedeo 
as a type of Christ. Of him he says, that he had “no beginning 
“‘ of days, nor end of life:” that is, no beginning nor ending of 
his priesthood is any where recorded. This is a typical repre- 

© Ov yap ἦν Gre ad ἦν, οὐδὲ ἦν 
ὅτε οὐ πατὴρ, οὐδὲ ἣν bre οὐκ ἀληθὴς, 
ἢ ἄσοφος, ἣ ἀδύνατος, ἣ ζωῆς ἐνδεὴς, ἣ 
λαμπρότητος, ἣ ἀγαθότητος. Greg. 

ἀπαυγάσματος ;----ἧἡ πῶς οὐ μαίνεται 
πλέον, ὁ κἂν ἐνθυμούμενος ἄλογον καὶ 
ἄσοφόν ποτε τὸν Θεόν; τοιαῦτα γὰρ 
παραδείγματα, καὶ τοιαύτας τὰς εἰκόνας 
Nazianrz. . EXXV. p. 574. ἔθηκεν ἡ γραφὴ, ἵν᾽ &c. Athan. p. 500. 
Ideo ig πόρον Dei appellatur, ut Compare p. 221, 416, 428. ὁ dy Θεὸς 
nunquam Pater sine Sapientia, hoc P ποτε ἄλογος ; καὶ φῶς dv ἀφεγγὴς 
est, sine Filio suo fuisse credatur. ἦν. Compare ἡ. 618. and p. 683. 

Pseudo-Ambros. de Fide Orthod. cap. 
ii. p. 349. Vid. Alexand. Ep. Encycl. 
apud Athanas. tom. i. p. 339. Athan. 
tom. i. p. 221, 416, 419, 423, 424, 
428, 470, 500, 619. Phzbad. contr. 
Arian. p. 303. B. P. tom. iv. Greg. 
Nyas. contr. Eunom. lib. vii. p. 6 

634. Cyrill. Alex. de Trinit. p. 6. 
Op. tom. vi. Paris. Thesaur. lb. i. 

p. 29 τὰ : 
.Β. Their way of reasoning from 
other sxames and characters of God 

be ἄλογος, s, ἄς. A few ex- 
amples more will suffice, to leave with 
the judicious 

Noli ergo credere quod fuerit mo- 
mentum aliquod, quo fuerit sine sa- 
prentia Deus, aut sine splendore lux. 
Ambros. de Fid. lib. i. cap. 13. p. 

Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἐπινοῆσαι τῷ λόγῳ, 
οὔτε ὑπόστασιν ἀχαρακτήριστον, οὔτε 
ἀλαμπῇῆ δόξαν, οὔτε ἄσοφον Θεὸν οὐκ 
ἄχειρα δημιουργὸν, οὐκ ἄλογον ἀρχὴν, 
οὐκ ἄπαιδα πατέρας Gregor. Nyss. 
contr. Eunom. Orat. vii. p. 634. 
Comp. p. 633. 

Πότε οὖν ‘a ὁ πατὴρ χωρὶς τοῦ ἰδίου 
ἀπαυγάσματος ; Πότε οὐκ ἦν ἐν πατρὶ 
τὸ φῶς αὐτοῦ; Cyrill. Alex. Thesaur. 
lib. i. p. 21. Com p. 23, 27, 28. 

P Origen. apud Athanas. tom. i. 
Pp. 233. Alexand. Alex. apud Theod. 

1, cap. 4. p.17. 

152 Christ's Diomity SERM. VII. 
sentation of Christ; wherefore it seems that Christ must really 
have what the type was no more than a faint resemblance of, 
viz. an eternal existence without beginning and without end. 
That he shall never have end of life, is uncontested. If therefore 
to have no end of life imports a future eternity in the largest 
sense, it seems most natural to understand that to have no 
beginning of days must import eernity backwards in the largest 
sense alsod. Thus far I have proceeded in the Scripture- proofs* 
of Christ’s eternity, considered as distinct from the attribute of 
tmmutability ; though in sound reasoning one implies the other, 
and to prove either is at the same time proving both. This being 
premised, I pass on, 

2. To the more particular proof of his wnmutabiuity. I shall 
not repeat the arguments from his being Jehovah; Alpha and 
Omega; he which was, and which ts, and which ἐδ to come, or the 
like, equally proving both eternity, and independent eternity, that 
is, tmmutability ; because the force of those has been already 
considered. But there are two or three texts, before omitted, 
which I have reserved for this place, and shall now consider dis- 

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, opposing the tm- 
mutability of Christ to the fading and perishing nature of the 
heavens and the earth, sets it forth thus in very expressive terms : 
‘* Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the 
“ earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: they 
““ ghall perish ; but THoU REMAINEST ; and they all shall wax old 
‘“ as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, 
“ and they shall be cuaneep: but THOU ART THE ΒΑΜΕ, and thy 
‘“‘ years shall not fail.” Heb. i.10,11,12. This is the very de- 
scription which the holy Psalmist gives us of the immutability, 
or unchangeable nature, of the only true eternal God. And 

ἃ Quitypum gerens Domini, et sine 
patre, et sine matre, et sine genera- 
tionis enarratione, et sine initio, et 
sine fine describitur; ut ostenderet 
sempiternum Filium Dei in bunc 
mundum esse venturum, qui et sine 
Patre secundum incarnationem natus 
est, et sine matre secundum divinam 
generationem, et sine enarratione gene- 
rationts ; quia scriptum est, “ Genera- 
““ tionem autem ejus quis enarrabit ?”’ 
Ambros. de διά lib. iii, cap. 11. 

Ρ. 518. 

r As to the sense of the most early 
Fathers in relation to Christ’s eternity, 
I have occasionally shewn it iu part. 
For the rest, [ refer the ingenuous 
and impartial reader to Bp. Bull’s 
Collections and Observations on that 
head, in his Defensio Fid. Nic. which 
are abundantly sufficient to satisfy 
every ingenuous inquirer, that the 
eternity of God the Son was the con- 
stant doctrine of the Christian Church 
from the beginning, and that the con- 
trary was always accounted heresy. 

SBRM. VI. Srom his Attributes. 158 

since it is here, without any restriction or limitation, applied by 
the inspired writer to our Saviour Christ ; we cannot reasonably 
understand it to mean any thing less here than it does there. 
There cannot be any words devised more express or emphatical 
than these are: ‘“‘ They shall perish; but thou remainest: they 
“shall be changed; but thou art the same.” The force of 
these expressions was well understood by the great Athanasius, 
and triumphantly urged against the Arianst. There is another 
passage out of the Epistle to the Hebrews of like import, de- 
claring in strong terms the immutability of Christ. “Jesus 
“ Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” Heb. xiii. 8. 
Here is the phrase ὁ αὐτὸς, the same, again applied to the person 
of Christ, as before in chapter the first; and, besides, here is all 
tame, past, present, and to come, taken in, to make the description 
still more full and complete. It may be best explained from a 
parallel; text in the Revelations, by the character of, “which is, 
‘and which was, and which is to come:” words which con- 
fessedly and undeniably denote eternal, unchangeable existence. 
What is there expressed by “is, was, and is to come,” is here 
signified by ‘“‘ yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” Thus was the 
text generally understood by Catholics of the fourth and fifth 
centuries", and frequently cited against the Arians. How the 
Arians replied to it then, we know not; unless we may make a 
judgment of it from what is said now. It is now pretended that 
the meaning of the text is only this; that “the doctrine of 
“ Christ, once taught by the Apostles, ought to be preserved 
“ ynchanged*.” But, under favour, this is rather the practical 
inference built upon the proposition of the text, than the propo- 
sition itself: for let us take in the whole context, which is as 
follows : “ Remember them which have the rule over you, who 
“have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, 
“considering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ (is) 

5 Origen quotes the words, σὺ δὲ ὁ 
αὐτὸς εἰ, several times, as a proof of 
the τὸ ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, the 
unconvertible and immutable nature 
of aes Orig. contr. Cels. p. 17, 169, 

t Athanas. p. 440, 462, 685. ed. 
Bened. Vid. etiam Cyrill. Alexand. 
contr. Jul. lib. viii. p. 266. 

a Alexand. Alex. apud Athanas. 
tom. 1. Ὁ. 399. Athanasius, tom. i. 

Ρ. 440, 453, 685. Gregor. Nazianz. 
Orat. xxxviii. p. 613. Ambros. de 
Fid. lib. v. cap. 1. p. 585. De Incarn. 
cap. vi. p. 716. ΟΥ̓]. Hierosol. 
Catech. xii. p. 156. Cyrill. Alex. de 
Rect. Fid. p. 4). De Incarn. Dial. 

p- 710. 

xX Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 117. 
Reply, p. 169. odest Plea, &c. 
Ρ. 304. 

154 Christ's Diomity SERM. VII. 

“the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Be not carried 
‘“‘about with divers and strange doctrines; for it is a good 
‘‘ thing that the heart be established” &. Now, whether the 
words have reference to those going before, viz. “ considering 
“the end of their conversation ;” or to the words immediately 
following, viz. “ Be not carried about with divers and strange 
“4 doctrines ;” either way the sense is good, and the Apostle’s 
argument pertinent. For upon the former supposition the sense 
will run thus: “Imitate your pastors, considering how great 
‘and how divine a Person you thereby adhere to; one who is 
“no created or mutable Being, capable of failing in his own 
“‘ person, or of disappointing you in your just expectations ; 
“ but one that is eternally and unchangeably the samey; whom 
“therefore you may infallibly depend on, in the final result of 
“ things.” In this view the Apostle’s sense is both just and 
pertinent, and is not much unlike to what is elsewhere said of 
God, that he is the Lord, and “ changes not,” Mal. iii. 6. and. 
that “ with him there is no variableness, neither shadow of turn- 
“ing,” James i. 17. But if we understand this text with regard 
to the words immediately following, “ Be not carried about with 
‘‘ divers and strange doctrines,” still the sense 18 just and to the 
purpose: “Do not ye change, for Jesus Christ never changes, 
“4 being immutably and essentially the same: endeavour to copy 
‘¢ after him as far as your imperfect natures will permit.” Thus 
the precept and the example hang together, much after the 
same manner as in a text of St. Matthew: “Be ye therefore 
‘‘ perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect :” 
where an argument is drawn from the natural and necessary 
perfections of God, to induce us to some faint resemblance and 
imitation of them. Upon the whole, it appears that our inter- 
pretation of this text in the Hebrews is literal ; which makes it 
preferable to any figurative construction, unless there were a 
necessity for it. It is also very agreeable to the scope and design 
of the author in that place, and to what he had before taught 
us, chap. i. ver. 12. of the same Epistle: it is further countenanced 
by the Catholic Fathers, at least as high as the fourth century ; 
and not contradicted by those before them: in fine, it is opposed 
only, or however chiefly, by those who, having an hypothests to 
serve, like not the doctrine it contains; which doctrine never- 

Υ See True Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity continued, p. 206. 

ΒΕΒΜ. VI. proved from his Attributes. 155 

theless is set forth by other Scriptures, and confirmed by all an- 
tiquity*: and now let any man of common ingenuity be left to 
judge, which of the two interpretations offered be the true one. 
Having considered the Scripture-proofs of Christ's eternity and 
emmutability, I proceed next to another of his divine attributes. 

3. Ommiscience is another divine attribute, ascribed in Scrip- 
ture to our Saviour Christ. ‘“ Now we are sure that thou 
“ knowest all things,” said his disciples unto him, John xvi. 30. 
And again; “ Lord, thou knowest all things,” (John xxi. 17.) 
said St. Peter, directing his discourse to Christ. The words in 
both places are general, without any limitation or reserve 
intimated in text or context: neither does the Evangelist, who 
recorded these sayings, any where insert any caution to prevent 
our understanding them in the highest and most unlimited 
sense. Thus far the presumption lies in favour of our con- 
struction: and I shall endeavour further to shew from other 
Scriptures, that those expressions ought to be understood in 
their utmost latitude; and shall withal examine and confute the 
Arian or Socinian pretences to the contrary. 

That God the Son ‘“knoweth all things,” in the strictest 
sense, may be justly inferred from his being the “ Searcher of 
“ the heart,” and his knowledge of the “deep things of God.” 
To be καρδιογνώστης, ‘ Searcher of the heart,” is the peculiar 
and distinguishing character of the one true God; as appears 
from Jer. xvii. 10. “1 the Lord search the heart, I try the 
“reins.” And from 1 Kings viii. 39. “ Thou, even thou only 
“ knowest the hearts of all the children of men.” And from Acts 
xv. 8.“ God which knoweth the hearts.” Yet this very per- 
fection our blessed Lord claims to himself: “I am he,” saith 
he, “ that searcheth the reins and the heart,” Rev. ii. 23. And 
St. John testifies of him, that “he knew all men,” John ni. 24. 
‘knew what was in man,” John ii. 25. And the disciples 
in their prayer to him (as seems most probable) say, “ Thou, 
‘ Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men,” Acts i. 24. 

2 The immutability of Christ is tm- so that direct and express testimonies 
plcitly and consequentially asserted as οἱ Christ’s immutability, if they occur 
often as the primitive writers assert not so often, are less needful. But 
the eternity, or consubstantiality, or some there are, full and icular to 
proper, emphatical existence (which we that very point. Vid. Iren. lib. ui. 
now express by necessary existence) cap. 8. p. 183. Tertullian. contr. 
of God the Son; or declare him tobe Prax. cap. xxvii. Origen. contr. Cels. 
God in the strict sense, or no creature: p. 169, 170. 

156 Christ's Diowmity SERM. VII. 

This is further confirmed from Heb. iv. 12, 13. ‘The Worp 
“ of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged 
“ sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and 
“ spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the 
“thoughts and intents of the heart: neither is there any 
“ creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are 
“ naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to 
“ do.” That this passage is to be understood of the Λόγος, or Word, 
that is, of Christ, I think need not be doubted: the characters 
are plainly personal, and the name of Word is appropriated 
to Christ by St. John, John i. 1. Rev. xix. 13 ; and the “sword,” 
or ‘“two-edged sword,” is a figure often mentioned in the 
Revelations, where Christ is spoken of; Rev. i. 16. 1. 12, 16. 
xix.15. This passage was understood of Chrtst, both before 
and after the Council of Nice, by Catholic writers®: and the 
application of it to Christ is not, that I know of, scrupled by 
our modern Arians, any more than it appears to have been 
doubted of by their predecessors. Here then it is said of 
Christ, that “all things are naked” before him; that every 
creature is “ manifest in his sight ;” and that he is a “ discerner 
“ of the thoughts and intents of the heart :” strong and lively 
expressions of his divine omniscience: 1 know not whether any 
fuller or more significant can be produced out of the holy 
Scripture, in proof of the omniscience even of God the Father. 
To this may be added another celebrated text, Coloss. ii. 3. 
““ In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” 
The author of ‘Scripture Doctrine’ pretends, that it is amb:- 
guous whether this refers to the Father or to Christ. But if it 
certainly refers to either, there can be no reasonable doubt but 
it refers to Chrtst, immediately before mentioned. The words 
run thus: “ The acknowledgment of the mystery of God and 
“the Father, and of Christ, (ἐν ¢,) in whom are hid all the 
‘“‘ treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” There may be some 
question whether the words ἐν ᾧ may not refer to μυστηρίου, 
mystery, before spoken of; and so may not be properly rendered 
in which, instead of in whom. But if they be rightly rendered 
in whom, it is plain they must refer to the nearest antecedent, 

* Origen in Job. Bt ee >. 189. Cyril. Alex. Thesaur. p. 169. 
tom. i. p. 503, 520. Serm. Maj. p also Clarke’s Scnpt. Doctr. 
Ambr oe ‘de Fid. lib. ἵν. cap. = p. 116. 2nd ed. 

534. ed. Bened. Euseb. in Psalm. 

SERM. VII. proved from his Attributes. 157 

Christ; and in this interpreters are agreed. Origen, Hilary, 
and the ancient author of the commentaries under the name 
of St. Ambrose, refer the words to Christ. >The two latter, as 
also Cyril of Alexandria, draw an argument from them of the 
absolute omniscience of Christ. Clemens of Alexandria twice 
cites the text: but whether he understood the words in dispute 
to relate to mystery going before, or to the person of Chrest, 
is uncertain. It is observable, that four of the authors now 
mentioned read the words somewhat differently from the present 
copies. As to the sense of the words, and their reference to 
Christ, we shall find but little reason to doubt, if we consider 
the general scope and drift of the Apostle in this Epistle ; 
which was to set forth the excellency and dignity of Christ. 
This appears particularly from verses 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, of 
the first chapter; and from the gth verse of this very chapter, 
where we are told, that “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
“ Godhead bodily.” Well might the Apostle say, that “all the 
“treasures of wisdom and knowledge were in him, in whom 
“all the fulness of the Godhead was also.” I know, our 
adversaries, whether Socinians or Arians, will endeavour to 
elude the force.of this text, as well as of the other. But as the 
Apostle ushered it in with a very solemn caution, to “ beware 
“lest any man spoil us through philosophy and vain deceit, 
“ after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, 
“and not after Christ:” so let all true Christians beware, lest 
they be imposed upon by weak pretences, built upon false 
philosophy and vain decevt ; not upon sound and true reasoning. 
The author of “ Scripture Doctrine” refers us4 to John xiv. 10. 
‘‘ The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” If he 
means that the Father's nature and Godhead so dwells and 
resides in Ohkrist, as to make a full and entire communion 
of substance and of all perfections, insomuch that the Son shall 
therefore be fotus ex toto, perfectus ex perfecto, very God of very 
God; then indeed this construction would not be amiss, being the 
same which Hilary and some other Catholics give of it. But, if 
he understands the Father’s in-dwelling in any lower sense, 

b Origen. Comm. in Matt. p. 209. Clemens and Pseudo-Ambros. Mys- 
Hilar. p. 1028, 1028. Pseudo-Am- tery in Christ; Origen. Mystery of 
bros. in loc. Clem. Alex. p. 683, 694. God even Christ; Dei Christs: Hilar. 
Vid. et Cyril. Alex. adv. Authropo- ἃ Clarke’s Scripture Doctr. p. 114. 
morph. p. 382. and edit. 

¢ Mystery of God in Christ; so 

158 Christ's Divinity SERM. VII. 

it would have come better from a Socinian, who would interpret 
the fulness of the Godhead, of the Father dwelling in the man 
Christ Jesus. Jt cannot easily be imagined that the. Apostle, 
who in the first chapter of this Epistle had said so many high 
and great things of the inherent and personal dignity of the 
Son of God, as existing before all things, creating, preserving, 
and sustaining the whole universe, should now fall so low as to 
tell us, that he meant it not of any inherent personal dignity 
of the Son, but of the Father only: or if the Apostle had 
so intended it, why should not he have said plainly that 
the Father dwelt in him, a plain easy thing, instead of sur- 
prising us with so solemn and pompous an expression, (and 
that too after the ceremony of a preface to introduce it,) 
as that in him dwelt “all the fulness of the Godhead 
‘* bodily ?” 

The author of “ Scripture Doctrine,” not confiding in his first 
explication, invents another, inconsistent with it, though he lets. 
both stand together in the same page. “‘Fulness of Godhead” 
he interprets fulness of divine power, dominion, and authority : 
for so the word θεότης, divinity, he says, stgnifies ; and elsewhere®, 
always signifies. He is much mistaken in his remark upon the 
sense of θεότης, as might be shewn by a hundred instances out of 
the best ecclesiastical writers; some of which I have referred to 
in another placef, and upon another occasion. However, if θεότης 
always signifies power, dominion, and authority; then it never 
signifies the Being or Person, whose that power, dominion, or 
authority is: and therefore the text of St. John, xiv. το. which 
speaks of the Father’s (not the Father's power, dominion, &c.) 
dwelling in Christ, is very inconsistently put together with this 
other construction. But enough of this. As to the sense of the 
text, Col. ii. 9. we need not have recourse to any remote and 
farfetched explications, when the natural and obvious construc- 
tion of it is no near at hand. Whoever considers that the Logos, 
or Word, was God, and was made flesh, or was “‘ God manifest 
“in the fleshs,” (as St. Paul expresses it,) will easily believe 

ly, p. 283. the Creed, p. 128. and Mills in loc. 
f Dee of some Queries, vol.i. Dr. Clarke’s surmise, that all the 
P. 323, 504. a read ὃς or ὃ, instead of Θεὸς, 

© ι Tim. iii. 16. As to Θεὸς in this till the beginning of the sixth century, 
text, and the agreement of the Greek which he pretends to collect from the 
copies in it, consult Bp. Pearson on tenor of their comments, is, without 


proved from his Attributes. 159 

that that was the great mystery which St. Paul had in his 
thoughts, when he told us that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt 
in Christ bodily. He had the more reason to usher this in with 
ἃ prefatory caution against phtloeophy and vain deceit, because 
the mystery of God incarnate was what the disputers of this 
world were most of all offended at, and what none of the heretics 
of the earliest times would come into». The Docete, a very 
early sect, denied the humanity of Christ, that they might still 
retain the belief of his divinity ; while Cerinthus and the Ebion- 
ites denied his divtntty, that they might still acknowledge his 
humanity; neither one nor other admitting the divinity and 
humanity together, because such an union and mixture of God 
and man appeared utterly repugnant to their philosophy. Both 
those heresies probably had their rise in the Apostles’ times, 
and before St. Paul wrote this Epistle. And now we may under- 
stand what St. Paul meant by fulness of Godhead. The divine 
nature, the Adyos, full and perfect God, assumed a body, took 
flesh upon him, or became incarnate. The “ Word was made 
“ flesh, and dwelt among us,” (in our nature,) ‘and of his 
“ fulness have we all received.” John i. 14, 15, 16. 

The construction which I have here given of this remarkable 
passage is not mine, but that of the primitive Catholic writers, 
as well before as after the Council of Nice. Now to return to 
the point which we were before upon: since it appears how high 
and great things the Apostle has said of Christ, in the two first 
chapters of this Epistle, we have the more reason to believe 

an unds. See Greg. Nyssen. 
Ont x: contr. Eunom. p. 693. where 
Θεὸς is read, and the tenor of the 
comment requires that reading. 

b See my Defence of some Queries, 
vol. i. p. 470, 471. 

i Διόπερ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου 
σῶμα, χωρῆσαν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς 
θεότητος σωματικῶς, τῇ θεότητι ἀτρέ- 
πτως ἥνωται, καὶ τεθεοποίηται" οὗ χάριν 
ὁ αὐτὸς Θεὸς καὶ ᾿Ανθρωπος ᾿Ιησοῦς 
Χριστὸς προεφητεύετο ἐν νόμῳ, &c. Con- 
cil, Antioch. Epist. Labb. tom.i. p.848. 

Εἰ yap οὐκ ἔστι κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, ὅμοιος ὁ 
υἱὸς τοῦ πατρὸς, λείπει τὶ τῇ εἰκόνι, καὶ 
οὐκ ἔστι πλήρης εἰκὼν, οὐδὲ τέλειον 
ἀπαύγασμα. πῶς οὖν ἀναγινώσκετε τὸ, 
ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς 
θεότητος σωματικῶς ; Athanas. de Sy- 
nod. Ὁ. 753. Comp. p. 556. ed. Bened. 

Note, that the citation which Dr. 
Clarke (Script. Doctr. p. 114.) brings 
out of Athanasius, as if it had been 
his interpretation of this text, has no 
reference at all to it; 88 any one may 
see by looking into Athanasius, Epist. 
ad Philadelph tom. i. p. 916. 

Tantus est Filius quantus videbitur 
Pater: totus de toto, integer de in- 
tegro, perfectus de perfecto, consum- 
mataque virtute : sicut Apostolus dicit 
ad Colossenses, in quo “omnis pleni- 
‘tudo Divinitatis corporaliter habi- 
“tat.” Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xlviii. 
ex versione Ruff. p. 733. 

Vid. Hilar. p. 979, 983, 988, 1362. 
Epiphan. Ancorat. p. 95. contr. 
Heres. p. 889. Exposit. Fid. Justin. 
Mart. ascript. 


160 Christ’s Divinity 

that he meant to ascribe absolute omntscience to him, when he 
said, that ‘“‘in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and 
“ knowledge.” 

A further proof of his omnisctence may be drawn from his 
being indisputably equal in knowledge to the Holy Spiri of 
God; that Spirit which “ searcheth all things,” even the “ deep 
“ things of God ;”’ and who is as well acquainted with the mind 
of God, as a man is with his own heart and mind. I mention 
not other arguments of the Son’s omniscience, deducible from his 
creative powers, and his being Preserver and Sustamer of the 
universe, and from the names of Wisdom and Truth* given to 
him in holy Scripture; and from his intimate union with, and 
knowledge of, God the Father: these and the like considerations 
may serve still more and more to confirm us in the belief of it, 
and to render it less questionable with serious and considering 
men. I shall only add, that the Ante-Nicene Catholics were no 
strangers to this doctrine which I here maintain; but asserted 
it, many of them!, as fully as I have done: none, so far as 
appears, ever presuming to oppose or contradict it. But there 
are some objections against the evidence I have produced, which 
come next to be considered. I shall confine myself to such 
pretences as have been lately revived, and artfully set off, by the 
author of “Scripture Doctrine.” 

1. As to our Lord’s being “Searcher of the hearts,” he 
thinks™ it may be accounted for from a passage of Clemens of 
Alexandria"; which he would gladly so interpret as to make 
Clemens say, that Christ is, by the will of the Almighty, Inspector 
of our hearts. But I have in another place® took notice how 
widely he has mistaken the sense of his author. 

A second pretenceP to invalidate our proofs of the Son’s 

containing will. 
See el expressions in other 
authors. Μόνος δὲ ὁ Θεὸς περιέχει τῇ 

κ Vid. Origen in Johan. pag. 28. 
μεν bia de Spir. Sanct. p. 515. 
1 See this made good in my Defence, 

&e. vol.1. p. 337, Sc. 

m Script. Doctr. p. 45, 118, 294. 

Ὁ Τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν τῷ παντοκρα- 
τορικῷ θελήματι ἐπίσκοπον τῆς καρδίας 
ἡμῶν. Strom.iv. p. 611. 

© Defence of some Queries, vol. i. 

Ῥ. 35, ᾿ : 
. B. Παντοκρατορικῷ θελήματι, in 
Clemens, does not signify by the will 
φ the Almighty, as the Dostar con- 
strues it; but by his soveretgn all- 

βουλήσει τὸ πᾶν. Pseudo-Just. ad 
Orthod. Qu. 11. 

Immensus cum sit Deus, et mundi 
opifex, atque omnipotens, immensa et 
roundi opifice, atque omnspotenti vo- 
luntate, et effectu novo, potenter et 
efficaciter fecit ut omnis plenitudo, &c. 
Fragm. Irenai, p. 342. ed. Bened. 
aa Clem. Alex. p. 674, 679. 

: ee Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 45, 

SERM. VII. proved from his Attributes. 161 

omniscience, is from John viii. 28. where our Lord says, “1 do 
“ nothing of myself; but as my Father hath éaught me, I speak 
“these things.” The full meaning of which is no more than 
this, that God the Son is intimately united with the Father, 
never separate from him ; and therefore neither acts nor speaks 
but in concert with him. Our blessed Saviour, speaking of his 
Father and himself, is pleased to take up with such expressions 
as are of common use with us: but they are to be soberly inter- 
preted, suitably to the dignity of the subject. This I observe, 
lest the word taught, taken from what is customary amongst 
men, should be apt to convey a low «dea, when applied (though 
in a more refined and elevated sense) to the Persons of the ever 
bleesed Trinity. It is very certain that the Son has his know- 
ledge, and every other perfection, from the Father, in the same 
sense as he hath aleo his nature or substance from the Father: 
but it should be considered, that after our blessed Lord had 
said, “‘ The Son can do nothing of himself,” (John v.19.) he 
immediately added, “ For what things soever he (the Father) 
“« doth, these also doth the Son likewise.” Let it then be ac- 
knowledged, that the Son can know nothing of himself, provided 
only that we add this consideration to it, that “ what things 
4 soever the Father knoweth, these also knoweth the Son like- 
“ wise ;” and then it will appear that those expressions, which 
the objectors lay hold on, are so far from denoting any imper- 
fection in the Son's knowledge, that, on the contrary, they set 
forth the great and unmeasurable perfection of it, as being in- 
separably linked with, and indeed one and the same in extent 
and degree with, the Father's. 

4. A third objection’ against what we assert is taken from 
Rev. i. 1. “ The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto 
“him.” But this has no difficulty with any who consider that 
all the transactions of God the Father with mankind are in and 

@ Dicere autem et logui, in Trini- 
tite, non secundum consuetudinem 
nostram———accipiendum, sed juxta 
formam Sn ieorante File (aud Sopi- 
neque enim ignorante Filio (qui Sapi- 
eatia et Veritas est) Pater suam nun- 
cat voluntatem; cum on qaod 
loguitur sapiens verusque subsistens 
M sapienti ᾿ habeat, rr νἅ substantia. 

Patrem et audire Filium, 
vel ὁ contrario, Filio loquente, axdire 


Patrem, ejusdem nature in Patre et 
Filio, consensueque, significatio est. 
Didym. de Spir. S. p.515. ed. Bened. 

‘‘ Filius nihil a semetipso possit 
‘* facere, nisi viderit Patrem facien- 
“tem :” in sensu scilicet facientem. 
Pater enim sensu agit; Filius vero, 
ui in Patris sensu est, videns perficit. 
ertull. contr. Prax. cap. 15. 

r Clarke’s Script. 

octr. Ὁ. 45, 

162 Christ’s Divinity SERM. VII. 

by Christ Jesus. Every revelation of God is through Christ his 
Son, the Revealer and Interpreter of the otherwise unknown 
Father, and his will, to men. This order and economy, observable 
in the Persons of the sacred Trinity, is what we ought humbly 
to adore and reverence, rather than pry too curiously into; 
lest, pretending to be “wise above what is written,” we fall 
from our own steadfastness, and lose ourselves in inextricable 

4. The last and most material objection against us is from 
Mark xiii. 32: “ But of that day, and that hour, knoweth no 
ἐς man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, 
“but the Father.” Or “ Father only,” as it is in Matt. xxiv. 36. 
which the author of “ Scripture Doctrine” particularly taketh 
notice of. He does not, in terms, declare whether this text 
be, in his opinion, a proof of God the Son’s being ignorant of 
any thing; but is content to say‘, or insinuate, as from Irenzeus, 
(though he mistranslates his author,) that the Father ts supertor 
tn knowledge, and that he only has perfect knowledge: very sus- 
picious and doubtful expressions, and left without guard or 
caution. But to come to the point: I am to shew that these 
texts of St. Mark and St. Matthew prove nothing at all against 
the perfect knowledge, or strict. omnisctence, of the divine nature 
of Christ. It is not said, the Son of God knew not the day of 
judgment; but the Son, that is, the Son of man, as appears 
from the context in both the Evangelisie: Matt. xxiv. 37, 39. 
Mark xiii. 26, 34. And it is well observed by Athanasius®, that, 
after our Lord had mentioned the angels as not knowing that 
day, he did not add, netther the Holy Ghost ; that it might still 
be considered, that if the Holy Ghost knew the day, well might 
also God the Son know it; and that therefore what is here said 
of the Son relates to the Son of man only. It is objected by 
Crellius and others, that it could not with truth and sincerity 
be said of Christ, that he was ignorant of the day, if he knew it 
In any capacity; as it cannot be denied that man is immortal, 
so long as he is immortal in any respect or capacity. But to 
this I answer, that as it may be truly said of the body of man, 
that it is not émmortal, though the soul be: so it may be truly 
said, that the Son of man was not knowing, though the Son of 

5. See Clarke’s Script. Doctr. p. 45, 132. t Ibid. p. 133, 134. 
Athanas. tom. |. p. 5923. 


God knew every thing. Now, since Christ may speak of himself, 
either as Son of God or as Son of man; it is not inconsistent 
with truth and sincerity for him to deny that he knew what he 
really did know in one capacity, while he was ignorant of it in 
another. Our Lord says in one place, ‘‘ Now I am no more in 
“ the world,” John xvii. 11. and in another place, “ Ye have the 
“ poor always with you, but me ye have not always,”’ Matt. xxvi. 
11. denying that he was, or should be, any longer present with 
his disciples: which can only be understood of his human nature 
and bodily presence; for in another respect he elsewhere says, 
“Lo, I am with you always,” Matt. xxviii. 20. and, “If any 
“‘ man love me—my Father will love him, and we will come unto 
“him, and make our abode with him,” John xiv. 23. From 
hence we see that our blessed Lord might, without any breach 
of sincerity, deny that of himself considered in one capacity, 
which he could not have denied in another. He denies the 
knowledge of the day of judgment, but in respect of his human 
natere ; in which respect also he is said to have “increased in 
“ wisdom,” Luke ii. 52. the divine Logos having with the human 
nature assumed the ignorance and other tnjirmtties proper to it*. 
If it be objected that the Son is here placed after the angels, and 
that the gradation requires that we should understand the text 
of a nature superior to angels ; it is easily answered, that the Son 
of man’s union with the Logos, and the particular concern the 
Son of man has in the last judgment, are sufficient to account 
for the supposed climaz or gradation. 

Upon the whole then it appears, that our Lord might very 
sincerely and justly say, that he knew not the day or hour of 
the final judgment, understanding it of himself considered in his 
human capacity; though at the same time, in another respect, 
he could not be ignorant of any thing*. If it be pretended 

SERM. VII. proved from his Attributes. 

x See Mr. Boyse’s very judicious 
account of this text, in answer to the 
pretences of Mr. Emlyn, who never 
thought fit to make any reply to that 


Υ See Dr. Bennet on the Trinity, 
Ῥ. 154, δια. 

z A learned gentleman has lately 
attempted a different solution of the 
difficulty arising from these texts; for 
which 1 heartily thank him. I do not 
dislike the proposing of several ways 
of coming to the same point: only I 

wish the author had been content 
with recommending one, without con- 
demning another. He may please to 
consider, that we are upon the defer- 
sive only with regard to these two 
texts ; that we prove the Son’s omns- 
science from other texts; and that a 
respondent, as such, can never beg the 
question : not to mention that the dis- 
tinction of the two natures, divine and 
human, is demonstrably plain from 
other Scriptures; that therefore our 
solution is very natural and obvious ; 

M 2 

164 Christ’s Divinity SERM. VII. 

further, that the Son of God, as such, and every other person 
whatever, is excluded, because of the words “ Father only ;” 
1 answer, that the arclusive term only is not to be so strictly 
interpreted as to exclude what ecasenttally belongs to the Father, 
and may be reckoned to him, as included in him, his Worp, or 
Sererr. It is said, Rev. xix. 12, of God the Son, that “he had 
‘‘s name written, which no one (οὐδεὶς) knew but he himself.” 
Now if it be reasonable and just to infer from thence, that the 
Father was ignorant of that name; then let it also be reasonable 
to infer from this place of St. Matthew, that the Son was ignorant 
of the day of judgment: or, if such inference be manifestly false 
and unjustifiable in one case, there must be something more 
than the bare force of the evclusive term to make it true or 
justifiable in the other. 

From what hath been said it is manifest, that holy Scripture 
has by necessary consequence, and also in express terms, ascribed 
omniscience to the Son of God; and that the pretences against 
it are of no weight ; being founded only on misinterpretation of 
texts, and misapplication of what relates to Christ in one capa- 
city, to him considered in another. 

3. I proceed, thirdly, to another divine attribute ascribed to 
Christ in holy Scripture, viz. omnipresence. The texts which 
prove it are these that follow: ‘“ Where two or three are 
“ gathered together in my name, there am 1 in the midst of 
“them,” Matt. xviii. 20. ‘ Lo, I am with you always, even 
“ unto the end of the world,” Matt. xxviii. 20. ‘ By him all 
“ things consist,” Col. 1.17. These texts demonstrate that our 
blessed Lord is present on earth, at the same time that he is also 
present in heaven; that his presence reaches to all the ends of 
the earth, to all men living quite round the globe, to the whole 
system of creatures ; for “by him all things consist: as much 
as to say, “ In him they live, and move, and have their being ;” 
which is the most lively and emphatical description of the 
omnipresence of God. Christ's omnipresence is likewise intimated 
from the worship ordered to be paid him by men, by angels», by 

that it must be admitted with regard it will be more than sufficient to take 
to Luke ii. 52. (and why not in the off all scruple with respect to so 
other place?) and that if our Sa- and so unexceptionable a solution as 
viour’s dark and mystical way of ours is. 

speaking be sufficient to justify even δ. Vid. Origen. contr. Cels. p. 239. 
ΒΟ hard a supposition as that seems In Job. Ὁ. 122, 128, 419. 

ta be which this gentleman goes upon, ὃ οἷν 6. 


8ERM. VIL proved from his Attributes. 165 

the whole creation’. The same thing may certainly be inferred 
from his being Creator of the universe. Hence it is that 
the ancients do, with one voice, declare for the omnipresence 
of God the Son‘. Some of them indeed have been thought 
to have given into contrary sentiments, in their disputes with the 
Noétians or Jews: but, upon careful inquiry, this appears to be 
only a groundless surmise; as is largely and solidly proved 
by the judicious and learned Bp. Bull *. 

It may perhaps be objected, that the Son’s being present to 
all men, or even to all creatures, does not prove his omnipresence 
in the largest and fullest sense. To which it is sufficient 
to reply, that though there is not any Scripture-proof of 
an absolute omnipresence of the Son, extending beyond the limits 
of the world into I know not what imaginary extramundane 
spaces, yet there is full proof of his omnipresence through the 
whole creation: which is, to all intents and purposes, the very 
same thing to us with divine omnipresence ; and is as high as 
Scripture has any where carried the omnipresence even of God 
the Father. Thus far I have proceeded in the proof of the 
divine attributes ascribed in Scripture to our Saviour Christ: the 
titles I have recounted and vindicated in a former discourse. 
Nothing now remains but 

III. To sum up the force of the general argument, and to 
obviate such general objections as are brought to weaken our 
conclusion. I have left myself but little room for this: indeed, 
much is not needful. If the premises stand, the conclusion 
makes itself. Every single attribute that hath been mentioned, 
every single title, almost, justifies the inference, that Christ is ne 
creature, but truly and strictly God: all together make so full, 
so clear, so irrefragable a demonstration of it, that one might 
justly wonder how any, who retain the least regard or reverence 
towards the sacred Writ, can make any serious doubt of it. 
It cannot be shewn that any one of those names, titles, attributes, 
and essential properties of God, was ever given, in this manner, 

¢ Rev. v. 8. 15. ed. Bened. Clem. Alex. p. 711, 
Si homo tantummedo Christus, 831, 840. ed. Ox. Tertull. adv. 
quomodo adest ubique invocatus,cum Prax. c. 23. Origen. contr. Cels. 
heec homenis natura non sit, sed Dei, p. 239, 164. Hippolyt. Fragm. p. 45: 
ut adesse omni loco possit? Novat. vol. 11. Fabric. 
cap. 14. e Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. sect. iv. 
4 Just. Mart. Apol. ii. cap. 11. p. cap. 3. 
27. ed. Ox. Irenseus, p. 190, 231, 

166 ᾿ Christ's Diewntty SERM. VII. 

and with those circumstances, to any creature. If one or two of 
them (as the name God for instance) might be equsvocal, yet 
the rest are not so; and the manner and circumstances, where- 
with they are ascribed to Christ, sufficiently determine the sense 
of them. If titles alone are not of weight sufficient, attributes 
come in to strengthen and confirm them; and if any scruples 
remain still, creation and adoration understood of, and attributed 
to Christ, render the proof still more irrefragable. The strength 
and number of the evidences concurring to establish Christ’s 
divinity, when fewer and less considerable might have been 
sufficient, is very wonderful ; as if Divine Wisdom had purposely 
so ordered it, foreseeing what opposition would be made to it. 
Were it possible, by any quirk or subtilty, to elude every 
single evidence, yet the joint force of all together would be very 
considerable ; because it is hardly to be imagined that, in an 
affair of this moment, God would ever have suffered so many 
plausible appearances, and specious presumptions, of a thing 
that is not, to stand in Scripture, for the deception even of wise 
and good and conscientious men. The Jewish Church were 
trained up to a sense of the true God by those very characters 
which are applied to Christ. Upon those they formed their 
idea of the divine Being: and would have thought it blasphemy 
to have ascribed the same, though by way of figure only, (in so 
serious & concern,) to any creature. And not they only, but all 
mankind must allow, that none more expressive and significant 
characters of God can be devised, than several of those are 
which are applied to Christ. If we are mistaken in this matter, 
it is a mistake which the Christian world, by plain force of 
Scripture, has, in a manner, inevitably been led into. He must 
be a very weak man who can imagine, that the doctrine of the 
Trinity could ever have come in, or could have subsisted half a 
century, were it not for the plain and irresistible reasons for it, 
appearing in holy Scripture. How the matter now stands all the 
Christian world over (except a few Reclaimants) is very well 
known. If we run up fourteen hundred years higher, or there- 
about, we find the body of the Bishops and Clergy, summoned 
from all parts to debate this very question, determining at length 
as we have done, and as much deceived (if we are deceived) as 
we are at this day. If we look sixty years higher, and may 
judge of the principles of the Church at that time, from those 
of the two celebrated Bishops of Alexandria and Rome, with 

SBRM. VII. proved from his Attributes. 167 

their Clergy; we still find them lying under the same fatal 
deception that prevails now. Go up a hundred years higher, 
to the middle of the second century; still, all the way as 
we pass, we meet with plain marks and characters of the same 
delusion (if it be any) overspreading the Church of Christ, at a 
time when miracles were not ceased, nor revelations uncommon. 
In short, when we have carried our searches up to the very 
apostolic age, we still observe manifest footsteps of the same 
error (if it be one) prevailing: nor can we find so much as one 
man of any considerable repute among Christians, whom we can 
certainly prove to have been free from it. Surely God had soon 
forsaken his kertéage, and given up his Church to strong delusions, 
(that Church against which the gates of hell shall never prevati,) 
if we have been mistaken in these things. It appears however 
from hence, how powerful and forcible the Scripture evidences 
of Christ’s divinity have ever been upon the minds of men: not 
the illiterate, unthinking, or injudicious; but the wisest, the 
most considerate, the brightest ornaments and the most eminent 
lights of the Christian Church. But our adversaries are men 
that can look up against all these evidences, and can harden 
their minds in opposition to them. Let us see what they have 
to plead, in order to fence off conviction, and to keep their 
wretched cause in any tolerable countenance, at this day. 

1. To our argument, so far as respects the divine titles given to 
God the Son in holy Scripture, it is objected‘, that the highest 
titles of all, such as ὕψιστος, the Most High, or Supreme ; 
παντοκράτωρ, the Almighty, or Supreme over all; εἷς Θεὸς καὶ 
πατὴρ πάντων, the one God and Father of all; εἷς Θεὸς ἐξ οὗ τὰ 
πάντα, one God of whom are all things ; are never applied to the 
Son in Scripture. To which I answer, first, that if God the Son 
has not every divine title which is applied in Scripture to God 
the Father, yet he has more than enough to prove that he is no 
creature, but that he is truly, strictly, and essentially God: so 
that if any other high titles be ascribed to the Father, (not as 
Father, but as God ;) those also, though not specially applied 
to the Son in Scripture, are virtually contained and necessarily 
included in those other that are expressly given him. I answer, 
secondly, that the title of παντοκράτωρ (Almighiy) 1s expressly 
applied to God the Son in Scripture, as hath been shewné: and 

£ Modest Plea. Ε Serm. vi. p. 141. 

168 Christ's Dicintty SERM., VII. 

the sense of ὕψιστος (Most High, or Supreme over all) is plainly 
ascribed to him, Rom. ix. 5. And very probably the dite itself 
in other Scriptures is applied to him, were it worth the while 
to insist upon a fruitless nicety, after so many and great proofs 
of what we maintain. As to the titles of one God and Father of all, 
and one God the Father of whom are ail things, we should think 
it very strange indeed to find them applied to God the Son; 
because, taken all together, they are personal titles, peculiarly 
belonging to God the Father. It must appear very much for the 
advantage of our cause, that Scripture has so indifferently 
applied every divine title almost to Father and Son, as barely 
to leave no more than were proper or necessary to keep up the 
distinction of Persons: and it must appear as a standing 
monument against our adversaries, to their shame and con- 
fusion, that after we have given them every proof that can be 
requisite to shew that the Son is strictly God, yet none shall be 
thought sufficient, unless it be a proof of what we pretend not, 
of God the Son’s being the very same Person with God the 
Father. This indeed is the secret meaning of all the opposition 
made against us: here lies the mystery of their heresy in this 
one false principle; that the Son cannot be the supreme God, 
that is, not truly, strictly, and essentially God, unless he be the 
very Person of the Father. Upon this bottom rest both 
Sabellianism and Arianism; and this is what the advocates of 
both have, betwixt them, been labouring to prove now for 
fifteen hundred years, and have met with nothing but disappoint- 
ment. To conclude this article: we readily allow that the title 
of one God and Father of all is no where applied, either in 
Scripture or antiquity, to God the Son; because the Son is not 
the Father: but the title of the one God we prove to belong to 
him, as often as we prove that he is Lord and God, Jehovah, over 
all God blessed, and the like; for Scripture acknowledges no 
more Gods than one. The title of one God the Father of whom 
are all things, may also be peculiar to the Father, because of the 

b Psalm Ixxxvii. 5. Vid. Tertull. &c. continued ia so destitute of argu- 

contr. Prax. c. 27. Athanas. p. Ἢ 
Ambros. de Fid. lib. iii. cap. 2. 
498. Pealm Ixxxii. 18. Vid. Athan. 
R. 889. Ambros. p. 498. Luke i. 76. 
id. Ambros. de Fid. lib. iii. cap. 2. 
p. 498. 
i N.B. The author of Modest Plea 

ments from Scripture, that he is 

p- forced to .repeat this text of the 

Corinthians (though nothing to his 
purpose) perpetually; and it is to 
serve for an answer almost to every 
thing. The Son is not the one 
God of whom are all things, saya he, 


personal distinguishing characters, Father, and of whom, denoting 
some particular manner of subsisting or operating. But if 
the Son be God, by whom are all things, he is easentially, though 
not personally, the same God with the Father; unless there 
be more Gods than one. But, 

2. Another objection to our general argument drawn from 
the titles and attributes is, that they are ascribed to the Father 
in a higher and more eminent manner than to the Son*. This 
objection is so loosely and carelessly worded, that it is not 
easy to fix any certain sense to it. Would but the objectors say, 
in plain terms, that the titles of God, or Jehovah, or Almighty, 
when applied to the Son, do not signify truly and strictly devine, 
necessarily existing, supreme over all, as when applied to the 
Father, we might readily know how to deal with them: or would 
they but say, that the attributes of eterntty, omniscience, omnt- 
presence, &c. when ascribed to the Son, signify no more than a 
limtted duration, knowledge, presence, ὅσο. we should thank them 
for speaking plain, and for giving us an opportunity of confuting 
what they have to plead for such rash and blasphemous assertions. 
But since they are pleased only to express themselves indefinitely 
and uncertainly, we can give them no certain answer more than 
this ; that, supposing those titles or attributes to be ascribed in 
8 more emphatical and eminent manner to the Father, as first 
Person, yet they are ascribed also to the Son in their utmost 
latitude and extent, and in the very same sense ; (omniscience or 
eternity signifying neither more nor less than omntsctence or 
eternity, whether applied to one or to the other ;) and therefore 
the objection from the more eminent manner, according as it is 
understood, is either without ¢ruth or without weight. The sum 

SERM. VII. proved from his Attributes. 

over and over. And what then? He readers; but is easily seen through b 

is not that Person there styled the one 
God, and particularized by his cha- 
racter, of whom are all things: that is, 
the Son is not the Father. Who pre- 
tends that he is? But he is the Lord 
and God by whom are all things. The 
Father singly is not the first cause of 
all creatures, but Father and Son (in- 
cluding always the Holy Ghost) toge- 
ther; as appears from that very pas- 
sage. See my second Sermon, p. 31, 
3» &c. ‘The author’s mixing and 

lending personal and essential cha- 
racters together, with too artificial a 
confusedness, may take with some 

men of sense. There is no more in it 
than this; that the Son cannot be God 
in the proper and strict sense, because 
he is a Son: whereas the contrary is 
the truth; he is God hecause he is 
God's proper Son, of the same nature 
with him. This author will never 
prove that unbeyotien, a relative cha- 
racter, is the proper notion of the 
word God; but divine perfecttons, 
wherever they really subsist, or in 
whatever manner they subsist, wn- 
begotten, begotten, or proceeding. 
k Modest Plea, p. 148. 

170 Christ's Divinity proved from his Attributes. SEEM. VII. 

of all is only this, that the Father is Father, and the Son is Son ; 
one first in order, the other second. Whatever consequences 
necessarily follow this concession, we are very ready to admit: 
and it would save us a great deal of trouble, if the objectors 
would but try the strength of their philosophy, and put the cause 
upon this single question, Whether ἐξ were possible for God to 
have had a Son of the same nature, coequal and coeternal with him ? 
We shall be very ready to join issue with them upon this very 
point; and it seems to be both a fair and a short way of ending 
the controversy. But if they still delight in obscurity and dark- 
ness, declining a fair open examination of their tenets, running 
from the point in question, screening themselves under general 
and ambiguous terms, insinuating what they will not say, and 
saying what they cannot prove: if this be the method they 
persist in, it will be easily seen that they seek not truth, but he 
en watt to deceive; and are afraid of coming to the light, lest 
their errors should be made manifest. 

Now to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be all glory for 
ever. Amen. | ) 



The eighth Sermon preached April 6, 1720. 

Marr. xxviii. 19. 

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 

THE text contains the solemn form of baptism prescribed by 
our blessed Lord himself, as a perpetual standing law to his 
Church. As soon as he had run through the great work of 
redemption, having completed his conquests over death and hell 
by his rising from the dead, he acquaints his disciples with the 
commencing of his medtatorial kingdom. “ All power was given 
‘“‘ him both in heaven and earth.” Then was fulfilled the pro- 
phecy of the royal Psalmist, who, speaking in the person of God 
the Father, says, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
“thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine 
‘ inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy pos- 
“session,” Ps. u.8. Our Lord having redeemed mankind, and 
thereby acquired a new and special claim to their homage and 
service, entered, as it were, and took possession of his purchased 
inheritance. The use he intended was, to bring all nations, now 
made his own by right of redemption, to the knowledge and wor- 
ship of the true God. The honour of doing this was what no 
prophet or ambassador, before him, was admitted to. It was 
reserved to the fulness of time, for the more illustrious manifest- 
ation and more pompous reception of the Son of God. And 
now, since Christ himself had undertaken to draw all men unto 


him, the first and principal thing which all the nations of the 
world were to have notice of, was the obligation they lay under 
to three Persons, of high character and distinction, and related 
to each other, called by the names of Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost. In this consisted the sum of Christianity: on this foun- 
dation were the Apostles to erect a Church all the world over. 
Here, if any where, a right understanding would be highly neces- 
sary; nor could any one err more dangerously or fundamentally, 
than in an article of so great importance. The text informs us 
of the commission given to the Apostles; and we need not doubt 
but that it was every where faithfully and punctually executed, 
both by them and their successors. We have sufficient proof 
of the matter of fact from Church writers® all along, and as bigh 
as Justin Martyr, who lived in or near the apostolic age, and 
wrote within forty years of it. It was then the constant practice 
of the Church to baptize in this form, pursuant to our Lord’s 
commission ; (8 certain argument that this text of St. Matthew 
appeared in the copies then in use, as it is also now found in all 
the copies, and all the ancient versions ;) and there is no just 
reason to suspect, but that baptism had been constantly admi- 
nistered in that very form from, and in, the times of the 

There is indeed some ground of scruple, (which the heretics 
of former times laid hold on,) arising from the history of the 
Acts, which no where tells us of the Apostles baptizing tn the 
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but mentions only 

Christ's Divinity SERM. VIL. 

8 Ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματος γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν 
ὅλων καὶ δεσπότου Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ σωτῆ- 
ρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ Πνεύμα- 
τὸς ἁγίου, τὸ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι τότε λουτρὸν 
ποιοῦνται. Just. Apol.i. cap. 79. p. 
116. Ox. ed. 

Potestatem Regenerationis in Deum 
dans Discipulis, dicebat eis: Euntes 
docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in 
nomine Patris, et ΕἸ, et Spiritus 
Sanctt. Iren. lib. iii. cap. 17. p. 208. 

Novissime mandans ut tinguerent 
in Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum 
Sanctum, non in unum: nam nec 
semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina, in 
Personas singulas tinguimur. Tertzll. 
ade. Praz. cap. 26. Vid. etiam De 
gr ύθμα cap. 13. 

ominus enim post resurrectionem 
Discipulos suos mittens, quemadmo- 

dum baptisare deberent, instituit et 
docuit, dicens; Data est mihi omnis 
potestas tn colo et tn terra: tte ergo, 
et docete gentes omnes, baptizantes eos 
in nomine Patris, et Fils, et Spiritus 
Sancti ; insinuat Trinitatem, cujus sa- 
cramento gentes baptizarentur. Cypr. 
Ep. lxxiii. p. 200. ed. Ox. 

Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt foris 
extra ecclesiam, imo contra ὶ 
modo in nomine Jesu Christi, ubicun- 
que et quomodocunque gentilem bap- 
tizatum remissionem peccatorum con- 
sequi posse; quando ipse Christus 
gentes baptizari jubeat in plena et 
adunata Trini itate? Cypr. Ep. lxxn 

. 206. 
Py Vid. Cyprian. Epist. ad Jubaian. 
p. 205, 206. ad Pompei. 

SERM. VIIL. proced from the Form of Baptism. 173 

their baptizing ‘in the name of Jesus Christ °,” or “in the name 
“ οὗ the Lord Jesus4,” or “in the name of the Lorde.” St. 
Cyprian, in answer to this difficulty, seems to admit the matter 
of fact so far, that the Apostles did baptize some in the name of 
Christ Jesus; but Jews only; not Gentiles, whom, he thinks, the 
commission peculiarly respected, and whose circumstances were 
something different from those of the Jewsf. Nevertheless 
it may be doubted, whether this was Cyprian’s solution of the 
difficulty, or no; some passagesé of the same epistle seeming to 
carry a contrary sense: and considering how unanimous most, 
if not all the other early writers" of the Church have been in 
denying the fact, that ever the Apostles baptized in any different 
form from what our Lord prescribed, one may incline to think 
that Cyprian was of the same judgment. The most probable 
and most generally received account of this matter is, that the 
Apostles baptized all, both Jews and Gentiles, in the same form ; 
“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
“ Ghost ;” and that when they are said to have baptized in the 
name of Christ Jesus, the meaning only is, that they baptized 
into the faith and religion of Christ Jesus; in that method, and 
according to that form, which our Lord himself had prescribed!. 
The Apostles administered Christ’s, not John’s baptism; that 
baptism which Christ had appointed; St. Luke expresses it 
briefly by baptizing “in the name of Christ ;” not because it ran 
in his name only, but because it was instituted by his authority. 
Thus the practice of the Apostles is reconciled with the commts- 
sion given them. As to the practice of the Christian Church 
after the Apostles, there can be no doubt of it, considering how 
many and how early records we have of it. The main thing now 

© Acts ii. 38. Comp. ili. 27. 

ἃ Acts viil. 16. xix. 5. Comp. Rom. 
vi. 3. 

© Acts x. 48. xxii. τό. 

f Alia enim fuit Judeorum sub 
Apostolis ratio, alia est Gentilium 
conditio, Cypr. ad Jub. Ep. lxxiii. 
p. 208. 

& Jesu Christi mentionem fecit 
Petrus, (Act. ii. 38.) non quasi Pater 
certian “are ut Patri peau Filtus 

jungeretur. Cyprian. ibid. p. 206. 

i Some doubt has been made of 
St. Ambrose as to this particular; of 
which see the notes to the Benedictine 
edition, Ambros. de Sp. S. lib. i. cap. 

4 p. 607. See also Mr. Bingham’s 
Antiquities of the Christian Church, 
b. xi. cap. 3. 

1 Τὸ μὲν εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν βαπτι- 
σθῆναι, σημαίνοι ἂν τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἐντολὴν 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ βαπτισθῆναι" τουτ- 
ἔστιν, εἰς Πατέρα καὶ Yidv καὶ ἅγιον 
Πνεῦμα. Eulogius apud Phot. cod. 
celxxx. p. 1608. 

In nomine Jesu Christi jussi sunt 
baptizari, (Act. ii. 38.) et tamen intel- 
liguntur non baptizari nisi in somine 
Patris et ΕΠ et Spiritus Sancti. 
August. contr. Mazim. lib. ii. cap. 17. 

. 715. See Bull, Op. Posth. p. 
50, ὅσ. 

174 Christ’s Divinsty SERM, VIII. 

to be inquired into is, the meaning, intent, or purport of that 
solemn form, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost.” Baptism had been an ancient custom of 
the Jews, long before our Saviour’s appearance in the flesh*. 
It was by baptism that they admitted proselytes into their reli- 
gion, entering them thereby into covenant with the true God, 
in opposition to all the gods of the nations. This very practice 
our blessed Lord took up, adapting it to the like purposes; only 
altering the form of it, now made to run in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost'!. Had it run in the name of Christ 
only, one might have imagined that baptizing unto Christ had 
been much of the same import with baptizing unto Moses; Christ 
being considered as the minister and publisher of the Christian 
religion, in like manner as Moses was of the Mosaic institution. 
But since the Father himself is one of the Persons specified, into 
whom the nations were to be baptized, baptizing into must here 
bear a much higher sense; viz. entering into covenant with a 
Person as God, professing faith in him as such, listing one’s self 
into his service, and vowing all obedience and submission to him. 
This is the most natural and obvious import of this rite of initia- 
tion, this solemn form of baptizing “in the name of the Father, 
*¢ and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” i.e. into the /asth, 
service, and worshtp of the holy Trinity, the one true God. That 
this is really the case I shall endeavour to shew further, both 
from the reason and nature of the thing itself, and from the 
testimonies of the ancients. 

I. We may argue the pomt from the nature and reason of 
the thing itself, which may suggest to us the following con- 
siderations : 

1. That the nattons were to be baptized in the name of three 
Persons, in the same manner, and therefore very probably in the 
same sense, as in the name of one. Whatever honour, reverence, 
or regard is paid to the Father, in this solemn rite of initiation, 
the same may reasonably be supposed to be paid to all three. 
Is he recognised as the object of worship? So are the other two 

k See Mr. Wall’s Introduction to in the name of the Father, and of the 
hie History of Infant Baptism. Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that they 
1 The Jews baptized proselytes into might be hereby instructed in the doc- 
the name of the Father ; that is, into trine of the true God. Hear this, O 
the broeron of God, whom they Arian and Socinian. Lightfoot. Op. 
called by the name of Father.—It was_ vol ii. p. 275. 
proper among the Gentiles (to baptize) 

ΒΕΈΜ. VIII. proved from the Form of Baptism. 175 

Persons likewise. Is he God and Lord over us! So are they. 
Are we his subjects, servants, soldiers listed under him? So are 
we equally listed under all. Are we hereby regenerated and 
made the temple of God the Father? So are we alao regenerated 
unto the other two Persons, and are likewise made the temple 
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. For what good reason can 
be given why the same outward act, respecting all the three, 
shall not carry with it the same import and significancy? Or if 
there be any doubt or question of what it signifies, how can we 
better resolve it than from what is clear and plain, so far as 
respects the Father; inferring it of the other two Persons from 
analogy and parity of circumstances ἢ 

2. To confirm which we may consider, secondly, that in the 
very names of Father and Son, a near relation, alliance, and 
unity between two of the Persons mentioned is intimated; and 
parity of reason will infer the like for the third. It is not said, 
in the name of God and his two fatthful servants; nor, into God, 
and Christ, and the Holy Ghost; which might have suggested 
a thought that one only of the three was God: but it is in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, (how equal and how fami- 
liar!) without any note of distinction more than that of a per- 
sonal relation, carrying with it the tdea of sameness of nature; 
as every father and son, among men, are of the same human 
nature with each other. It might therefore reasonably be pre- 
sumed, from the wording of the very form of baptism, that 
the two first Persons named were equally divwme: and the in- 
ference from thence would reach to the divintty of the third, to 
make all suitable and consistent. Besides that the epithet of 
Holy, and the name of Ghost, or Spirit, to which it is joined, 
could not but favour and countenance such an apprehension 
of him. 

3. It may further be considered, that a new religion was to 
be introduced and ushered in with this solemn form of words. 
The Gentiles were to be taught to turn from their vanities to the 
liotng God, to renounce their idols and false gods, and so to be 
baptized “‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
“the Holy Ghost.” What more natural or obvious thought 
could occur to them on this occasion, than that, instead of all 
their deities, whom they had before bowed down to, they were 
now to serve, worship, and adore Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
the only true and hving God? What could they imagine from 

176 Christ's Divinity SERM, VIII. 
this pompous and svlemn proclaiming of these three Persons, 
in opposition to all other gods, but that these three had really 
that divinity which was presumed only with respect to the gods 
of the nations; and had a zatural right to all that homage and 
service which men ought to pay to a divine Being! I may add, 
that the form running in the name, not names of those three, 
might insinuate that the authority of all the three was the same, 
their power equal, their Persons undivided, and their glory one™. 

4. Give me leave to observe further, that nothing can appear 
more unreasonable or unnatural than to suppose that God and 
two creatures are here joined together in this so solemn rite of 
initiation into a new religion, into the service of the living God, 
in opposition to all creature-worship. Acts xiv. 15. Rom. i. 25. 
For, as no rational account can be given of the Son and Holy 
Ghost’s being so indifferently joined with the Father, in so public 
an act, and of such high importance to the salvation of all men, 
unless it be that all men are required to have faith in, and to 
pay worship and service to them also, as well as to the Father: 
so neither can it be reasonably imagined that they are recom- 
mended to us in any such capacity, as persons to be believed in, 
served, and adored, if they be creatures only, or if they be any 
thing else but the true and living God. 

Thus far I have been arguing the point from the nature and 
circumstances of the thing itself, without taking in what Serip- 
ture has revealed of the nature, character, and offices of the three 
Persons. That indeed would be the best comment upon the 
form of baptism: but it must be waved here, my design being 
to raise a distinct argument for the divinity of Christ from the 
form of baptism, considered by itself; only taking in such con- 

m Ubi unum nomen audis, unus est 
Deus: sicut de semine Abrahe dictum 
est, et exponit Paulus Apostolus: én 
semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes : 
non dizxit, in seminibus, tanquam in 
multis, sed tanquam in uno, et semine 

§. 8. cap. 14. §. 4, 5, 6. 

Baptisma unum: eodem enim modo, 
et in Patrem, et in Filium, et in Spi- 
ritum Sanctum baptizamur, et ter 
mergimur, ut Trinitatis unum appa- 
reat sacramentum. Et non baptiza- 

tuo, quod est Christus. Sicut ergo 
quia ubi non dicit in seminibus, docere 
te voluit Apostolus, quia unus est 
Christus: sic et hic cum dictum est 
in nomine, non ἐπ nominibus, quomodo 
ibi in semine, non in seminibus, pro- 
batur usus Deus Pater, et Filius, et 
Spiritus Sanctus. August. in Johan. 
tract. 6. 

Vid. Petav. de Trin. lib. ii. cap. 12. 

mur in xominsbus Patris, et ΕἸ}, et 
Spiritus Sancti, sed in uno nomine 
quod intelligitur Deus. Et miror qua 
consequentia in uno vocabulo, eodem 
ο , et em sacramento, naturs 
diversitatem, Arius, Macedonius, et 
Eunomius suspicentur. Hieronym. 
iss in Eph. cap. iv. p. 362. ed. 

SERM. ὙΠ]. 177 

siderations as naturally arise from it, together with the sense of 
antiquity upon it, which I come next to examine. 

II. Whatever uncertainty there may be in our reasonings on 
this head, (though the least that can in justice be said of them 
is, that they are extremely probable,) if they appear to be coun- 
tenanced by the concurring sentiments of antiquity, they must 
then be owned to be of much greater force, and will the more 
readily be submitted to by all wise and considering men. The 
author of “ Scripture Doctrine®” is very right in referring us to 
the sentiments of the primitive Church for the true meaning of 
this text of St. Matthew, containing the form of bapitem : though 
he happens, as is usual with him, to give a very lame and crude 
account of antigutfy ; interpreting the form of baptism by the 
Apostles’ Creed, (as he pretends,) and the Creed itself as he 
pleases. As to the Apostles’ (that is, the Roman) Creed, and 
whether it be a professed paraphrase upon the text of St. Mat- 
thew, I shall say more in the sequel: m the interim it will be 
proper to inquire into the sentiments of the earliest writers, in 
respect of the true and full import of the form of bapitsm. 

Justin Martyr is the oldest writer we have, that mentions the 
commission to baptize ‘“‘in the name of the Father, and of the 
“ Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” How he and the Christians of 
his time understood it, may be easily gathered from his writings. 
In his first Apology, he takes upon him to answer the charge of 
athesm, brought against the Christians by their heathen perse- 
cutors; and there he has these remarkable words: ‘“‘ We are 
“called Atheists. And indeed we confess that in respect of 
‘‘ such reputed gods, we are Atheists: but not in respect of the 
“most true God, untainted with evil, the Father of righteous- 
‘“ ness, and soberness, and of other virtues. Him, and his Son 
“ that came from him, (and who taught us and the host of other 
“angels that are good, being his followers and likened to him, 
“ these things®,) and the Prophetic Spirit, we worship and 
“adore, honouring them in spirit (in reason) and in truthP.” 

proved from the Form of Baptism. 

" His words are: “" How this text 

‘was universally understood in the 
‘* primitive Church cannot be doubted, 
“there being still extant a professed 
“ paraphrase upon it, even the Apo- 
** stles’ Creed; which, from the earliest 
“* times of Christianity, was, with little 
““ variation, in the several churches, 
“the Baptismal Creed, or Profession 


“ of Faith, which al] Christians were 
τὸ ht, on purpose that they might 
“understand what tt was they were 
“. baptized into.” Clarke’s Reply, 

. 204. 
e © See this passage justified, Bull. 
D. F. p. 7o. Op. Posth. p. 96a, 1037. 
P ’EvOevde καὶ ἄθεοι κεκλήμεθα. καὶ 
ὁμολογοῦμεν τῶν τοιούτων νομιζομένων 

178 Christ's Divinity SERM. VIII. 
Here it is observable that Justin, in answer to the charge of 
atheism, shews both what and whom the Christians worshipped : 
not God the Father only, but the Son also, and the Holy Ghost. 
The worship of these three he opposes to the worship of the 
reputed gods of the Gentiles: a plain sign of his understanding 
baptism to be an entering into covenant with all the three; and 
engaging in the service, faith, and worship of them as divine: 
yet not as three Gods, (for all antiquity declare against it;) 
neither yet as one God and two creatures, (for that is contrary 
to the supposition of their being divine, besides that all antiquity, 
and Justin in particular, is against creature-worship?: but as 
one God, the Father, with his Son and Holy Spirit. Justin does 
again, in the same Apology", assert the worship of all the three 
Persons; mentioning a difference of order, not of nature, amongst 
them. From the whole it appears that, in Justin’s account, 
the God of the Christians is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the 
same whereunto they are baptized. 

Athenagoras, almost contemporary with Justin, is our next 
author; and he affords us still stronger and more express evi- 
dence of what I am contending for. In answer to the same 
charge of athetsm, he breaks forth into this expression: “" Who 
‘“ would not be astonished to hear us called Atheists, who ac- 
““ knowledge the Father as God, and the Son God, and the Holy 
“ς Ghost; asserting their union of power (or power of unton) and 
““ distinction of order®.” Here again we may observe, that 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are opposed to the heathen deities ; 
and are also represented as distinct in respect of order, but in 
another respect ove; and consequently not as three Gods, but as 
the one God of the Christians, instead of the heathen multiplicity. 
He makes the like answer elsewhere to the same charge of 

Θεῶν ἄθεοι εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀληθε- 
στάτου, καὶ πατρὸς δικαιωσύνης καὶ σω- 
φροσύνης, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν, ἀνε- 
πιμίκτου τε κακίας Θεοῦ. ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνόν 
τε, καὶ τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθάντα, (καὶ 
διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα, καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλ- 
λων ἑπομένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαθῶν 
ἀγγέλων στρατὸν) πνεῦμά τε τὸ προφη- 
τικὸν σεβόμεθα, καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν, λόγῳ 
καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντες. Just. Apol. 1. 
cap. 6. p. 11,12. Ox. 

9 Τὸν Θεὸν μόνον δεῖ προσκυνεῖν. 
Just. Apol. i. cap. 21. Θεὸν μὲν μόνον 
προσκυνοῦμεν. Ibid, cap. 23. Since 

Justin declares 80 plainly for the wor- 
ship of God alone, in the very same 
Apology where he declares likewise for 
the worship of the three Persons, it is 
manifest that he includes all the three 
in the alone God. 

r Justin. Apol. i. cap. xvi. p. 24. 

5 Tis οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπορήσαι, λέγοντας 
Θεὸν πατέρα, καὶ υἱὸν Θεὸν, καὶ πνεῦμα 
ἅγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ 
ἑνώσει δύναμιν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει δι- 
αίρεσιν, ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένους. 

Athenag. Legat. cap. x. p. 40. Ox. 

SERM, VIII. proved from the Form of Baptism. 179 

atheism, mentioning Father and Son as the God (not Gods) 
which the Christians worshipped‘. From hence then we may 
very justly infer that the Christians, in his time, did not under- 
stand the words of the form of baptism, of God and two creatures ; 
nor of one supreme God and two infertor Gods: but of three 
divine Persons, and all but one God. 

About the same time with Athenagoras lived the author of a 
profane dialogue, ascribed to Lucian. Whatever doubt there 
may be about the author, there is little or none about the tsme 
he lived in"; which was the second century, towards the middle 
of it. Whoever he was, he appears to have been well acquainted 
with the Christian tenets, though a professed Pagan. He intro- 
duces, in a jeering manner, a Christian catechising an heathen ; 
and, among other things, instructing his catechumen in the 
mystery of the Trinity. For to the question, Whom he should 
swear by? he that personates the Christian returns this answer : 
“ΒΥ the God that reigns on high, the great, the immortal and 
ἐς heavenly, with the Son of the Father, and the Spirit proceed- 
“ing from the Father; one in three, and three in one: take 
“‘ these for your Jupiter, imagine this to be your God*.” Here 
we see what kind of instructions used to be given to catechumens, 
preparatory to baptism: for it is to those that this author, while 
he ridicules them, plainly alludes. Here we may observe what 
baptizing into the three Persons meant at that time. It was 
receiving those three as divine, and as one supreme God. It is 
not one supreme God, and two infertor Gods; but Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost are represented as being in the place of the one 
supreme Jupiter, and being all together one God. 

Pass we on, next, to other testimonies of the same thing, in 
Okristian writers of the same century. Irenssus is our next in 
order, about the year 173. He no where gives us any professed 
paraphrase upon the form of baptism: but from the creedsy which 
he hath left us, with his interpretation of them; and from what 
he has occasionally said of the three Persons, it is very manifest 

¢ οὐκ ἐσμὲν ἄθεοι, Θεὸν ἄγοντες τὸν 
ποιητὴν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς, καὶ τὸν παρ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ λόγον. Athenag. cap. XxVi. p. 122. 
Comp. cap. xi. p. 46. cap. xxii. 

p. 96. 
a Vid. Bull. Def. F. Nic. Β 73: 

Judic. p. 32. Fabric. Biblioth. 
hb. iv. cap. 16. p. 504. 
x ᾽γψιμέδοντα Θεὸν, μέγαν, ἄμβρο- 

τον, οὐρανίωνα, υἱὸν πατρὸς, πνεῦμα ἐκ 
πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, ἕν ἐκ τριῶν, καὶ 
ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία᾽ ταῦτα νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τὸν δὲ 
ἡγοῦ Θεόν. a Philopatr. p. 770. 

y Vid. 1 Tren. “ib. i. cap. 10. p. 48. 
lib. " cap. 22. p. 98. lib. iii. cap. 3 


N 2 

180 Christ's Divinity SERM. ὙΠ]. 
that he (with the Church in his time) believed the Son and Holy 
(shost to be inseparably united in the work of creation, and so 
intimate with the Father as to make (in a manner) but one self 
and one same with him?. Hence then it appears how he and the 
Church in his time understood the form of baptism: not of one 
God and two creatures joined together; (for he makes Father 
and Son one God, and erpressly denies the Son to be a creature®, 
wnplicitly denying it also of the Holy Ghost;) but of three 
divine Persons inseparable from each other, the one God of the 

Clemens of Alexandria, another excellent writer, contemporary 
with Irenzeus, is a further evidence of what we are pleading for. 
He gives us a kind of short baptismal creed, as it seems, in 
these words: ‘“‘ One Father of the whole universe, and ΟΝῊ 
' “ Worp of the whole universe, and the Holy Ghost ong, 
“the same every where’.” Clemens in this passage attributes 
the same divine omnipresence to every Person of the sacred 
Trinity; which therefore he took to be really divine, and 
not made up of God and creature. And to shew you further 
that he looked upon all the three as one God, we may cite 
another passage from him as follows: “Let us give thanks 
“to the only Father and Son, Son and Father, to the Son our 
‘Teacher and Master, together with the Holy Ghost, one in all 
“ respects; in whom are all things—to whom be glory both 

Σ Fecit ea per semetipsum ; hoc est, 
per Verhum et per Sapientiam suam. 
Tren. hb. ii. cap. 30. p. 163. 

Fecit ea per semetipsum; hoc est, 
per Verbum et Sapientiam suam. Ad- 
est enim ei semper Verbum et Sapi- 
entsa, Filius et Spiritus, per quos, et 
in quibus, omnia libere et sponte fecit. 
Tren. lib. iv. cap. 20. Ὁ. 252. 

Qui igitur a Prophetis adorabatur 
Deus vivus, hic est vivorum Deus, et 
Verbum ejus, qui et loquutus est 
Moysi, &c.—Ipse igitur Crrtstus cum 
Patre vivorum est Deus, qui loquutus 
est Moysi, &c. Iren. lib. iv. cap. 5. 
p- 232. 

Cum sit unus et idem Deus Pater, 
et Verbum ejus, semper adsistens hu- 
ary geneni, &c. Iren. lib. iv. cap. 28. 

. 266. 
‘ Is quidem, qui omnia fecerit, cum 
Verbo suo juste dicatur Deus et Domi- 
nus solus. fren. lib. 111. cap. 8. p. 183. 

Unus Deus Pater ostenditur, qui 
est super omnia, et per omnia, et in 
omnibus. Super omnia quidem Pater 
et ipse est caput Christi: per omnia 
autem Verbum et ipse est caput Ec- 
clesie : in omnibus autem nobis Spt- 
ritus, &c. Iren. lib. v. cap. 18. p. 315. 

Ὁ γεννητὸς καὶ πεπλασμένος ἄνθρω- 
πος κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν a 
γένεται Θεοῦ. τοῦ μὲν πατρὸς εὐδοκοῦν- 
Tos καὶ κελεύοντος, τοῦ δὲ νἱοῦ πράσσον- 
τος καὶ δημιουργοῦντος, τοῦ δὲ πνεύμα- 
τος τρέφοντος καὶ αὔξοντος. Iren. lib. 
iv. cap.38. Ρ. 285. See this last passage 
explained in my Defence, &c. vol. i. 
P- 530- 

@ Vid. Iren. p. 132, 153, 217. ed. 
poet See Defence of some Queries, 
vol, i. p. 515, 529. 

b Ele ae ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατήρ᾽ εἷς δὲ 
καὶ ὁ τῶν ὅλων λόγος" καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ 
ἅγιον ἕν, καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πανταχοῦ. Clem. 

lez. Ὁ. 123. 

SERM. VII. 181 

proved from the Form of Baptism. 

“now and for everc.” When he says of the three Persons, that 
they are in al respects (or entirely) one, he means that they are 
one God; as is plain from another passage, where, speaking 
of Father and Son as being one, he explains it by their being one 
God4, It is therefore exceeding clear that, according to this 
writer, Christians were supposed to be baptized, not into God and 
two creatures®, but into Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three 
divine Persons, one God. Thus far for testimonies of the second 
century, all within less than one hundred years of the last of the 

I pass on to Tertullian, at the head of the third century. 
There can be no question made of his sentiments in the present 
case. He tells us plainly, that the Father is God, and the Son 
God, and the Holy Ghost God, and every one singly God‘, and alt 
together make one God*. He says further, that this doctrine is, in 
@ manner, the prime article in the Gospel, the very sum and sub- 
stance of Christianityh. Undoubtedly he understood the solemn 
form of baptism to contain that doctrine which he teaches; and 
that being baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
was receiving those three as one God, vowing all obedience, 
adoration, and homage to them as such. Indeed this writer, 
speaking of the three Persons, and the nature of Christian 
baptism, makes every Person equally the object of our 
faith and hope, the witness of our belief, and surety for our 

Another celebrated writer, contemporary with Tertullian, is 
Hippolytus. He cites the very form of baptism, in his dispute 
against Noétus, (as Tertullian also does against Praxeas,) 
in proof of the distinct personality of Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost; but expresses withal his sentiments of the divinity 

f Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et 

ς Εὐχαριστεῖν τῷ μόνῳ πατρὶ καὶ 
υἱῷ, vig καὶ πατρὶ, ἀξ τ in καὶ διδα- 
σκάλῳ υἱῷ, σὺν καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι: 
πάντα τῷ évi' ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα.---ᾧ ἡ δόξα 
καὶ νῦν, καὶ eis τοὺς αἰῶνας. Clem 
Ped. hb. ili. p. 311. 

4 “Ἔν yap ἄμφω, ὁ Θεός. 
Ped. 110. 1. cap. 8. p. 135. 

¢ This is further manifest from 
Clemens’s declaring for the worship of 
God only, protesting against all 
creature-worship; (see p. 55. 59. 809, 
825.) and yet sainitiitig this worekin of 
all the three Persone, p. 84, 311, 851. 


Spiritus Sanctus Deus, et Deus unus- 
quisque. Tert. contr. Prax. cap. 13. 
& Pater et Filius et Spiritus, tres 

crediti unum Deum sistunt. Ibid. 

3 thia. cap. 31. 

1 Fides—obsignata in Patre, Filio, 
et Spiritu Sancto—habemus per bene- 
dictionem eosdem arbitros fidei, quos 
et sponsores salutis—sub tribus et tes- 
tatio fidei, et sponsio salutis pigno- 
rentur, &c. Tertull. de Bapttsm. 
cap. 6. 

182 Christ’s Divinity SEEM. VIII. 
of each Person. The greatest part of the paragraph relating to 
this head will be worth reciting. ‘If the Worp was with 
God, and himself was God, some perhaps may object, What, 
‘does the Apostle then make two Gods ? No; I will not say 
“ two Gods, but one; yet two Persons.—The Father one, but the 
‘¢ Persons two, because of the Son; and the therd is the Holy 
‘¢ Ghost.—Their harmony in operation (or administration) brings 
“all up to one God, for God is one.—The Father above all, the 
“ Son through all, the Holy Ghost in all. We can no otherwise 
* think of God as one, but as believing really in the Father, and 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost.—The Word of the Father, con- 
scious of the economy (of the three Persons), and that it was 
“the will of the Father to be thus (or under thts conception) 
““ honoured, and not otherwise, gave his disciples orders, after 
‘his resurrection, to this purpose: ‘Go teach all nations, 
“baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
“ Ghost :’ signifying, that whosoever should leave out any one of 
“the three, should come so far short of honouring God per- 
“ fectly ; for by this Trinity the Father is honoured. The 
“ Father gave orders (for the creation), the Son wrought (tn (2), 
“and the Holy Ghost manifested*.” From this passage of 
Hippolytus we learn these things: that Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost are three real Persons; that they are also divine Per- 
sons: and that they are not three Gods, but one God, by 
an ineffable union of power, presence, and operation. We learn 
also that this very doctrine, of such a Trintty tn Unity, was 
intended by our Saviour in the form of baptism, and given 
in commission to his disciples, to be by them taught and 
inculcated as a matter of the utmost importance. 

Our next author is Origen, who, speaking of Japtism, says, 
‘* that it is, by virtue of the invocations there made, the spring 

K Εἰ δὲ οὖν ὁ λόγος πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, 
σῦν ὧν, τὶ οὖν φήσειεν ἄν τις δύο 
ore Θεούς ; δύο μὲν οὐκ ἐρῶ Θεοὺς 

ἣ é ἕνα, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο---πατὴρ 
μὲν γὰρ εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, ὅτι καὶ ὁ 
υἱὸς, τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα .--- 
Οἰκονομία συμφωνίας συνάγεται εἰς ἕνα 
Οεόν. εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ Θεός.---ὁ ὧν πατὴρ 
ἐπὶ πάντων, é δὲ υἱὸς διὰ πάντων, τὸ" δὲ 
ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐν πᾶσιν. ἄλλως τε ἕνα 
Θεὸν νομίσαι μὴ δυνάμεθα, ἐὰν μὴ ὄντως 
πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι πι- 
στεύσωμεν---γινώσκων οὖν ὁ πατρῶος 

λόγος τὴν οἰκονομίαν καὶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ 
“πατρὸς, ὅτι οὐκ ἄλλως βούλεται δοξά- 
ζεσθαι ὁ πατὴρ ἣ οὕτως, ἀναστάς παρέ- 
δωκεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς λέγων᾽ sro 
μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες 
αὐτοὺς εἷς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ 
υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ᾿ ἁγίου πνεύματος, δεικνύων 
ὅτιπῶς bsdy ἕ ἕν τι τούτων ἐκλίπῃ, τελείως 
Θεὸν οὐκ ἐδόξασεν. διὰ γὰρ τριάδος 
ταύτης πατὴρ δοξάζεται. πατὴρ γὰρ 
ἠθέλησεν, vids ἐποίησεν, πνεῦμα ἐφανε- 
βωσεν. Htppolyt. contr. Noét. cap. 
xiv. p. 16. Fabric. 

SEEM. VIII. 183 

proved from the Form of Baptism. 

“and fountain of spiritual graces, to every one that dedicates 
“ himself to the dtvintty (or Godhead) of the adorable Trinity!.” 
All I have to observe upon this passage of Origen is, 1st, That 
he supposes baptism to be a dedicating ourselves to the service 
and worship of the whole Trinity, θεότητι, or, as it is otherwise 
read, θειότητι, to the Godhead, strictly; or, at least, to the 
cavine majesty, of the adorable Trinity. 2ndly, That he supposes 
the spiritual graces or influences to descend from all the three 
Persons, by virtue of our invocation of them; which perhaps may 
mean only by virtue of their being solemnly named; or if 
it means more, our argument is so much the stronger. The sum 
is, that in baptism we recognise the divinity of every Person 
mentioned, and acknowledge our obligations of duty, and thank- 
fulness, and adoration towards all: which cannot be made sense 
of, if one only of the three be supposed to be God, and the 
other two creatures. 

I shall subjoin to these testimonies from the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers, a remarkable passage of St. Cyprian, of the third 
century. Arguing for the invalidity of heretical baptisms, he 
asks, How any person, so baptized, can be supposed to obtain 
remission of sins, and become the temple of God? For, says he, 
“of what God (0f which of the divine Persons) is he made 
“the temple? Is it of (God) the Creator! He cannot be 
““ go without believing in him. Is it of Christ? Impossible that 
“ any one should be his temple that denies Christ to be God. Is 
“it then of the Holy Ghost! But since those three are one, how 
“is it poesible he should be at peace with the Holy Ghost, 
“while he is at enmity either with the Father or the Son™?” 

1 Τῷ ἐμπερέχοντι ἑαυτὸν τῇ θεότητι 

SpiritusSancti, ut salutare baptismum 
τῆς προσκυνητῆς τριάδος διὰ τῆς δυνά- 

non aliter ὐδὶ excellentissimsz omnium 

pews τῶν ἐπικλήσεων, χαρισμάτων ἀρ- 
ἔχει καὶ πηγήν. Origen. cit. apud 
Fr . de Spir. 5 Sanct. cap. 2 
Thie passage is something dif ifferently ta 
read in our present copies of Origen, 
though the sense is much the same. 
Τῷ ἐμπερέχοντι ἑαυτὸν τῇ θειότητι τῆς 
ως τῶν τῆς προσκυνητῆς τριάδος 
au Nioree ἐστιν ἡ χαρισμάτων θείων 

ἀρχὴ καὶ Orig. Comm. in Joh. 
p. re ed. ied 

the following citations 

from Pamphilus’s Apology : 
Ex quibas omnibus diecimus tante 
et auctoritatis et dignitatissubstantiam 

Trinitatis auctoritate, id est, Patris et 
Filii et Spiritus Sancti cognominatione 
om leatur.— Nunquam utique in uni- 
rinitatis, id est, Dei Patris incon- 
vertibilie, et Filii ejus, etiam ipse Spi- 
ritus Sanctus haberetur ; 3 nisi quia et 
ipse semper erat Spiritus Sanctus. 
Pamph. Apolog. p. 232. ed. Bened. 
τὰ Si baptizari quis apud hereticos 
potuit; utique et remissam pecca- 
torum consequi potuit. Si pecca- 
torum remissam consecutus est, et 
sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus 
est; queero cujus Dei? Si Creatorss, 
non potuit qui in eum non credidit ὁ 

184 Christ's Divinity SERM. VIII. 

From this passage of Cyprian we may remark the following 
particulars : 

1. That being baptized into Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was 
being baptized into three divine Persons, or three Persons each 
of which is God. 

2. That whoever is validly and savingly baptized does thereby 
become the temple of each divine Person, and of consequence 
the temple of God. 

3. The reason why such person is not said to become the 
temple of Gods, in the plural, but of God, in the singular, is 
because the three are one, or one God; as Cyprian clearly 
enough intimates, and his master Tertullian expressly asserts, 
as before shewn. 

4. That the denying Christ (and for the same reason any 
other of the Persons) to be God, is, in Cyprian’s account, making 
the baptism of no effect: so nearly is the sacrament iteelf, and 
the salvation of the recipient concerned in the faith of the 
divine and adorable Trinity. Upon the whole it is manifest, that 
St. Cyprian understood the form of baptism, of three divine Per- 
sons, all one God: which is utterly repugnant to the faith of such 
as understand it of God and two creatures. To Cyprian’s, I shall 
add the testimonies of two celebrated bishops of the same age, 
about the year 259; one of Rome, and the other of Alexandria. 

Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, in a letter, (wrote, very probably, 
with the advice and consent of his clergy synodically convened, ) 
very particularly explains the doctrine of the Trinity, as pro- 
fessed at that time. He calls it the most august and venerable 
doetrine of the Church; and the Trinity of Persons, the divine 
Trinity. He blames those who divide the sacred Unity into 
three separate hypostases, thereby making, in a manner, three 
Gods; being the opposite extreme to Sabellius, who made but 
one Person. At the same time he blames those as much, that 
presumed to make a creature of God the Son, and censures it 
as blasphemy in a very high degree; understanding the word 
creature according to the common acceptation, and as all men of 
plain good sense have ever understood it. The sum of his 
doctrine he gives us in these words: ‘‘ The divine Logos must 

ai Christi, nec hujus fieri potest tem- esse ei potest, qui aut oi aut ae 
pun, qui xegat Deum Christum: si inimicus est? Cypr. ad ΠΕ 

piritus Sancti, cum tres unum sint, Ixxiii. p.203. Comp. Concil. Cart 
guomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus N, ΧΧΧΙΧ. p. 335. 

SERM. Vil. proved from the Form of Baptism. 185 

‘“‘ of necessity be united to the God of the universe; and the 
“ Holy Ghost must abide and dwell in God; and the divine 
“ Trinsty must of necessity be conceived to be gathered 
“ς together, and collected, as it were, into one head, namely, into 
“‘ the God of the universe, the Almighty®.” From hence it is 
clear, that the Catholics of that time apprehended that they 
were baptized into the faith of three divine Persons, not of God 
and two creatures; and yet that those three were not three Gods, 
but by reason of their most intimate and ineffable relation 
to each other, and their union in one head, were one God. The 
other Dionysius briefly expresses the same thing thus: “ We 
““ extend the Unity, without dividing it, into a Trinity; and 
“again, we contract the TZrintiy, without takmg from it, 
“into UnttyP.” It may be rendered more briefly thus: ““ The 
“ὁ undivided Monad we extend to a J7riad; and again, the 
“ς undiminished Triad we collect into a Monad.” It is very 
plain that those primitive Fathers did not answer the question, 
how God ts one, as some moderns do, by leaving out the Son and 
the Holy Ghost, and placing the Unity in the Father only: but 
their way was to take in all the three Persons, and so to make 
up the Monad of the undivided Triad. 

Having traced the sentiments of the earliest writers upon this 
head, I may now venture to say, with somewhat better reason 
than the author of “ Scripture Doctrine,” that, ““ How this text (of 
“St. Matthew) was universally understood in the primitive 
‘‘ Church cannot be doubted ;” there being still extant so many 
writings of the ancients discovering their sentiments of it: which 
therefore may serve as the best comment, or paraphrase, not only 
upon that text, but upon the Creeds too, which ought to be in- 
terpreted by the same rule, as I shall shew presently. I shall 
not add any testimonies of Post-Necene Fathers, however many 
and weighty, because their sentiments are well known, and our 
adversaries will readily give them up to us in the present 
question?. I shall only observe, that the sense which I have 

ο Ἡνῶσθαι yap ἀνάγκη τῷ Θεῷ τῶν Ῥ Ἡμεῖς εἴς re τὴν τριάδα τὴν μονάδα 
ὅλων τὸν θεῖον λόγον. ᾿Ἐμφιλοχωρεῖν πλατύνομεν ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ τὴν τριάδα 
δὲ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι δεῖ τὸ ἅγιον πάλιν ἀμείωτον eis τὴν μονάδα συγκε- 
πνεῦμα" ἤδη καὶ τὴν θείαν τρίαδα els ἕνα, φαλαιούμεθα.  Dionys. Alex. apud 
ὥσπερ εἰς κορυφήν τινα, τὸν Θεὸν τῶν Athanas. vol. i. p. 255. 
ὅλων τὸν παντοκράτορα λέγω, συγκεῴα- «4 The Council of Constantinople, 
λαιοῦσθαί. ve καὶ συνάγεσθαι πᾶσα in the year 382, in their Synodical 
ἀνάγκη. Dionye. Rom. apud Athanas. Kpistle, speaking of the Nicene faith, 
vol.i. p. 231. do in the main express the sense of 

186 Christ's Divinity SERM. VIII- 
given of the form of baptism was, in the fourth century, 80 well 
known and undisputed, that the Emperor Julian (called the 
Apostate) made it an argument against Christ and his religion’, 
that whereas Moses and the Prophets had said, “ Thou shalt 
“ fear the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve ;” Christ 
in contradiction thereto (for so the Apostate pretended) had 
ordered his disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father, and 
“ς of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Though from what hath 
been said I take the point I intended to have been sufficiently 
proved, yet it may not be improper to throw in two or three 
general remarks to confirm it still further. 

1. The first may be taken from the known custom of the 
primitive Church, in requiring the competentes, or candidates for 
baptism, first to make a solemn renunciation of idolatry and false 
worship’, under the general title of the Devil and all his pomps, 
&c., and then immediatelyt after to profess their faith in, 
and adherence to, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. A pro- 
fession of faith was, from the beginning, always required of 
persons before baptism: we have plain examples of, and allu- 
sions to, something of that’ kind, even in Scripture itself». 
Upon these instances the Christian Church proceeded. At first, 
very probably, the profession of faith went no further than the 
minutes given in the form of baptism: but in a little time 
it came to be enlarged, as Aerestes or other incidents gave 
occasion. ‘Tertullian derives it from immemorial custom, that 
the answers in baptism were somewhat enlarged beyond what 
Christ himself had expressly determined *. It is not improbable 
that he intended this of the enlarging of the baptismal profession, 

all the Post-Nicene Catholics as fol- 
lows : 

Ταύτην yap καὶ ὑμῖν καὶ ἡμῖν καὶ 
πᾶσι τοῖς μὴ διαστρέφουσι τὸν λόγον 
τῆς ἀληθοῦς πίστεως, συναρέσκειν δεῖ. 
ἣν μόλις ποτὲ πρεσβυτάτην τε οὖσαν, 
καὶ ἀκόλουθον τῷ βαπτίσματι, καὶ διδά- 
σκουσαν ἡμᾶς πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ 
warpos καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύ- 
ματος. δηλαδὴ θεότητός τε καὶ δυνάμεως 
καὶ οὐσίας μιᾶς τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, 
καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος πιστενομένης, 
&c. Theod. E. H. lib. v. cap. 9. p. 

Particular testimonies of Post-Ni- 
cene Fathers may be seen collected in 
Petavius de Trin. 

r Vid. Cyril. contr. Julian. lib. 
1X. Ὁ. 201, 294. 

85 Quid erit summum atque pre- 
cipuum, in quo Diabolus et pompe et 
angeli ejus censeantur, quam idolola- 
tria? Tertull. de Spect. cap. iv. p. 74. 

See Bingham, Christian Antiquities, 
book xi. εἶ, 7: 

t Vid. Cyril. Hieros Catech. Mys- 
tag. i. p. 283. Apostol. Const. lib. vii. 
cap. 41. 

ἃ Acts viii. 12, 37. 

x Amplius aliquid respondentes 
quam Dominus in Evangelio determi- 
navit. Tertull. de Coron. cap. iii. p.102. 

See Wall’s Hist. of Infant Baptism, 

part ll. c.g. p. 495. 

1 Pet. iii. 21. 

SERM. VIII. proved from the Form of Baptism. 187 

or creed, beyond that form of baptiem which our Lord himself 
had prescribed; and which probably was, at first, the occasion 
and the subject-matter of the baptismal creed, as well as the rule 
and measure of it. This I offer only as conjecture. Certain 
however it is, that a profession of faith in, and adherence to, 
God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, immediately followed upon 
the abrenunciation of the Devil, &c. which is a confirmation to 
us, that as, on one hand, they renounced all idolatry and false 
gods; so their aggregation, (if I may so call it,) or joining 
of themselves to these three Persons, was intentionally receiving 
them as the true and only God. 

2. I shall subjoin a second consideration, drawn from the 
principles and practices of the ancient heretics. No sooner did 
they alter (many of them) or corrupt the true faith in the 
blessed Trinity, but they thought of altering the form of baptism 
likewise ; lest it should appear inconsistent with their novel and 
pernicious tenets. This was remarkably seen in the Tritheiatsy, 
and Praxeans*, and Valentinians*, who had all corrupted the 
true original faith in the Trinity. To conceal their shame and 
self-condemnation, and to propagate their erroneous principles, 
they innovated in the form of baptism ; which was one of the 
best fences to the true faith, and a standing. bar to most heresies. 
The like was afterwards practised by Eunomius, who was a 
thoroughpaced Arian, but a man of shrewd parts, and who 
readily perceived that it might be an easier matter to bring the 
very form of baptism into disuse, (though that was very shocking 
too,) than to root out of men’s minds the Catholic and only true 
sense of it. That form was as great an eyesore to him and his 
fullowers, as a Nicene or an Athanasian Creed, or as Dozo- 
logies and Liturgies, expressing the Catholic doctrine, are to 
some now. They were forced at length to alter the instituted 
and only regular form of baptism for others of their own 
devising; which might be more consistent with, or favourable 
to, their novel opinions. Sometimes they chose to baptize on the 
name of the Father uncreate, the Son created by the Father, and 
the Holy Ghost created by the Son’, At other times they were 
content, more briefly and with less offence, to baptize into the 

Y Apostol. Can. 39. Bevereg. 

z Via. Tertull contr. Prax. cap. 26. 8 VAL. Iren. lib. i. cap. 2. p. 94. 
Pseudo-Ignat. Ep. and Philip. cap. 1. b Vid. Epiphan. Heres. 76. 
Apost. Can. 50. cum Not. Cotel. et 

188 Christ's Divinity SERM. VIII. 

death of Christe; or in the name of the Father, by the Son, in 
the Holy Ghost. All the while, it is observable that the Catholics 
never varied the form; nor so much as inserted or added any 
thing by way of explication, or in favour of their principles. 
Hither it must be said that they had no need to do it, the form 
itself being so plainly and clearly on their side; or else that 
they were the more pious and modest men, and durst not attempt 
any the least innovation in a sacred law and institution of Christ. 
Our modern Arians‘ have not yet attempted, that I know of, to 
alter the form of baptism: but they hope to be able to disguise 
or elude the ancient Catholic sense of it. I know not whether 
it might provoke our pity or our indignation most, to find some 
endeavouring to run down the truly primstive interpretation of 
it, under the notion of new scholastic hypotheses®; and, at the 
same time, vending their own novelties and heterodoxies under the 
venerable name of antiquity. The pretence is, that the Apostles’ 
Oreed (as commonly called) is a professed paraphrase upon the 
form of baptism. And what if it were, would it do those gentle- 
men any service? Or is the faith therein contained any thing 
akin to theirs, or so much as consistent with it? But I shall beg 
leave to examine this pretence largely and distinctly once for all, 
and then conclude. It will be necessary to premise some things, 
first, of Creeds in general, and, secondly, of that Creed called the 
Apostles’ in particular. 

1. Of Oreeds in general. It is a mistake to imagine that 
Creeds were, at first, intended to teach, in full and explicit terms, 
all that should be necessary to be believed by Christians. They 
were designed rather for hints and minutes of the main credenda, 
to be recited by catechumens before baptiam: and they were 
purposely contrived short, that they might be the more easily 
retained in memory, and take up the less time in reciting. 
Creeds, very probably, at first, were so far from being para- 
phrases or explications of the form of baptism, (or of Scripture 
texts,) that they went no further, or very little further, than the 
form itself, and wanted as much evplaining and paraphrasing, 
in order to be rightly and distinctly understood, as any other 

¢ Socrat. E. H. lib. v. cap. 24. doing the business at once. (See his 
Theod. Heer. Fab. lib. iv. cap. φ Tracts, p. 429, &c.) But I know not 
d Mr, Emlyn, indeed, is for laying whether I am to reckon him in the 
baptism itself aside, among the poste- number of the Arians. 
rity of baptized Christians; which is © See Dr. Clarke’s Reply, p. 205. 

SERM. VIII. proved from the Form of Baptism. 189 

words or forms could do. Hence it was that the catechumens 
were to be instructed in the Creed, previously to baptism, for 
many days together. Jerome says, for forty days‘; and parti- 
cularly mentions the doctrine of the Trintty as the subject- 
matter of instruction for all that time. &The author of the 
A postolical Consittuttons gives us a summary of what the cate- 
chumens were generally taught, previously to baptism: and 
among the heads of instruction there intimated, the first and 
principal relates to the doctrine of the Trinity. Cyril of Jeru- 
salem has left us a whole course of Catechetical Lectures, which 
he drew up for the use of those that stood candidates for 
baptism: and there we find that he is very large and particular 
in explaining those parts of the Creed, which concern the nature, 
character, and offices of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Creeds 
would have been of small use to catechumens, without this method 
of preparatory instructions: and yet it seems to have been solely 
for the use of such that Creeds were originally intended ; being 
first. used only in the office of baptism, and but by degrees taken 
in to make a part of the common and daily Liturgies of the 
Church». From hence we see the reason why Creeds were no 
larger, nor more ezplicté; being but a kind of recapitulation of 
what the catechumens had been taught more at large, the main 
heads whereof were committed to memory, and publicly recited, 
and so became a Creed. <A short summary of credenda might 
then be sufficient, after the catechumens had been fully and 
particularly instructed in the sense of every article. I shall 
observe further, that as Creeds became gradually enlarged, it 
was rather by the addition of new articles, (new I mean with 
respect to the Creeds, and their insertion into them, though 
believed by the faithful from the beginning,) than by a more 
explicit opening of the older, except in some particular cases. 
The reason of which seems to be, that avpheations of former 
articles might ordinarily be left to the catechists to supply by 
way of catechetical instruction. It was sufficient for Creeds to 
have hinted what was most material, and to abound in matter, 
rather than in words, to answer the use intended. As heresies 

f Consuetudo autem apud nos xxxviil. p. 314. 
istiusmodi est, ut his qui baptizandi Ε Apost. Const. lib. vii. cap. 39. 
sunt, per quadraginta dies, publice p. 378. Cot. ye 
tradamus sanctam et adorandam Tn- h See Mr. Bingham’s Christian 
nitatem. Hieron. ad Pammach. Epist. Antiquities, book x. ch. 4. p. 117. 

190 Christ's Ἰ) ὐοϊηεν SERM. VIII. 

gave occasion, new articles were inserted in, or added to, the 
Creeds: not that they were originally of greater importance 
than any other articles omitted, but the opposition made to 
some doctrines rendered it the more necessary to insist upon an 
explicit belief and profession of them. To instance in the Jeru- 
salem Creed, the oldest, it may be, of any that is extant'!, The 
article of the 7rinity was undoubtedly in it from the beginning, 
and perhaps none other; and that expressed thus briefly, “I 
‘‘ believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” 
Baptism of repentance, remission of sins, Catholic Church, resur- 
rection of the flesh, life everlasting, are so many new articles, 
probably, added afterwards, as there was occasion. The rest 
are insertions and explications, giving a more particular descrip- 
tion of the nature, character, and offices of the three Persons of 
the ever blessed 7rintty: and probably these additions and 
illustrations came in gradually, one after another, as occasion 
served, in opposition to the attempts of those that endeavoured 
to alter, mutilate, corrupt, or misrepresent the Catholic faith. 
Other particulars there omitted may be as necessary points of 
faith, as some there mentioned: but those were more particu- 
larly necessary to be insisted on, at that time and in those cir- 
cumstances. Which I the rather hint, that Creeds may not be 
taken for complete catalogues of fundamentals, which they are 
not: (for indeed we shall hardly find two that have exactly the 
same articles, neither more nor less:) but for such short 
summaries of the Christian faith, as were most proper to be 
inculeated before bapttem, as an introduction to the right under- 
standing and professing the whole of the Christian religion. I 
have not room to explain myself so largely upon this head as 
the thing deserves; but I shall give one example to illustrate 
the truth of the observation. The article of 4/e everlasting was, 
very probably, wanting for some centuries in the Creeds of Rome 
and Aquileia*. Yet who can pretend to say, that that was not 
as necessary and fundamental an article of faith, as any is or can 
be? But its being so easy, and obvious to every Christian, and 
hardly at all disputed, might be the reason why, however neces- 
sary it was to believe it, it was not thought necessary to make 
any explicit mention of it in those Creeds. Having premised 
1 See Bull. Judic. p. 48, 56, ἂς 

k Vid. Voss. de Trib. Symb. Dissert.1. Thes. xliii. p.29. Fell. Not. in 
Epist. Cyprian. lxx. p. 100. 

SERM. VIII. proved from the Form of Baptism. 191 

those few things of Creeds in general, I proceed next to the 
Apostles’ Oreed in particular. 

2. It is well known to learned men, that the Creed, called 
the Apostles’, is no other than the Roman Creed. “ It has ob- 
“ tained the name of the Apostolic Creed,” as a learned and ac- 
curate author observes!, “for no greater or other reason than 
“ this: It was a custom to call those churches in which any 
“ Apostle had personally taught, especially if he had resided 
‘there any long time, or had died there, Apostolic Churches. 
“ Of these there were a great many in the eastern parts; Jeru- 
‘‘ salem, Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, &c. but in the western 
“‘ parts, none but Rome.—So that any one that in the western 
“ὁ parts of the world spoke of the Apostolic Church, was supposed 
““ 10 mean Rome—and so their Bishop came to be called the 
“* Apostohe Bishop; their see the Apostolic see, their fatth the 
“ Apostolic faith, and, among the rest, the Creed that they 
“used the Apostolic Creed, now called the Apostle’.” The 
Creed then of the Apostles (as it is particularly called, though 
other Creeds might as justly have, and really have had the name 
of the Apostles’ Creed) is certainly no other than the Creed of 
one particular Church, the Church of Rome; and is neither so 
old, (taken altogether,) nor of so great authority as the Nicene 
Creed itself: it is but imposing on the unlearned reader to re- 
commend it as a professed paraphrase, and the most early of 
any, upon the text of St. Matthew, when indeed it is no pro- 
Jessed paraphrase at all; or if it be, there is still no reason to 
prefer it to other, as valuable and as ancient, Creeds, which 
have the articles of the dtonity of the Son and Holy Spirit 
more full and express; or to the continued testimonies of 
Church writers, which, after all, make a better and a juster 
paraphrase upon the text of St. Matthew, than either the 
Roman, or any other Creed, or than all the Creeds put together. 
For, indeed, the early Creeds being designedly brief and concise, 
full of matter, contrived rather to take in many particulars, than 
to dwell much upon any one, it is not to be wondered at, if they 
be not so explicit in this or that article; especially considering 
that some Churches, particularly the Roman, were less infested 
with heresies than others, and therefore needed not so long a 
Creed ; and considering further, that whatever mistakes might 

1 Mr. Wall’s Hist. of Infant Baptism, part ii. ch. 9. ἢ. 507. 


otherwise have happened to arise, through the brevity and con- 
ciseness of the Creeds themselves, they were effectually prevented 
by previous catechetical instructions, explaining more distinctly 
and fully what was but briefly hinted in the Creeds. To con- 
clude this head: as to the Roman Creed, there is no reason to 
lay any more stress upon it than upon the Creeds of Irenzeus, 
Tertullian, or Origen; or the Creed of Jerusalem, &c. all of 
them, probably, as old or older than the Roman: nor is it to 
be expected that every Creed, or any Creed designed only for 
the office of baptism, should teach, in explicit terms, all that is 
necessary to be believed by Christians. Yet, after all, even the 
Roman (called the Apostles’) Creed, short as it is, when rightly 
understood, is diametrically opposite to the Arian principles ; 
and, if it must be called a paraphrase, is such a paraphrase on 
the text of St. Matthew as sufficiently confirms the sense which 
I have given of it. Our Saviour Christ is, in the Roman Creed, 
characterised under the title of μονογενὴς, or only-begotten of the 
Father. The meaning of that title or character was well known 
to the compilers of that Creed, and to the primitive catechists of 
the Church, who would not fail to acquaint the catechumens with 
it. The ancients are unanimous in understanding Christ's son- 
ship of his divine nature. To call him the only-begotten, or the 
Son, of God the Father, was, in their account, declaring him to 
be of the same nature with God the Father; as truly God, as 
the Son of man is truly man™, Hence therefore it is manifest, 
that the Roman Creed, though briefly, yet fully sets forth the 
divinity of Christ, as has been shewn more at large by Bishop 
Bulls, And the learned Stillingfleet, who well understood this 
matter, had good reason to say, “ That although the Apostles’ 
“Creed does not in express words declare the divinity of the 
“ three Persons in the unity of the divine essence; yet taking 

Christ's Divinity SERM. VIII. 

m Unigenttus ut solus ex Deo 

eo) proprie de vulva cordis ipsius. 
ertull. contr. Praz. cap. 7. 

Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, 
et prolatione generatum, et idcirco Fi- 
lium Dei et Deum dictum, ex unitate 
substantize. Tertull. Apol. cap. 21. 

ΠΡΝΤΟΤΟΚΟΙ at τοῦ Sater καὶ Θεὸς 
ὑπάρχει. Just. Mart. 1.1. p.12 
conn Dial. p. 183, ere 97. ᾿ 

Ὁ θεῖος λόγος ὁ φανερώτατος ὄντως 
Θεὸς, ὁ τῷ Δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισω- 
θεὶς, ὅτι , υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν 

ἐν τῷ Θεῷ. Clem. Alex. p. 86. 

Πρῶτον γέννημα εἶναι 1 πατρὶ, οὐχ 
ὡς γενόμενον------ ἑνὸς ς τοῦ πατρὸς 
καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ. Athenag. p. 38. 

Θεὸς οὖν ὧν ὁ λόγος καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ we- 
pees: ἄς. Theoph. Antioch. p. 130. 

Ut enim preescripsit ipsa natura 

hominem crederidutt esse qui ex ho- 
mine sit: ita eadem natura preeecribit 
et Deum eden esse qui ex Deo 
sit. Novat. ca 

n Bull. Ju ic, Ερεῖξε, νι at δὲ. 

SERM. VII. proved from the Form of Baptism. 108 

“ the sense of those articles as the Christian Church understood 
“« them from the Apostles’ times, then we have as full and clear 
‘ evidence of this doctrine, as we have that we received the Scrip- 
“* tures from them°.” If then we are to learn from the Apostles’ 
Creed how the words of the form of baptism were universally 
understood in the primitive Church, we must understand the 
words of that form in the same sense as those articles of the 
Creed were universally understood in the primitive Church. For 
to pretend that the form of baptism is to be interpreted from 
the Creed, as understood by the primstive Church; and at the 
same time to put a zovel construction upon the Creed itself, is 
such an affront to common sense, and such an abuse of the 
readers, as one shall seldom meet with among men of letters. 

Upon the whole, these things are evident; 1. That the sense of 
the primitive Church, in the articles concerning Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost, may be certainly known otherwise than from 
the Creeds. 2. That the Creeds themselves ought to be inter- 
preted according to that sense so known, having been so under- 
stood from the beginning, or from the time of their compiling?. 
3. That by laying of ancient testimonies together, and comparing 
of evidences, we have full and clear proof that the primitive 
Ohurch never imagined baptiem to run in the name of the Father 
only as God, and of the two other Persons as creatures; but in 
the name of three Persons, every one God, and all together the 
one God of Christians. 

And now, my Christian brethren, what remains but to exhort 
and warn you, as you tender your everlasting salvation, to abide 
evermore in that faith whereunto you have been baptized, 
and which alone can give you any reasonable confidence, or 
hope of assurance towards God. Remember those who have 
gone before you, the Apostles and primitive martyrs and con- 
fessora, “‘ whose faith follow, considering the end of their conver- 

° Stilingfleet on the Trinity, ch. ix. 

. 229. 
‘ P Ν. B. A late writer (Modest Plea, 
&c. continued, p. 54.) says, that Dr. 
W. (ἐρεακίπρ of the Creeds) is forced 
to add, “‘as interpreted by those that 
“ recite them ;’”’ and the reason of it, 
he says, is, ““ because the oldest Creeds 
“4 mention nothing of those matters,” 
i.e. the eterntty and consubstantiality 
of God the Son. To which I answer, 
1. That I had good reason to refer to 


the primitive writings for the inter- 
pretation of Creeds ; especially at this 
distance, when unlearned ers may 
the more easily be imposed upon by 
a novel sense put upon them. 2. That 
this writer betrays his ignorance of the 
oldest Creeds ; which, if they do not 
explicitly declare those articles, yet 
all, or most of them, do it tmplicitly : 
Trenseus’s, Tertullian’s, Origen’s, Je- 
rusalem Creed, Apostles’, &c. 


194 Christ's Divinity SERM. VII. 

“gation. Jesus Christ 7s the same yesterday, to-day, and 
“for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange 
“ doctrines, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, 
‘whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” What have they 
done, by reviving antiquated herestes, but disturbed the minds of 
the simple, raised confusion and distraction amongst many, and 
given a handle to Libertines, Deists, and Atheists, to insult and 
to blaspheme? What is there in Arianism, either of truth, 
or even of probability, to make us amends for these things! 
I mention not the daily inroads made upon Christian simpliciy 
and godly stncerity ; the wiles and artifices, dissimulation and 
disguises, by which it was at first promoted and propagated, and 
without which it cannot any where subsist. To this very day 
the patrons of it have no other way left, but to conceal and 
cover its deformity as much as possible; stifling of evidences 
that make against it, misrepresenting the truth of history, 
taking advantage of ambiguous terms, keeping off in generals, not 
daring so much as to own the certain and inevitable consequences 
of their principles, hardly the principles themselves ; not trusting 
either to a fair, open, and regular examination, but shrinking 
always from the very point in question; opposing, objecting, 
cavilling perpetually against the orthodoe scheme, but taking 
little or no care, either to answer, or so much as to mention, the 
main difficulties and inconsistencies visible in their own. For 
the truth of this I appeal to all who have been any thing curious 
observers of the rise, and progress, and present state of this 
heresy amongst us. They must not blame us for calling their 
doctrine heresy, which it really is, when they have the face so 
often to call ours new scholastic hypotheses, which it really is not. 
Names of reproach might have been spared on both sides, 
had not they began, and set us an example. Had they been 
contented modestly to propose their doubts, with their reasons 
for them; had they fairly and ingenuously set forth the argu- 
ments on our side of the question in their full strength, and then 
brought their own to set against them, and balance them ; had 
they been willing to acknowledge, (what is undoubtedly true,) 
that we have many and great reasons such as must weigh even 
with wise and good men, for what we believe and profess; much 
from Scripture, much from antiquity, and countenanced, now 
many centuries, by the sober and thinking part of the Christian 
world; had they freely owned this, giving at the same time 

ΒΜΈΜ. VILL. proved from the Form of Baptism. 195 

their reasons on the other side, and leaving impartial men, after 
& fair and full hearing, to judge which should outweigh: I say, 
had they took this reasonable and ingenuous method, like 
modest inquirers after truth, I know not whether any fair 
and candid man would have condemned, or not have commended 
them for it. But when nothing less will serve the turn but 
misrepresenting us, 86 following only new scholastic hypotheses ; 
when antiquity is searched only to pick out such passages 
as seem to make for one side, and much aré used even to make 
them seem 20; when our main strength from Scripture and 
from antiquity is, in a manner, totally concealed and disguised, 
and the principal objections and difficulties of their own scheme 
passed over in silence; the orthodoz, all the while, being repre- 
sented as a parcel of men overrun with prejudice and bigotry, 
preferring human and modern decisions, the words of men, before 
the infallible werd of God ; full of contradiction and absurdity, 
and bereft, in a manner, of common sense: I say, when this is 
the method which some please to take to revive an old heresy, 
such rude attacks upon our common faith, though we had less to 
say for it, are never to be justified; nor indeed are they capable 
of any kind excuse, when the men are so far from proving that 
we have been mistaken in this matter, that they dare not trust 
the merits of the cause to a fair, open, and calm hearing. 
Théy dare not venture to set their scheme in its true colours 
and naked simplicity against ours, fearing lest impartial men 
should too plainly see what advantage we are sure to have upon 
@ just comparison. It is ungenerous and mean in any cause, (in 
this it is tmpious,) not to suffer all that can justly be pleaded on 
the opposite side to appear in its full light and strength. What 
harm can there be in admitting what is truth and fact, suppose 
it relate either to Scripture or antiquity? Let the evidences 
be produced, at least; the wetght of them may be considered 
afterwards. And what if Arianism should not happen to 
prevail in this so fatr and just a method? How can it be 
remedied ? Must it be obtruded upon us, true or false, right or 
wrong, with or without reason? If there really be not evidence 
sufficient for it, or if it must be overpowered by contrary 
evidence, then this we may certainly depend on, either that the 
Arian doctrine is false, or, at the lowest, that no man can 
be obliged to think it true: which consideration alone may 
ο 2 

106 Christ's Divinity proved δο. SERM. VIII. 

be enough to satisfy any consctentious man in rejecting it, in its 
present circumstances, 

To conclude all in a few words: one thing we may require 
and demand in the present case; that before we venture to 
dethrone our God and Saviour, by bringing him down to the 
rank of creatures ; before we presume to abridge him of those 
honours, and that worship, which he has held in the Christian 
Church by a prescription of fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen hundred 
years; before we run upon what has hitherto been accounted 
blasphemy, horrid blasphemy, by the wisest, the greatest, and 
most eminent lights of the Osristian Church, in former and 
in latter ages; before we disclaim our solemn vows in baptism, 
where we dedicated ourselves to the service and warship of 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God blessed for ever; before 
we go these lengths, let us, at least, have things fairly and 
impartially examined, in sincerity and singleness of heart; 
disguising nothing, nor smothering any evidences, but com- 
paring things with things, Scripture with Scripture, reason 
with reason, and then balancing the whole account: let us 
know, in some measure, what we do, that we run not blindfold 
into our own certain damnation. In the mean while, it behoves 
us to retain steadfastly, what we have hitherto piously believed 
and professed, in the integrity of our hearts and minds. And 
may the sacred Three, to whom we once have so solemnly 
devoted all our services, accept of our sincere endeavours 
to preserve and keep up that divine honour, which has been 
hitherto (and we doubt not, justly) paid to each of them. 
To the same most holy, undivided Trinity, God the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, adoration and worship, 
in all churches of the saints, now and for evermore. Amen. 






Respecting his Book entitled 


Digitized by Google 


I HAVE read over your Reply, lately published. I perceive 
you are much disturbed at the freedom I took with you, in 
that part of my Defence which concerned you: and though you 
have, for several years last past, been acting the part of a 
censor, and a severe one too, (if we consider the ¢tntention rather 
than the effect,) upon many great, good, and learned men, ancient 
and modern; yet when it comes to be your own case to be ani- 
madverted upon, (however justly, and upon a necessary occasion, ) 
you are not able to bear it with due temper of mind. I am very 
unwilling to give you any further disturbance: and, indeed, 
were your Reply to be read only by men of letters, I should not 
have a thought of returning any answer to it. But since the 
controversy, about the ever blessed Trinity, is now spread among 
all kinds of readers, I have judged it necessary, in so momentous 
ἃ cause, to take some notice of what you have done, fur the sake 
of some well-meaning men who might otherwise happen to be 
imposed upon by it. 

You divide your work into two parts, defensive and offensive : 
the first, to take off (so far as you are able) what I had charged 
you with; the second, to retort the charge, and to raise objec- 
tions from antiquity, chiefly against the Catholic cause, which 1 
have the honour to espouse. 

My Answer, accordingly, if it shall be thought needful to 
carry it through, must consist of two parts: one to shew that 
you have not been able to take off what I had charged you with; 
the other to make it appear that your objections against us are 
slight and trivial, not capable of doing our cause harm. 



Which is to shew that you have not been able to take off what I had 
charged upon you. 

The Charge was contained under two heads: 

1. General fallacies, running through your whole book, en- 
titled Disquisitiones Modest. _ 

2. Particular defects, viz. misquotations, misconstructions, 
misrepresentations, &c. 

I do not add the epithets of gross, egregrious, or the like, as you 
are pleased to do, (Reply, p. 100,) because, if I can prove the 
facts, the reader may be left to judge how gross or how egregious 
any misconstructions, misrepresentations, &c. are: and because 
those and the like epithets or decorations, are then only useful, 
when a writer lies under the unhappy necessity of endeavouring 
to make up in words what he wants of proof. But to come 
directly to the matter in hand, I must begin with the charge of 
general fallacies, which were three, and which 1 shall take in 
their order: 

1. The first general fallacy charged upon you*, was, your 
making essence and person to signify the same. One individual 
or numerical essence you every where interpret to a Sabellian 
sense; understanding by it one individual Hypostasis or real 
Person. In your Reply, you admit (p. 5.) that the same nume- 
vical intellectual essence is, with you, equivalent to same person : 
so that the fact charged upon you stands good, by your own 

Now then, let us see whether you have dealt fairly and justly 
with Bishop Bull. I observed what influence this one principle, 
or postulatum, of yours must have upon the state of the general 
question ; and indeed upon your whole thread of reasoning quite 
through your book. For, if it appears that you have set out 
upon a false ground, you must of course blunder all the way, 
running into a perpetual tgnoratio elencht, (as the Schools call 
it,) that is, disputing besides the question : which, under pretence 
and show of confuting Bishop Bull, is really nothing else but 
confuting an imagination of your own. The question with Bishop 
Bull was, whether the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed the Son to 

® See my Defence, vol. i. p. 507. 


be of an eernal, uncreated, and strictly divine substance. But 
with you it is, whether they believed him to be the same nume- 
rical intellectual essence (that is, as you interpret it, Person) with 
the Father. Thus you have changed the very state of the 
general question, and must of course argue all along wide of the 
point. So, when you come to particular authors, you still pursue 
the same mistake that you began with. You state the question 
relating to Barnabas (Disquis. Mod. p. 7.) thus; Whether he 
makes Father and Son one numerical essence: which is the samo 
with you, as to ask, whether he makes them the same Person. 
The question is stated the same way, in respect of Hermas?, 
Clemens of Rome’, Justin Martyr4, and others. With this 
kind of grave impertinence you go on confuting Bishop Bull, 
without so much as attacking him; while the main weight and 
force of your reasonings (when they really have any) falls not 
upon any thing which he has asserted, but upon quite another 
thing, which you have been pleased to invent for him. It is 
now time to hear what you have to say in defence of this 
peculiar piece of management. Your excuses for it are reducible 
to three heads. 1st, That you did not know what Bishop Bull 
meant. 2dly, That you had interpreted numerical essence as all 
the present orthodox do, whose cause Bishop Bull is supposed to 
have espoused. 3dly, That mumertcal essence does and must 
signify what you pretend, and nothing else. Though I have 
not taken your own words, yet, I think, I have here given your 
full sense ; and more distinctly and clearly than you have done. 
I am next to examine your excuses, one by one. 

1. You did not know what Bishop Bull meant, or in what 
sense he maintained the consubstantiality. So you pretend in 
your book®, and repeat it in your Replyf, that you are “not 
“ certain whether he” (the Bishop) “ pleaded for a numerical 
‘ or specific unity of essence ;” taking it for granted that every 
numerical Unity is such as you have described; and that there 
is no medtwm between numerical, in your sense, and specijic ; 
that is, no medium between Sabellanisem and Tritheism. This 
indeed is the πρῶτον ψεῦδος, the prime falsehood which you set 
out with, and proceed upon; and which makes all your dis- 
courses on this head confused, and wide of the point. But of 
this more presently. As to Bishop Bull, if you had not saga- 

Ὁ Disquisit. Modest. p. 9. ς Ibid. p. 12. a Ibid. p. 25. 
© Modest. Disquis. p. 31. Preef. f Reply, p. 7. 


city enough to perceive what he meant, you might however 
easily and certainly have known, that he did not mean what you 
are pleased to put upon him ; because he has plainly, frequently, 
and constantly denied numerical Unity, in the sense of personal 
edenitty. His intent was not to prove that the Fathers were 
Sabellians, (as your way of opposing him every where supposes, ) 
but that they were not Arians. This you could not but know, 
if you know any thing: and therefore the method and way 
which you pitched upon, of writing against his book, was, to 
say the least of it, very unfair and disingenuous. You would 
have your readers believe that you have confuted the Bishop, 
when in reality, after granting you all that you have been able 
to prove, it is not to the purpose, is no confutation of what the 
Bishop has asserted, but of another proposition which the Bishop 
himself had disowned, as much as you can do. The charge there- 
fore of mistaking the question stands good against you; and, 
what is more, wilful mistaking, since you could not be ignorant 
that Bishop Bull did not intend to assert numerical Unity in 
that sense wherein you oppose it. This is sufficient for me in 
defence of my charge. But for the clearer apprehension of Bishop 
Bull’s meaning in relation to this matter, I will next cite you 
some of his own words : 

“ As concerning the specific Unity of Persons in the blessed 
“ Trinity, such as is the union of supposita, or persons, among things 
“ created, (for instance, of three men, Peter, Paul, and John, 
‘‘ which are separate from one another, and do not any way de- 
“ pend upon each other as to their essence,) this the Fathers of 
“the first ages never dreamed of. They acknowledged a very 
“ different union of the divine Persons, such as there is no pat- 
‘tern of, no resemblance perfectly answering to it, whereby to 
‘ illustrate it, among created beings. They explain the matter 
“‘thus: that God the Father is, as I said, the Head and Foun- 
“tain of divinity, from whom the Son and Holy Ghost are de- 
“ rived, but so derived as not to be divided from the Father's 
“ὦ Person, but they are in the Father, and the Father in them, 
“by a certain περιχώρησις, or inhabttation, so called, as I have 
“ shewn at large. Defens. Fid. Nic. sect. iv. lib. 4. Petavius 
‘“ himself contends that from this περιχώρησις, inhabitation, a 
“numerical Unity may be inferred, Petav. lib. iv. cap. 16. It 
‘is certainly manifest that this explication can no way consist 
“with the Arian hypothesis: and it is also manifest that 77 - 


εἰ theism is excluded by it, and the unity of the Godhead made 
‘consistent with a real distinction of Persons.” 

Thus far Bishop Bull, in his answer to Gilbert Clarkes. He 
speaks much te the sathe purpose also in his Defence of the 
Nicene Faith). “ As to numertoal Unity of substance of Father 
“ and Son, (which Huetius says was denied by Origen,) I can 
“make it evident that Origen acknowledged that Unity as far 
“as any of the earlier Fathers, and even Athanasius himself 
“ acknowledged it: that is, Origen believed the Father, Son, 
“ and Holy Ghost, though really three Persons, yet to have no 
‘ divided or separate existence, (as three men have,) but to be 
“ intimately united and conjoined one with another, and to exist 
“in each other, and (as:1 may 80 speak) to pervade and per- 
‘““meate one another by an ineffable περιχώρησις, which the 
* Schoolmen 0811] inhabitation : from which inhabitation, Peta- 
“‘ vius asserts that a numerical Unity must necessarily be in- 
‘* ferred.” 

From this account of Bishop Bull, it is evident that he nei- 
ther admitted specific Unity, nor numerical in your sense: and 
therefore it was very artificial of you to say that you knew not 
which of the two he intended, as if he must have meant one, 
when it is so plain that he meant neither, but utterly denied 
both. He did indeed assert, as you see, numerical Unity, but 
not in your sense, not in the Sabellian sense of personal identity. 

2. The second excuse you make for your impertinent manner 
of opposing Bishop Bull without contradicting him is, that you 
interpreted numerical essence as all the present orthodox do, 
whose cause Bishop Bull is supposed to espouse. So you tell 
us in the Preface to Modest Disquisitions!, that you dispute 
against the consubstanttality, im no other than the numerical 
sense, as asserted by al the orthodow. Now, supposing it were 
certainly true, (as it is certainly false,) that all, who at present 
pass for orthodox, understood numerical essence in the same sense 
as you oppose it in; yet would it not be fair towards Bishop 
Bull, to put that sense upon him which he so fully and so con- 
stantly disowns and disclaims. All that you should have done 
in this case, should have been to have observed, that Bishop 
Bull’s book is nothing to the purpose of the present orthodog, 
who are all Sabellians, inasmuch as he has only shewn that the 

£ Bull, Posth. Works, p. 1004. i Whitby, Disq. Mod. p. 32. Preef. 
h Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. p. 130. Reply, p. 4. 


Fathers were not Arians, has not proved that they were Sabel- 
lians. And you might have took notice on this occasion, how 
weak and inconsistent all the orthodor are, in receiving and 
applauding Bishop Bull's book, a book which has proved nothing 
which can serve their purpose; a book which is so far from 
asserting Sabellianism, that is, orthodony, (ae it is called,) that it 
rather stands in direct opposition to it. Now this would have 
been the fair open way, as well towards the present orthodoa, as 
towards Bishop Bull. Towards the latter, because it is a certain 
truth that he has by no means served the cause of Sabellianism, 
or of numerical Unity, in your sense: towards the former, be- 
cause it might have given them an opportunity of explaining 
themselves upon this head ; and they might take their choice, 
either to give up Bishop Bull and all the Fathers at once, or 
else (which is most likely) declare what you say of them to be 
pure calumny and defamation. For my part, I make no doubt 
but it is a slander upon them; and that you will be found at 
length to understand as little of the moderns, as you do of the 
ancients. 1 have good reason for what I say, from one particu- 
lar instance which I meet with in your Reply, p.102. I am 
there represented, as having “departed from the general re- 
“ ceived doctrine of the Church, from the fourth century to this 
“ present age,” for no other reason but for saying, I mean “a 
‘real person and no mode.” Is it then really so, that all the 
orthodog, from the fourth century down to the present, have 
believed a person to be a mode, that is, in plain English, a man- 
ner; and three persons to be three manners? Believe it that 
can: I have a much better opinion, nay, certain knowledge of 
them. The Catholics indeed, down from the fourth (I may say 
from the first) century, have believed that there is no disparity 
of nature, no division of substance, no difference in any perfec- 
tion between Father and Son; but that they are equally wise, 
equally infinite, equally perfect in all respects ; differing only in 
this, that one is a Father, and the other a Son, one undegotten, 
and the other begotten, as a third is proceeding: and these three 
different manners or modes of existence distinguish the persons 
one from another, perfectly alike and equal in all other respects. 
The phrase therefore of modes of exvsting,.was not designed to 
denote the persons themselves, but their distinguishing characters. 
This is what Dr. South’s authorities sufficiently prove, and all 
that they prove; and, I presume, all that he meant. For, 


though you are pleased to quote him against me, he is expressly 
for me, where he utterly denies “*that the three divine Persons 
“are only three modes of the Deity.” However that be, I take 
my accounts of the anctents from the anctents themselves. If you 
can find any one, I do not say of the fourth, but even of the 
sixth, or eighth century, to go no lower, laying it down for 
Catholic doctrine that a person is a mode, it will be kind to 
oblige us with the discovery. As to the anctents, I will be 
bound to answer for them, that what you say of them from the 
fourth century is pure invention and romance: and as to mo- 
derns, 1 am very inclinable to hope, I make no scruple to believe, 
that you have misreported them as much as you have done the 

4. Your third and last ereuse is, that numerical essence does 
and must signify what you pretend, and nothing else: and there- 
fore it was right to fix it upon Bishop Bull, who must be sup- 
posed to maintain numerical Unity. This is your meaning, 
(Reply, p. 4,) though you seldom take care to express yourself 
clearly and distinctly. To this I answer, first, that admitting 
that your sense of numerical Unity is the only true and proper 
sense of it; yet does it not follow, that you have any right to fix 
your sense upon Bishop Bull in contradiction to his declared 
sentiments. If any man has a mind to use words in an tmproper 
sense, provided he gives but sufficient notice of it, he should not 
be rigorously dealt with for it, or have a sense imposed upon 
him which he utterly disclaims. A fair and candid adversary, in 
such a case, should make allowance for words, and attend to the 
thing. To make the best of it, it is very unkind and unfair, in- 
dustriously to mistake an author's meaning, in such ἃ case, and to 
go about to confute what he certainly never intended to main- 
tain; nay, what he is known to have denied and disclaimed. 
But to come a little closer to the point; How do you prove, 
after all, that yours is the only proper sense of swmerical ? 
What if you should fail here, in the main point of all, wherein 
your great confidence lies, and for the sake of which you have 
raised all this dust upon Bishop Bull, and thrown scandal at 
large both upon ancients and moderns! It is very certain, that 
numerical or individual Unity has been and is maintained by 
Catholics, and Catholics that abhorred Sabelliantsm. Could you 

k South, Animady. c. Vili. p. 290, 291. 


prove that your sense of numerical essence is the only proper sense, 
yet you can never prove that it is the only sense it has been used 
in: so that, at length, the dispute about it would be nothing more 
than a dispute about words. 

But I will give you a plain reason why you can never prove 
your sense of the words to be the only proper sense: it is be- 
cause you can never fix any certain principle of individuation. 
It is for want of this, that you can never assure me, that three 
real Persons may not be, or are not, one numerical or individual 
substance. In short, you know not, precisely, what it is that 
makes one being, or one essence, or one substance. Here your 
metaphysics are plainly defective; and this it is that renders 
all your speculations upon that head vain and fruitless. Tell 
me plainly, is the divine substance present in every place, in 
whole or in part? Is the substance which is present here upon 
earth, that very individual numerical substance which is present 
in heaven, or is it not? Your answer to these questions may 
perhaps suggest something to you, which may help you out 
of your difficulties relating to the Trinity; or else the sense of 
your inability to answer either, may teach you to be less con- 
fident in matters so much above you, and to confess your igno- 
rance in things of this nature, as I freely do mine. 

You tell us very solemnly, (p. 4.) repeating it several times, 
that the same numerical essence neither doth nor can signify any 
more than one essence in number. Which is only telling us, that 
the same swmerical essence is the same numerical essence; aye, 
that it is: and who doubts it? or who is the wiser for these 
weighty discoveries? How shall I ever know, from thence, 
that three real Persons may not be, or are not, one numert- 
cal substance, one being, one God? You will suppose, without 
doubt, that one intellectual essence and one Person are equiva- 
lent and reciprocal. And I, on the other hand, will seppose the 
contrary, and then we are just as we began. You have not 
proved, nor ever can prove, that three real Persons may not be 
properly called one numerical substance. If you have all along 
gone upon the supposition that they cannot, you have shewn 
that you can mistake, that you can beg the question, that you 
can wander from the point in hand, can trifle much and prove 
little, and that is all. 

The sum then of what I have pleaded to make good my 
charge of the firat general fallacy is, that you have set out 

wrong, mistook the very point in question, pursued your mistake 
all along, and followed your own wanderings, instead of opposing 
Bishop Bull: that you have no excuse for understanding numerical 
essence as you do, either from Bishop Bull’s book, who never so 
understands it, or from the Catholic sense of it, ancient or 
modern, which 1s different from yours, or from the propriey 
of the phrase itself; which may, for any thing you know, admit 
of another sense, and which you have no way of confuting 
but by begging the question; which is not confuting, but rather 
tacitly acknowledging that it is not capable of any confutation. 
So much for the first article : only here I must be so just to you 
as to observe, that you do not always wander from the point in 
question. You do sometimes, indeed often, attempt to prove 
that the Ante-Nicene Fathers were of those principles which 
were afterwards called Arian. So far is pertinent, and is 
directly opposing Bishop Bull. But then I must observe 
further, that lest you should happen, at length, to fail in your 
first point of proving the Fathers to have been Arians, you re- 
serve the other point, as what you can prove and can never fail 
of, namely, that they were not Sabellians: and this is what 
the result of your arguments generally comes to, after you have 
carried them on as far as they can go. The first point is what 
you seem most desirous of proving, were it possible to do it: but 
if you cannot do that, you are content however to prove the 
latter, rather than seem to have done nothing. I should here 
conclude this article, but that two or three incidental things 
should be taken notice of, which must come in here, or no 
where. I had observed 'several guards which you had put 
in, in the general state of the question, as it were with design 
to secure a handsome retreat. You say, αἷΐ the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers; when the most, or the generality might be sufficient. 
I had reason to observe this, because Bishop Bull had, in a 
manner, given up Lactantius: besides, that it is not necessary 
to assert that every writer (suppose Clemens of Rome, or 
Barnabas) has said enough in a short epistle, from whence 
it might certainly be inferred that their principles were the 

1! Defence, vol. i. p. 508. The ge- 
neral question is thus stated : 

“‘ Whether αἱ the Ante-Nicene Fa- 
** thers professed the very same doc- 
“* trine which we ascribe to the Nicene 
“ Council; that is, whether all acknow- 

“‘ledged the same numerical essence 
“ of the Father to have been commu- 
“ nicated to the Son and Holy Ghost, 
“4 and that therefore both are one God 
“* in number with the Father.” Whstby, 

. p.2. 


same with those of the Nicene Fathers. It is sufficient, if 
as many as speak plainly either way are on our side; and 
that none of the earlier writers contradict it, but are in the 
main favourable to us, and probably, if not demonstrably, ours. 
Another guard inserted was, which we ascribe to the Nicene 
Council, instead of, which was asserted by the Nicene Council. 
The reason I had to take notice of this is apparent from 
what hath been said. Numerical essence, rather than same 
essence, was another guard: and what use you make of it is 
visible enough. That this essence, the same numerical essence, 
(or Person, as you understand it,) was communicated to two 
other Persons, is what you demand to have proved: and you 
have some pretence for cavil at the word communicated. This I 
observed before: and your Reply™ is, that what I “call a 
“pretence to quarrel at the word communicated, is indeed 
“ arguments produced against it, as it is stated by the Bishop, 
“and which J durst not meddle with nor pretend to answer.” 
The reason of my not answering your cavils against the ex- 
pression was, because it was foreign to my purpose, and because 
we were inquiring, whether Bishop Bull had truly and justly 
represented the ancients, not whether his doctrine (the same 
with the ancient doctrine) is liable to the charge of contradiction. 
If you are able to prove any thing of that kind (as you are not) 
against Bishop Bull, it will hold equally against the ancients and 
him too; and is of distinct consideration from the point which 
we are now upon. However, if our readers will pardon a small 
digression, 1 shall here examine those weighty arguments, which 
before, it seems, “I durst not meddle with.” 

You object, (Preef. p. 21.) “that the communication of 
“the Father's essence to a Person is inconceivable, because 
“the Person must be supposed to have it, to be a Person.” 
This is nothing but cavilling at a popular way of expres- 
sion. In strictness of speech, the Person of the Son is the 
very thing which is derived, communicated, generated; and 
the Father, in communicating his essence, generates the Person 
of the Son. 

You object further; “that if the same numerical essence of 
“the Father be communicated, then it is the same numerical 
“essence in both, only existing in a different manner.” To 

m Reply, p. 5. 


‘which I answer, if you mean by numerical essence, the same 
numerical Person, it is not communicated at all: for the Person 
of the Father only communicates, the Person of the Son is 
communicated: and these two Persons, or Hypostases, constitute 
the same nemertcal easence ; which consequently, as personalized 
in the Son, is begotten, as personalized in the Father, undbegotten, 
that is, exists in a different manner. The two Persons exist 
after a different manner, which two Persons constitute one 
nemorical essence; and therefore I admit that the same nu- 
merical essence does exist in a different manner in the two 

You object also", that ‘“‘the essence of the Father is unbe- 
“ gotten, the essence of the Son begotten, therefore both cannot 
“‘ be the same essence.” That both cannot be the same Hypo- 
stasis, or Person, is very certain, for the reason which you give. 
But that two Hypostases, one unbegotten, the other begotten, 
may not constitute one substance, or essence, you have not 
shewn. All these objections of yours turn only upon your mis- 
taken sense of numerical essence, and amount to no more than a 
petito principtt; while you take for granted the thing in ques- 
tion, that there cannot be two real Persons in one sudstance, or 
essence. I can tell you of some, whose judgment you much rely 
on, who must, upon their principles, allow, that the same nume- 
rical substance is both greater and less than the same numerical 
substance ;_ is remote and distant from the same numerical sub- 
stance; is contained in and contains the same numerical sub- 
stance. (See my Defence, vol. i. p. 448.) They must likewise 
adinit of being and being, in the same numerical being; substance 
and substance, in the same numerical substance: as also being 
and being, where they cannot say deings, in the plural ; substance 
and substance, where they cannot say substances; essence and 
essence, where they cannot say essences. (See my Defence, vol. i. 
p- 371, 372.) These things, perhaps, may appear new and 
strange to you; but if you please to consider them, they may 
be useful to convince you of your fundamental mistake in con- 
fining the phrase of numerical substance to one particular sense 
of your own; and may help to satiafy you that there is nothing 
absurd or contradictory in the supposition, that one and the 
same numerical substance may be both begotten and unbegotten. 

n Preef. p. 21. 


You may also please to consider that though the Catholics 
(especially after they came to express themselves accurately) 
would never, or very seldom, say, two substances, two essences, two 
spirits, two lights, two wisdoms, or two wills, any more than too 
Gods or two Lords; yet they never scrupled to say substance of 
- substance, essence of essence, spirté of spirit, light of light, wisdom of 
wisdom, will of will, in like manner, as God of Ged. All which 
is to intimate that the union is not xwmertcal, in the Sabellian, 
that is, in your sense: and yet it is aumerical in another ; inso- 
much that you cannot here speak of substances, or essences, in the 
plural, as you may of things specifically united, and no more. 

You object further°, “that the same substance cannot be 
“ subordinate to none in the Father, and yet subordinate ia the 
“ Son or Holy Ghost.” Yes, it may, if three Pergons can be 
one and the same substance, because these Persons may be sudor- 
dinate one to another. Here, again, you suppose that three 
Persons cannot be one substance. And now, is not this shrewd 
arguing, thus perpetually to beg the question? You have one 
turn of wit more, and it is against tnterior production, which you 
pretend is such a “solid argument as 1 had the wit to leave un- 
“ answered.” Reply, p.6. This “interior production,” you sayP, 
is “either the production of something or nothing.” Wonderful 
solid! Well, what if it be the production of something ? For un- 
doubtedly we do not mean it of a production of nothing, that is, 
of no production. Then you say it must be the production of 
something sew, for a production is always of something new. 
Sold again! that an efernal production must be a production of 
something new. But you cannot conceive, it may be, how any 
production should be eternal. And what if you cannot conceive 
how any thing should be eternal? I expect a proof of you that it 
cannot be. Your supposing it cannot, will give me no satisfac- 
tion. I have now run through your little quirks and subtilties 
upon this head, which yet are not yours, but as old almost as the 
controversy; despised by men of sense all along, despised even 
by yourself thirty years ago; when, with honour to yourself, and 
to the satisfaction and benefit of others, you wrote in defenee of 
that ancient faith, which now you revile and blaspheme. 

But to conclude this article, though I have, in civility towards 
you, considered your arguments drawn from the nature and rea- 

© Diequisit. Mod. p. 23. Preef. P Ibid. 


son of the thing, yet I must repeat my observation, that we may 
haye nothing to do with them, in our present inquiry relating to 
the ancients; because if they are of any weight, they are as much 
against the faith of the ancients themselves, as against Bishop 
Bull, who acknowledges no other swmerical unity than the an-— 
cients acknowledged. Having made good my first charge, I pro- 
exed to a second. | 

II. A second general fallacy. was your arguing from the ex- 
pressions of Arians (famous for dissembling and equivoeating) to 
those of the Ante-Nicene writers; men of a very different stamp 
and character, and who were not under the like temptation of 
saying one thing and meaning another. I had observed that 
you had recourse to this salvo, or fallacy, in order to elude the 
foree of some high expressions (in respeet of the Son’s divinity) 
which you met with in the Ante-Nicene writers. To this you 
reply, (p. 9.) 

1. That it ‘is not fairly suggested, that you do this when you 
“πε some expressions run pretty high and strong for the divinity 
“ of Christ: for, in all the places referred to, there is no expres- 
“sion of that nature but in the last.” If you please to look 
back to your Procemium, (p. 4, 5,) you will there find that you 
have made use of the fallacy which I charge you with, as a 
general answer to invalidate the force of most, or all Bishop 
Bull’s testimonies. You observe that the acknowledging of 
Christ to be “God of God,” or “God before the worlds,” was 
eommon to many who were utter enemies to the Nicene faith. 
You go on to prove thie further by the author of the Opus Im- 
perfectum, which author you pronounce an Arian. You pro- 
ceed to observe from Bishop Bull himself, that the Arians 
serupled not any of the Catholic forms of speech, save only the 
term consubstantial. They would say, for instance, that the Son 
was “ begotten out of the Father himself,” and was “ true God ;” 
aad they rejected with indignation the charge of making the 
Son a creature. Now, what could be your meaning in these 
remarks, but to insinuate to your reader, that let him meet with 
ever 80 high expressions of the Son’s divinity among the Ante- 
Nicene writers; yet, unless they have the very word consubstan- 
tial, they might possibly, or probably, mean no more than the 
Arians did after by the same or the like expressions! This is 

4 See my Defence, vol. i. p. 510. 


the fallacy which I complained of, and which you often occa- 
sionally reour to, both in your book and prefaces, to weaken the 
force of Bishop Bull’s authorities. "Some of the places where 
you do this, I referred to in my Defence, which the reader that 
has a mind to it may turn to; and I do not yet see that I have 
suggested any thing but what is both fair and true. 

2. A second evasion you have in your Reply (p. 5.) is, that 
you said sometimes Arians and Semiarians, whereas I have re- 
presented you, as if you had said Arians only. I do not see that 
this is at all material. If either Arians or Semiarians used 
Catholic expressions without a Catholic meaning, they come so 
far under the same predicament of dissembling and equivocating : 
and that both were notoriously guilty of so doing, is clear from 
all history of those times. The Semiarians in particular were 
often charged with it, both by Catholics and Anomsans. You 
say, further, that you likewise join mostly with them some of the 
Ante-Nicene Fathers. But you will never be able to shew that 
those Ante-Nicene Fathers were of different principles from the 
Council of Nice: so that your joining them with the others was 
either foreign to the point, or supposing the very thing in ques- 

3. You reply, thirdly, (p. 10.) that “sure it must be a very 
‘“ uncharitable censure to pronounce of near a thousand bishops 
4“ sonvened at Antioch, Seleucia, Sirmium, Ariminum, and else- 
‘“‘ where, that they were a pack of hypocrites and equtvocating 
“ knaves.”” To which I make answer, first, that I know not 
how you will be able to make out near your number. If you 
add tha numbers of the several councils, you may probably 
reckon many of the same men twice or thrice over. Neither 
were the men that made up those councils all of them Arians. 
There were but eighty of the whole four hundred at Ariminum 
really Arians. So that probably three hundred and twenty 
were imposed upon by the rest, and the charge of equivocating 
lies upon the eighty only. And it is evident, not only from 
Athanasius, but also from Sulpicius Severus, and St. Jerome, 
and indeed from all the historians, and all the accounts we have 
of that Council, that the Arians at Arnninum carried their point 
by eqguévocation and wtle; and that the Catholics, most of them, 
were imposed upon by double entendres. They went upon those 

t Pref. Disquisit. Mod. p. 8, 9, 40, 90, 109, 153, 157. 


charitable principles which you are pleased to recommend. They 
could not imagine there was so much latent insincerity and guile, 
under so many fine words and fair pretences from men of their 
own order. 

2. I answer, secondly, that there may be some difference be- 
tween charging men with equivocation and calling them knaves. 
There is a reverend Doctor, whom I scruple not to eharge with 
équtvocating. He says, in a preface 5, he has many things which 
hinder him from receding from the belief of Christ’s true divinity : 
and it is well known what he once meant by Christ's true divinity, 
when he wrote a Tract with that title in defence of it. Who 
would not charitably believe, from hence, that he still retained 
the same faith in the same true divintty? But see what he means 
by Christ’s true divinity, (Disqg. Mod. p.25.") where he commends 
Justin Martyr for maintaining Christ’s érwe divinity, making this 
an argument of it, that Justin’s sentiments were clearly opposite 
to the doctrine of the Nicene Council. Hence it is manifest 
that the Doctor egusvocates in the phrase true divinity. The 
fact I maintain ; but if from thence you will infer that he is an 
equivocating knave, remember that the im/forence is yours, and 
not mine. 

4. You reply, fourthly, as from Sozomen, “that when the 
“ Arians first appeared, many bishops, a considerable number of 
“the clergy, and no small part of the people———favoured his 
“party; and that two synods convened at Bithynia and Pa- 
“ lestine, wrote to their brethren to communicate with those 
“ Arians, as being orthodow.” And here you ask, “ Were all 
“those holy men and able judges, those synods, bishops, clerks, 
“and laity, a pack of hypocritical dissemblers and equivocating 
“ knaves?” No; I charitably believe otherwise. The synods, 
bishops, clerks, and laity, who received the Arians as orthodoz, 
were not, probably, the eqguivocating knaves, (as you choose to 
express it,) but the Arians: who, by fair words and artful con- 
Sessions, appeared to be what they were not, and so were re- 

® Ut verum fatear, multa sunt que 
me impediunt quo minus a sententia 
de vera Christi Deitate recederem, id 
solum contendo ὅς, Whitby, Disq. 

gle 3. Pref. 
t Whitby, de vera Christi Deitate : 
Tractutus, ann. 1691. 

Ὁ Magnam admirationem mihi in- 
jecit iniqua eorum sententia, qui Jus- 

tinum M. Christians fidei simplici« 
tatem, in doctrina de Christi pre- 
existentia, Veraque Deitate, adulte- 
rasse suspicati sunt; quo Patrum 
nemo, (leg. seminem,) meo quidem 
judicio, vel plura vel clariora adver- 
sus Synodi Nicene placita docuisse, 
facile est demonstrare. Whstby, Disq, 
Mod. p. 25. 


ceived as orthodom. You will remember that the principal of 
those holy men and able judges that promoted Arius’s interest in 
the Synod of Bithynia, was Eusebius of Nicomedia; the same 
man that afterwards professed *his assent and consent to the 
Nicetio Creed, as the true Catholic faith; and excused his not 
consenting to the anathematizing of Arius upon this foot, that 
he thought Arius had been much misrepresented, and that he 
knew from Arius’s own letters that he wae not the man that 
the Council took him to be. Now if Eusebius, the principal 
man of the Synod of Bithynia, was thus imposed upon by 
Ariuve’s fair pretences, no doubt but he represented Arius’s 
case to the Synod, as favourably as he himself had conceived of 
it: and then no wonder if a man was received as orthodox, who 
was really believed to be orthodow. If you think that Eusebius, 
all the while, knew that Arius was not orthodow, in my serse of 
the word; admitting that, yet he might, for any thing I know, 
represent him as such then, as well as he did after: if so, the 
only equévocating knave might be Eusebius of Nicomedia; the 
rest might be imposed upon by his representations and colour- 
ings. Holy men and able judges can judge no otherwise of facte 
but as they are reported: and how could it be remedied, if Arius 
happened to get good testimonials, though himself an ill man! 
But enough of this matter: as to the Arian custom of equivo- 
cating, and thereby imposing upon honest men, the fact being 
plain, I shall insist no longer upon it, only referting to a few 
authorsy who give a summary account of it. 

111. A third general fallacy, just hinted in my Defence, 
(p. 511.) was, your arguing against the faith of the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers, in respect of Christ's real divinity, from this topic; 
that they often distinguish God from Ohriet, and call the Father 
God absolutely. 

Here again you complain of me for unfair dealing. But how, 
or wherein am 1 wnfair towards you? You say (Reply, p. 11,) 
“that your firat instance of this nature is from the epistle of 
*¢ Clemens Romanus, where he constantly separates (distinguishes 
“you mean) Jesus Christ from that God, whom he styles the 
“true and only God, but never once calls him God.” If this 
answer be any thing pertinent, I suppose your meaning is, that 

x Sozom. E. H. lib. ii. cap. 16. Cave’s Life of Athanasius. Cave, 

p. 378. Epist. Apol Clerc. Epist. 
Bull. Def. Fid. Nie. p. 293. Crit. ii. Ἢ ae os ἊΝ 


your argument did not turn upon this, that Ofrist was distin- 
guished from God ; but upon theese further considerations, that 
Christ is constantly so distinguished by Clemens, and never once 
called God. You may, if you please, call all those considerations 
put together, one argument: but they appeared to me to be 
distinct and several. You observe tof Clemens, that he perpe- 
tually distinguishes Christ from God, (Christwm a Deo perpetuo 
distingust.) This was one oonsideration, or presumption in 
favour of your principles. A second you add immediately after, 
Deum vero ne semel nuncupat, But he never calls Christ God. 
You proceed to illustrate your first observation by such in- 
stances as these following; that Clemens wishes grace and 
peace to the Corinthians from Almtghty God, by Jesus Christ; 
that he introduces (chap. xx.) the great Creator and Lord of the 
Universe distributing his blessings by Jesus Christ ; that Christ 
was sent of God, chap. xli. and that the Apostles had their 
commission by Christ from God, chap. xlui. Now to what 
purpose were these several instances produced, except you 
intended them as so many arguments against Clemens’s be- 
lieving Christ to be consubstantial with him whom alone he 
calls God, and from whom he distinguishes Christ ? But I insist 
upon it, that there is no weight at all in this argument. Nothing 
has been more common with writers, who have fully believed 
the doctrine of a coeternal Trinity, than this manner of speak- 
ing ; especially when they have been thinking on another subject, 
and had no occasion to speak of Christ’s divinity. And what if 
Clemens, or Polycarp, or any other writer, in a short epistle, or 
tract, has spoke of the Father only, under the title of God, and 
of the Son as Lord, or Saviour, or High-Priest? How often 
might the same thing be observed in modern treatises, or 
sermons of very orthodox men! I see no consequence that can 
be justly drawn against our principles from these premises. 
And if Clemens called the Father the only God, or only frue 
God, though that be a distinct argument from the former; yet 
neither does it prove any thing more than the other, as I have 
shewn in another place®. 
But you refer me to some collections of yours in another book> 
from Origen: who, it seems, in his book against Celsus, distin- 
guishes and separates (so you say, p. 12.) Christ from him who is 

2 Disq. Mod. Ρ' τό. ® Sermon iv. p. 84, &c. of this volume. 
Preef. de S. Script. Interpr. p. 34, 35- 


God above all; and declares, in the name of the generality of 
Christians, that Christ is not the God above all. This is not 
pertinent to the point in hand, having no relation to the fallacy 
I charged you with, nor belonging to the book which I was 
animadverting upon. But that I may not stand upon niceties 
with you, I will give you an answer to this new pretence. It is 
very certain that Origen never intended to deny that Christ is 
God above all; because all Catholics‘, (I might say Aeretics too 
for the most part,) both before and after Origen’s time, as well 
as Origen himself, understood Rom. ix. 5. of God the Son, there 
styled ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, or God above all. Yet there is a cer- 
tain sense in which the ancients have denied Christ to be the 
God above all; namely, when so understood as to make Christ 
the very Person of the Father, as the Sabellians understood 104, 
or to set him above the Father‘, or above the Creatorf of the 
world, as some other heretics pretended. In this latter sense it 
is, that Origen denies the Son to be God above all; as he had 
reason to do, because it would have been denying his subordina- 
tion and sonshtp, and inverting the order of the Persons, to have 
‘asserted that Christ was in any sense above the Father, or so 
God above all, as to have the Creator, or Father, subordinate 
to him. 

Notwithstanding all this, Origen himself, in the very page 
before that which you refer to, asserts and maintains the Catho- 
lic doctrine in full and express terms, the very same doctrine 
that we contend for at this day. For, having objected to Cel- 
sus& the worship of many Gods, telling him that if he would be 
consistent with his principles, he should not talk of the kingdom 
of God, in the singular, but of Gods, in the plural; he then 
bethinks himself that the argument might be retorted upon 
Christians, as worshipping two Gods, viz. the Father and Christ. 
Here was the critical place ; here, if any where, we shall see of 
what principles Origen was. Well, how does Origen get rid of 
the objection? Not by saying that the Father only is God, in a 
proper sense: not by saying that the Father is supreme God, 
and the Son another God under him. No; he was wiser than to 

© See the testimonies in Mills; and __ © Origen contr. Cels. p. 387. Basil. 
my Sermons, p.142 of this volume. Epist. lxxviii. p. 892. 

4 Vid. Apost. Constit. — £ Vid. Iren. p.101, 106. of Bened. 
Pseud-Ignat. Ep. ad Tars. cap.s. Ad Origen in Matt. p. 476. Huet 
Philip. cap. 7. εκ Vid. Origen. p. 385, 386. 


make himself ridiculous to Jew and Gentile by such a weak 
answer. But he solves the difficulty by asserting the Unity of 
Father and Son: and, after he had guarded his aseertion from 
any Sabellian construction, he triumphantly closes up all in these 
‘words; ‘“ We therefore, as I have shewn, worship one God, the 
“ Father and Son}.” Thus he at once cleared the Christian 
doctrine from Polytheism, and made good the charge against the 

From what hath been said it may appear, that Origen has 
denied no more than all Catholics deny, namely, that the Father 
ts subordinate to the Son; and has asserted as much as any 
Catholic contends for. We do not say that Christ is that Per- 
son who is ordinarily and eminently styled God above all; nor 
that he is in any sense or respect above the Creator, or above 
God the Father, being subordinate to him ; but we assert that 
he is essentially one God with him whu is the Father, and, as 
such, is God above all: and this very doctrine is plainly Origen’s, 
as well as ours. You have forced me into this digression, by 
making your objection in a wrong place; and therefore let that 
be my excuse to the reader for it. Now I return. 

I have run through the three general fallacies which I charged 
you with. Your feeble endeavours to take them off prove inef- 
fectual: and they now return upon you with the greater force. 

I am next to consider the particular defects. But, before I 
proceed further, it will here be proper to remove a complaint of 
yours, which you repeat more than once; it is a complaint of my 
management and conduct relating to your book. 

You tell me (p. 2.) that I “ have not defended any of the 
‘“* Bishop’s arguments which you had produced and answered ; 
‘‘nor made any reply to those numerous arguments which you 
“ὁ produced from the Ante-Nicene Fathers against mine and the 
““ Bishop's sentiments.”—In another place you say thus, (p. 57,) 
“ He is obliged, if he would indeed defend the Bishop, to invali- 
“ς date and refute the answers that I have given to all his argu- 
‘“‘ ments, and to do this entirely, and not by culling out two or 
“ three instances, and leaving all the rest in their full strength ; 
“that being in all the other cases, to leave the Bishop in the 
“« lurch.” 

By all this you seem to think that Bishop Bull's celebrated 

Β΄ Ἕνα οὖν Θεὸν, ὡς ἀποδεδώκαμεν, τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν vidy θεραπεύομεν. p. 386. 


performance is in some danger of sinking in its character, if 
your Modest Disquisitions be not particularly answered, para- 
graph by paragraph; and that I ought to have paid so much 
respect to your Work, as either not to have meddled at all with 
it, or to have attended you all the way through it. Now, as to 
this matter, I will here frankly declare to you my real thoughts, 
in the following particulars : 

1. In the first place, I am so far from apprehending any danger 
to Bishop Bull, and his cause, from your book, that I should 
never have given myself the trouble of remarking at all upon it, 
had it not been given out to English readers (who must take 
such things on trust) that Bishop Bull’s famed piece would 
receive an answer, such as should satisfy a learned and un- 
prejudiced persons. 1 knew that a Latin book could do no 
harm, but among those that could read Latin: and such 1 
thought might, for the most part, be very safely trusted, having 
Bishop Bull’s book to compare with yours, which alone is suffi- 
cient to answer for itself, with men of any judgment. The dan- 
ger was not from the book itself, but from the reports made of it : 
and it concerned me to take care that English readers might not 
be imposed upon ; which was one principal motive of my doing 
what I did. 

a. I considered further, that this controversy being of all others 
the most nice and intricate, and in which it is the easiest for a 
writer, that has a mind to it, to confound and puzzle such 
readers as have not been conversant in it; I say, I considered 
that it might be useful even to eome Latin readers to point out 
the principal flaws and fallacies in your performance, which when 
done, your whole book is in a manner answered ; or however 
answered as far as is needful, to prevent any honest man’s being 
imposed upon by it. 

4. You will give me leave to tell you, with all due respect, 
(however frankly,) that a writer who begins, and proceeds as 
you do, has no reason to expect an answer paragraph by para- 
graph ; because there is a shorter and much better way of deal- 
ing with authors that are not careful to write pertinently. Who, 
do you imagine, would be at the trouble of telling you a hundred 
times over, that this argument is good against the Sabellians, 
and in such ἃ sense of numerical essence as is not to the purpose ; 
but in Bishop Bull’s sense, and in the true sense, the argument is 
of no weight at all? One short general answer is sufficient in such 


a case; and is in reality as long as the objection, which is only 
repetition of the same thing. Had you stated the question fairly, 
kept close to the point in hand, arguing pertinently at least, if 
not solidly, all along, directly opposing that, and that only, which 
Bishop Ball undertook to prove; then indeed it might have 
concerned us to attend upon you all the way through, and to 
have defended the Bishop against your attacks. But when 
instead of this, you set out upon a wrong foot, and wander wide 
and far from the mark you should have aimed at: when, instead 
of attacking Bishop Bull directly, you encounter for the most 
part a phantom of your own, and fight with your shadow: in 
such ἃ case as this, we have no need to be solicitous about the 
Bishop. Those formidable preparations, which might be other- 
wise apt to strike terror into us, are happily diverted another 
way: all we have now left to do, is to stand by unconcerned, 
look on, and smile. These are my reasons, why I hold myself 
excused from making any more particular answer to your nume- 
rous arguments, as you are pleased to call them. You may give 
us leave to judge how far our cause may be endangered by what 
you have done: and if we who are friends to the Bishop and his 
cause, are in no pain about either, nor at all afraid of leaving 
them wn the lurch, you may be very easy. Now I proceed to 
make good the particulars of the charge upon you: mtsquota- 
tions, misconstructions, misrepresentations, reviving of old and trite 
objections, concealing the answers, &. These, I think, reach to 
about twenty particulars, which shall all be considered in the 
same order as laid down in my Defence. 

I. I charge you! with a mtsquotatson* of Polycarp’s Doxo- 
logy, recorded in the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna. You 
left out, as I said, the two most material words, σὺν αὐτῷ, on 
which the Bishop’s argument chiefly depended. You aeknow- 
ledge in your Reply (p. 13.) that you left those words out; and 
the reason you give is, because “ they are neither in the edition 
‘* of Bishop Usher, nor of Cotelerius, from whom you cited the 
“ passage.” This answer, give me leave to say, is more unkind 
to yourself than the charge I made. I had compared the dif- 
ferent readings of the Doxology in the two editions, Eusebius's 
and Bishop Usher's. I considered, that if you should pretend 
to follow Bishop Usher and Cotelerius, you had falsified in two 

1 See my Defence, vol.i. p.511. © Disquisit. Mod, p. 22. 


places, changing μεθ᾽ οὗ into δι᾽ οὗ, and καὶ πνεύματι into ἐν πνεύ- 
part, which are very material alterations. But if you should 
pretend to copy from Eusebius, there you had left out σὺν 
atro. The latter being a sin of ontsston only, and more excus- 
able than putting words into the text, I chose to fix the charge 
there where it might fall the lightest, and seem rather a slip 
than any ill design. I had another reason, why I was willing 
to charge it as an omission out of the text of Eusebius; and that 
was because Bishop Bull had followed Eusebius’s copy. Now if 
you had a mind to take another reading from Usher and Cote- 
lerius, you should have given notice that Bishop Bull had made 
use of a faulty copy, before you had triumphed over him; and 
should have observed that Usher’s and Cotelerius’s reading was 
the true one. But not a word do you say of this; and the rea- 
son of your deep silence, in this respect, is very evident. Bishop 
Bull’s argument was strong and good, according to Eusebius’s 
reading: and according to Usher’s and Cotelerius’s, it would 
have been still stronger and fuller. Since therefore neither of 
the readings would serve your purpose, you lay aside both, and 
invent a new one of your own!: and then you might securely 
insult over the learned Prelate, having a ¢ezt and comment both 
of your own contriving. 

But, you say, the words, “as they lie in Eusebius thus, δι᾽ 
“αὐτοῦ σὺν αὐτῷ, (you mean & οὗ σὺν avr@,) want good sense, 
“it being improper to say by the Son be glory to the Father 
“ with the Son.” Be it proper or tmproper, you ought to cite 
passages of authors as you find them: besides that very wise 
men, ancient and modern, have judged the expression very pro- 
per: and it will be thought that the compilers of our Oommu- 
nion Office, who scrupled not to say by whom, and with whom, 
&c. understood what good sense is, as well as the Modest 

II. A second mtsquotation ™ I charged" upon you was of a 
passage in Athenagoras®. You was pleased to change πρὸς 
αὐτοῦ into πρὸς αὐτὸν, for no reason that I could see, but to 

} The readings of the passage. Coteler. 

As’ οὗ σοι σὺν αὐτῷ, ἐν πνεύματι τ Whitby, Disq. Mod. p. 62. 
ἁγίῳ. Euseb. E. Η. lib. iv. cap. 15. Ὁ Defence, vol. 1. p. 511. 

At’ οὗ σοι, ἐν πνεύματι a Whit- = Πρὸς αὐτοῦ γὰρ, καὶ δ αὐτοῦ 
by, Disq. Mod. p. 22. πάντα ἐγένετο. Athen. Ὁ. 38. Ox. 


make ἃ weak insinuation against the divinity of God the Son. 
In your Reply (p.13.) you say; “‘ Now this, I confess, is casually 
*‘ done, but (you mean and) without design.” But these casual 
slips have an ill appearance, especially in so noted a place as this 
of Athenagoras. You could not forget that this very πρὸς αὐτοῦ, 
in Athenagoras, is what we set a particular note and value upon, 
as shewing that the ancients did not always say δι᾿ αὐτοῦ only, in 
respect of the Son’s part or office in the work of creation, but 
sometimes πρὸς αὐτοῦ, a phrase which may express the efficient 
cause, and is not lable to the same exceptions as the phrase δι᾽ 
αὐτοῦ. Now, to falsify a testimony of this kind, though casually, 
betrays however great negligence or oscitancy. You observe 
that ab eo tanquam exemplars, serves as well your turn, as ad 
eum tanquam exemplar. That is, if we will allow you your con- 
struction. But you cannot make the former so easily, or so pro- 
bably, out of πρὸς αὐτοῦ, as the latter, out of πρὸς αὐτόν : besides 
that by changing πρὸς αὐτοῦ into πρὸς αὐτὸν, you took from us 
one sense of the words which we might think it proper to insist 
upon, namely, that of an efficient cause. Πρὸς αὐτοῦ, if it may 
be construed your way, may also be construed another way, and 
perhaps more naturally: and therefore we take it not well to be 
deprived of any advantage which the text gives us. I must how- 
ever observe, that whatever your design was from these words, 
they will not answer your purpose, even though we should admit 
your construction. For no consequence can be drawn against 
our principles, from the consideration of the Son’s being the ev- 
emplar, after which all things were made; unless you can imagine 
that he was an exemplar to himeelf. 

III. The third thing I charged you with P, was ἃ misconstrue- 
tion ἃ of a celebrated passage in Methodius’. The passage I 
had produeed in my Defence, to prove the edernal generation of 
‘the Son, as Bishop Bull also had done*. You expressed your- 
self somewhat obscurely in answer to the Bishop. Only this 
was plain from your words, (/rustra presule renttente,) that you 
intended something opposite to the Bishop, and insinuated to 
your reader that this quotation of Methodius proved the very 
‘contrary to what the Bishop alleged it for. Now the Bishop 

P Defence, vol. i. p. 511ν my Defence, vol. i. p. 357. 
4 Disquisit. Mod. p.75, 76. ® Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. p. 164, 200, 
τ Method. apud Phot. p. 960. See 


had cited it in proof of the consubstantiality and cocternsty of the 
Son: to which purposes it is indeed as full and clear as any can 
be desired. You are pleased however in your Reply (p. 15.) to 
object as follows : 
1. That “to say that the Son of God was preexistent before 
‘‘ the ages in the heavens, is to say no more than all the Arians 
* and Semiarians have asserted, ὅσο." But the foree of the 
Bishop’s argument and mine did not lie in the words πρὸ αἰώνων 
(though they are not without their weight t, however the Anans 
or Semiarians might eqguévocate,) but in those other words of 
Methodius, that the Son was, did not become, a Son; that he 
‘had no new filiation; that he ts always the same; and in Metho- 
dius'’s guarding against the supposition of a temporal generation, 
by his explaining it of a temporal manifestation only. Why do you 
overlook and conceal the main points wherein our argument con- 
sisted, and make reply only to that which neither Bishop Bull 
nor I laid any stress upon? But it was prudent, it may be, to pass 
over what could not be answered. 
2. You object to us some other passages of Methodius to 
eonfront ours with. He calls the Father dvapyos ἀρχὴ, @ prin- 
eipium, that had no begining. So you translate: might you not 
as well have rendered it, a beginning that had no beginning? But 
that would not have served your purpose; the true rendering is, 
8 principum or head, that has no principium or head. But you 
had a mind to the words no begenning, to insinuate as if Metho- 
dius had said this of God the Father in contradistinetion to God 
the Son, who had a beginning; though Methodius says no such 
thing. He says indeed that the Son is ἀρχὴ, a principle or head, 
after the Father: that ie, the Son is the fountain of all things 
after the Father; not in time, but in order; the Father being 
alwaye primarily considered as Head and Father of the Son. 
The sum then of what Methodius has there said is, that the Son 
has a Father, and that the Father has none. What Catholic 
would ever scruple to assert the same thing! No one ever 
doubted but that the Father alone was ἄναρχος, the Son not 
ἄναρχος in thie sense ®. 
3. You object, thirdly, the following words, (for I see not the 

t See my Defence, vol. i. p. 355, p. 563. Damascen. de Fid. lib. i. 
Ἵ cap. II. p. 42. 
Ὁ Vid. Gregor. Naz. Orat. xxxv. 


sense,) “ Methodius adds that these words might be congruously 
“ applied to him, (the Son,) In the beginning God created the 
** heaven and the earth; and those of Solomon, The Lord created 
“me the beginning of his ways.” Now what can an English 
reader make of these two passages, as you have represented 
them and tacked them together? From the last of them, 
I suppose, he is to understand that the Son was created, ac- 
cording to Methodius. But then what will he make of the 
text out of Genesis! Is he to understand that the Son was 
created with the heavens and the earth, in the beginning? So 
one might think, and you are very indifferent, I perceive, what 
your English reader may apprehend, provided you may but 
seem to have something to say, and something that may reflect 
dishonour on the Son of God. As to the passage in Genesis, 
Methodius interprets ἐν ἀρχῇ, (which we render én the begtn- 
ning,) in the Principle; understanding by Principle God the Son, 
tn whom all things were created, according to St. Paul, Coloss. 1. 
17. Now since, according to Methodius, all things whatever 
were created in the ἀρχῇ, i. e. in God the Son, it is plain that he 
exempts him from the number of creatures. As to the other 
text, out of Solomon’s Proverbs, you have, without any ground 
or warrant from Methodius, rendered ἔκτισε created, instead of 
appointed or constituted. The meaning probably is, according to 
Methodius, that the Father appointed, or constituted, God the 
Son as the ἀρχὴ, the principium, foundation, or head over all 
creatures. This kind of construction of that place of the Pro- 
verbs, appears to have been known and received in the Church 
some time before Methodius; as is plain from Dionysius of 
Rome, his comment upon the text: which was afterwards coun- 
tenanced by EusebiusY and other Catholic writers?. Athena- 
goras, much earlier than any of them, must have understood the 
text nearly in the same sense. For after he had declared ex- 
pressly against the Son’s being made or created, asserting his 

% ἝἜκτισε γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἀκουστέν * Non enim ita sapientiom cuam 
ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπέστησε τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ yeyo- condidit, quasi aliquando siue sapt- 
νόσιν ἔργοις, γεγονόσι δὲ δι’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ entia fuerit—— Hoc imitium habeat 
υἱοῦ. Dicey. Rom. apud Athanas. περ μαίας Dei quod de Deo procesest 

232. creanda omnia tam celestia quam 

Y “Apyew δὲ τῶν ὅλων ὑπὸ κυρίου τοῦ terrena; non quo cceperit esse in Deo. 
αὐτοῦ πατρὸς katareraypévos' τοῦ ἔκτι- Creata est ergo sapientia, imo genita, 
σεν ἐνταυθ᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ κατέταξεν, ἣ xaré- non sibi quée semper erat, eed his que 
στησεν elpnudvov. Fused. Eccl. Theol. ab ea fieri oportebat. Pseud-Ambros, 
lib. iii. p. 151. de Fid. Orth. cap. ii. p. 349. 


procession from the Father to be a kind of substratum or support 
for the world of creatures to subsist in, receiving from thence 
their proper forms, order, and perfection ; he immediately cites 
this text out of the Proverbs, as confirming his sentiments 8. 
To return to Methodius: he barely cites the text to prove that 
Christ was prior to the creation, and that all creatures had their 
subsistence in him. He is not so particular in explaining the 
sense of ἔκτισε, as Dionysius of Rome, or Eusebius: but it is 
more than probable that he understood it much in the same 
sense. Certain it is, that your construction of him is entirely 
unwarranted; and not only so, but contradictory to the author's 
known principles elsewhere. Upon the whole, you have not 
been able to answer Bishop Bull’s citations out of Methodius, 
nor to make good your own pretences against Methodius’s or- 
thodoxy. Instead of taking off one mtsconstruction which 1 had 
charged you with, you have only added to it: and have been so 
far from acquitting yourself of your first offence, that you have 
more than doubled it. 

IV. A fourth thing which I charged> upon you, was a mis- 
representation and misconstruction‘ of a passage in Dr. Cave 4. 
I blamed you for insinuating as if Dr. Cave had said or meant, 
that many or most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers were against the 
divinity and eternity of Christ. That you really intended to in- 
sinuate as much is confessed in your Reply, where you tell me 
(p. 26.) that “the natural import of the words” (Ir. Cave’s words) 
* contains a full confutation of the whole design of my book, 
‘‘ which is to prove that all the Ante-Nicene Fathers maintained 
“ the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and the 
“ eternal generation of the Son.” 

I have not mistaken then as to the matter of fact, that you 
really did snstnuate what I had charged you with. That you 
was to blame for so doing, will easily be made appear as plainly 
as the other. Two things I before observed; ist, That Dr. 
Cave’s words ought not, without a manifest necessity, to have 
been interpreted to a sense directly opposite to his well known 
and often declared sentiments: 2nd, That there was no such 
manifest necessity in the case before us; but rather some pro- 

® Vid. Athenag. cap. x. p. 38,39, “ Whitby, Disquis. Mod. p.97. 
40. d Cave, listor. Liter. πος i. p.112. 
Ὁ Defence of Queries, vol. i. p.512. 


bable grounds, even from the passage itself, for interpreting 
Dr. Cave’s words otherwise than you have done. Now as to Dr. 
Cave’s real sentiments, relating to the faith of the Ante-Nicene 
writers, I appeal to the passages appearing in the margin 9. 
You may there see that Dr. Cave looked upon the eternity of 
the Son as part of the Christian faith from the very tnfancy of 
the Church; that it had been constantly taught by the Catholic 
Fathers ; and that none but mere strangers to antiquity could 
make any question of it: that the most effectual way to confute 
Arians, &c. is, after Scripture, to appeal to the constant umversal 
consent of the ancients; with more to the same purpose. Is 
this the man whom you quote on your side? I may add that 
his Apologetical Epistle runs much upon this topic, to vindicate 
the primitive Fathers against such aspersions as you, among 
others, are too apt to throw upon them: and there needs 
nothing more to shew that he was perfectly in my sentiments as 
to that particular, and directly opposite to yours. You may 
say, perhaps, that Dr. Cave was inconsistent with himself; and 
at different times, upon different occasions, asserted repugnant 
propositions. But, with submission, I think it a piece of justice 

© Aternitatem Filii, ejuasque σύνδρο- 
μον τῇ ἀρχῇ τὸ εἶναι (quemadmodum 
non inscite loquitur Cyrillus Alexan- 
drinus) concurrentem cum paterno 

incipto existeniiam, constanter do- 
cuisse Catholicos Patres, antiquitatis 
eoclesiasticee rudis plane sit oportet 
qui nescire potest; nec pluribus jam 
probare opus est Ως cumulate pre- 
stiterunt alii. anc ecclesiz fidem 
ab ipsis Christianisms primordiis tra- 
ditam, et perpetuo conservatam, omni 
quo potuerunt nisu totieque viribus 
oppugnarunt Amani. Cay. Diss. 3. 

cale. Hist. Lat. p. 72. 

Liquet, non esse efficaciorem he- 
reses refutandi rationem, quam si post 
allegatam SS. Scripture auctoritatem, 
constantem et universalem veterum 
-consensum ad patres nostras advoce- 
mus. Expertus est id Theodosius 
Imperator an. 383. quando Catholicos 
Episcopos cum Arianis, Macedonianis, 
Eunomianis, coacta synodo, confligere 
vellet; suadebat potius Nectario et 
Agellio, qui ipeum consuluerant, 5i- 
sinnius, ut interrogarent hereticos 
istos num admitterent illos doctores 
atque interpretes Scripturarum, qui 


ante ecclesize dissidium floruissent. 
Cav. Ep. Apol. p.22. Vid. etiam p.17. 
Monebo tantum, in Patrum Scriptis 
Dogmata Philosophica a fides articulis 
robe esse distinguenda. In his, S. 
iteris et Catholicse traditioni strictius 
se alligant, et in Re1 SumMA OMNES 
CONVENIUNT: inillis majori utuntur 
libertate, et opiniones seepiue adhibent 
quee in philosophorum scholis venti- 
lari solebant; quin et in explicandis 
fidei mysteriis quandoque voces e 
schola Platonica petitas admovent, sed 
ad Christianum sensum accommoda- 

‘tas. Ibid. p. 48. 

Profiteatur (J. Clericus) se cum 
Ecclesia Catholica oscere, Deum 
esse essentia unum, Personis trinum, 
nempe Unitatem in Trinitate, et Tri- 
nitatem in Unitate se colere ac vene- 
rari; credere se, Jesum Christum ve- 
rum esse et eternum Dei Filium, Patri 
vero ὁμοούσιον, et tov———tunc 
demum intelligemus fidem ejus in 
principibus his doctrine Christianese 
capitibus, rectam esse, orthodoxam, 
et tam sacree Scripture, quam primeve 
antiqustatécongroam. Cav. Ep. Apolog. 
p- 107. 



due to every author, especially one that has bore a character in 
the learned world, to suppose otherwise of him, till it can be 
evidently made appear, that he has contradicted in one place 
what he had laid down in another. If there be any room left 
for a favourable and candid interpretation, it ought to be 
admitted. I before observed to you, that there was no manifest 
necessity of interpreting that passage of Dr. Cave, as you do. 
He recounted about seven errors of Lactantius, referring to 
others unnamed: and in those, he says, many of the ancients 
concurred with him. By m those, he might possibly mean in 
some or other of them, not in every single particular. To make 
it the more probable that he really meant no more, I observed 
that de divinitate stood as a distinct article, and might be 
construed of the Deity. Lactantius held very absurd notions of 
the Deity, as great errors as any could be. Could Dr. Cave take 
notice of many smaller slips, and never allude to those which 
were the greatest of all? And yet you cannot pretend to say 
that many, or indeed any of the primitive Fathers concurred 
with Lactantius in those errors concerning the Deity. From 
whence I justly concluded that the words in quibus, were not to 
be strictly understood of all and singular the errors noted. 

To this you reply, that Lactantius says of God, that he is 
the Father of all things, ‘“ whose beginning cannot be compre- 
‘‘ hended ;”’ as if this were all that Lactantius had said. Does 
he not plainly assert that God had a beginning, and that he 
made himselft ? You observe further, that this is fully explained 
by himself lib. ii. cap. 8. where he says, ‘‘God only who is not 
ἐς made, is from himself, as we shewed in the first book.” And 
what if he speaks right here? Does it follow that he has not 
eaid what he really has said in another place? Besides, if you 
please to admit the same candour of interpreting one place by 
another, I can shew you also where he has spoke very orthodoxly 
of God the Sons; and can as easily acquit him of the charge of 
heresy with respect to God the Son, as you can acquit him of 
the like charge in respect of God the Father. In a word, his 
errors and contradicttons in both points are visible enough: and 
give me leave to think that Dr. Cave might see them ; and might 

f Verum quia fieri non potest quin sit procreatus.—— Deus ipse se fecit. 
id quod sit, aliquando esse tg pele Lactant. lib. i. cap. 7. p. 32. 
consequens est ut, quando nihil ante Ἃ Vid. Lactant. ub. IV. Cap. 9. 
eum fuerit, ipse ante omnia ex seipso 


allude to one in the article de divinitate, and to the other in the 
words, de eterna Filit existentia. For, surely, otherwise he 
would not have put de and de, but would rather have expressed 
it as one article, thus; de dtvinitate atque eterna existentia File ; 
and then have proceeded with another de, to a new article. 
Upon the whole, you can never make good your point from this 
passage of Dr. Cave, which is not only capable of a different 
construction from yours, but most naturally and most probably 
requires it. 

You would insinuate (Reply, p. 30.) from another passage of 
Dr. Cave, where he is speaking of Origen, that Origen’s supposed 
errors relating to the Trinity were not, in Dr. Cave’s judgment, 
contrary to any “article of the Church, or Apostolical tradi- 
“tions :”? which again is doing that good man a second injury, 
instead of making satisfaction for the first. Dr.Cave does not 
say that his supposed errors relating to the T7'rinify were not 
contrary to “any article of the Church ;” but only that many 
of Origen’s censured opinions were not: and what sort of opin- 
ions Dr. Cave meant, he himself tells us in the very place refer- 
red to®; namely, “intricate questions that had been canvassed 
“ only in the schools of the philosophers, and some notions of 
“ his own invention that were msnus commode, not so just or 
“ accurate as they should be.” Now what is this to our present 
purpose? See the passages of Dr. Cave before cited, sufficiently 
shewing that he thought the doctrine of the Trinity to be a fur- 
damental “article of the Church,” and an “apustolical tra- 
“ dition.” But I am weary of attending you through so many 
trifling pretences. To conclude this head: the most that can 
be made out of Dr. Cave’s expressions, here or elsewhere, is no 
more than this, that some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, in some 
places of their works, expreesed themselves sometimes improperly, 
tncautiously, or, it may be, now and then dangerously, in respect 
of the doctrine of the Trintty, before the meaning of terms was 
adjusted and settled; and those articles reduced to a more 
certain and more accurate form of expression. In the swm of the 
matter, in the matn doctrine, the Ante-Nicene Fathers were 
agreed. This was Dr. Cave’s real judgment; as may be seen 
by his own words before cited: and, I suppose, he may be 
allowed to be his own best interpreter. He was not only in 

h Histor. Liter. vol.i. p. 77. 


those sentiments, but zealous for them, being a true lover and 
admirer of the primitive Fathers. How would the good man 
have been filled with indignation to have found his name and 
his authority made use of, to such purposes as you have done! 
But enough. 

V. I charged you further as reporting falsely, that the titles 
of rod παντὸς ποιητὴς, and τῶν ὅλων δημιουργὸς, (that is, Creator 
or Framer of the universe,) were such as the writers of the 
second century always distinguished the Father from the Son by. 
I was indeed so tender in this point, as not absolutely to charge 
this falsehood upon you: but I observed that either this must 
have been your meaning, or else you had made a very trifling 
observation. Those words of yours on which I grounded my 
remark, 1 have now thrown into the margin*, for every Latin 
reader to judge of. You defend yourself (Reply, p. 16.) with 
these words: ‘The words of Athenagoras there cited are these ; 
<¢ One unbegotten and eternal Maker of all things. By which em- 
“ thets, &c. Now of these epithets thus joined, my words are 
‘* certainly true; nor had the Doctor any right to separate what 
“1 had thus joined.” One can hardly forbear smiling at this 
invented answer. If what you now pretend was really your 
meaning, how came you to say epithets, in the plural, rather 
than epithet, in the singular? Why did you distinguish the 
several epithets with commas! Again, why did you take such 
particular notice of per quem, by whom, which you say was 
attributed to the Son, to distinguish him from him that was 
omnium opifen, Maker of all things ? Does not your sense here, 
and your sense in what went before, (as 1 have represented it,) 
answer to each other, like two tallies, exactly? I defy any man 
that reads your words in the Latin, to understand you other- 
wise. But if you will needs have it that you intended only to say 
that the epithet of ‘‘ one unbegotten and eternal Maker of all 
“ things” was peculiar to the Father, in the second century, you 
shall have the honour of making a shrewd observation, when 
you tell me in what century downwards to this day, that epithe 

' Defence of Queries, vol.i. p.513. Quibus epithetis istius sseculi Scrip- 

k Ex quibus omnibus, ex Athe- tores Deum Patrem a Filio semper 
nagore sententia, Deum illum unum distinguebant, Deumque Filium ab 
quem Christiani preedicabant, non hoc omnium opifice ex eo distingui 
alium fuisse quam Deum ingenitum, docuerunt, afiad sit ille per quem, aut 
seternum, τοῦ παντὸς ποιητὴν, τῶν ὅλων cujus ministerio Pater fecit omnia. 
δημιουργὸν, omatem opificem, liquet. ithy, Disq. Modest. p. 60. 


has not been peculiar to the Father as much as then. I before 
left you the alternative, either of being found ¢riftng in a peculiar 
manner, or making a false report ; and so I do still. One might 
think, by what follows in your Reply to this article, that you 
had a mind to own the report, and to vindicate it from the charge 
of falsehood. 

You say, Justin Martyr made a “ difference between the word 
“ ποιητὴς and δημιουργός; and a little after, that he always 
“‘ speaketh of the Son as being another, not from the δημιουργὸς, 
‘“‘ the Builder, Framer, or Artificer, but ἀπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ τοῦ παν- 
“ τὸς, or τῶν ὅλων, from the Maker of all things,” Reply, p. 17, 
18. However that be, I shewed you plainly, from three express 
testimonies!, that Irenseus, of the same century with Justin, 
made no such difference. The Son is ποιητὴς τῶν πάντων, Maker 
of all things, according to Irenseus, over and over, in as full and 
strong words as the Father himself can be: so that your remark, 
as to the writers of the second century, has no truth in it. What 
you observe of Justin, is not strictly true. He tells us™ indeed, 
that Plato made a difference between ποιητὴς and δημιουργὸς, 
understanding by the former one that makes a thing from nothing, 
and by the latter one that frames any thing out of preexistent 
matter. Justin takes notice of this, in order to shew that Plato’s 
inferior gods must be corruptible, upon Plato’s own principles: 
for the great God is styled by Plato, not ποιητὴς, but δημιουργὸς 
of the other Gods. Consequently they were made of matter, 
which is corruptible, and therefore are corruptible themselves. 
What is this to the purpose we are upon? Or how does it ap- 
pear that Justin himself always observed Plato’s distinction ἢ 
Besides that if he did, it is certain that Justin Martyr supposes 
God the Son to be ποιητὴς, or Maker of man, whom he calls the 
ποίημα, creature of Christ". And there is no reason to doubt; 
but that he supposed him to be as truly ποιητὴς, Maker of all 
other things, according to the constant doctrine of the Church 
in that very century, as appears from Irenseus, Clemens of Alex- 
andria, and others. 

You go on, in pursuance of your first mistake, to observe, 
that ““ δημιουργὸς being of an inferior sense to that of ποιητὴς 
“τῶν ὅλων, it is no wonder that the Fathers sometimes give it 

1 See my Defence, vol. i. p. 383, m Just. Mart. Parsen. p. 91. Ox. ed. 
384. n Just. Mart. Dial. p. 187. Jeb. 


“to the Son under one of these distinctions, where they say 
“ with Origen the Father is πρῶτος δημιουργὸς, the first or chief 
“ Worker, the Son is so in a secondary sense.” ‘This is writing 
just as if you had never seen the Fathers. I repeat it, that 
Trenzeus gives both those titles indifferently to God the Son, as 
do other Fathers after him ; which you might have seen in my 
Defence, vol. i. p. 384. Yet you are loath to admit even so 
much as δημιουργὸς to have been applied to the Son, except 
with a distinction; quoting, I would say misquoting, Origen, to 
countenance your pretences. If you please to look again into 
Origen®, the word is πρώτως, not πρῶτος, signifying not that the 
Father is the first Worker, as if there were two workers, but that 
he is primarily Creator. And, what ruins all your fine airy spe- 
culations at once, Origen, in that very place, asserts the Son 
ποιῆσαι (not δημιουργεῖν) τὸν κόσμον, to make, not frame only, the 
world: which is as much as if he had called him τοῦ κόσμου, or 
τῶν ὅλων ποιητής. 

You quote Eusebius as styling the Father ἁπάντων δημιουργὸς, 
the Son αἴτιος δεύτερος. You should have remembered that the 
same Eusebius styles the Son ὁ μέγας τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόςΡ. 
Had this been applied to the Father instead of the Son, what 
speculations might we not have expected upon the forve of 6 
péyas, the great Creator? You forget also that Eusebius 
scruples not to use the title of ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων, Maker of all 
things, speaking of the Son; as 1 observed in my Defence. 
This is directly against you: and if there be some expressions 
in Eusebius which we neither approve nor vindicate; so there 
are many others that you cannot approve, or make consistent 
with your principles: quotations therefore from Eusebius will 
signify little on either side. What you produce (Reply, p. 18.) 
out of Methodius has been solidly answered by Bishop Bull'. 

You next cite Tatian as a true disciple of Justin Martyr, 
saying, that “matter is produced ὑπὸ rod πάντων δημιουργοῦ, 
“ from the Maker of all things, but the Son was ἑαυτῷ τὴν ὕλην 
“ς δημιουργήσας, Worker of this matter.” But sure the disciple 
was strangely forgetful of his maséer’s distinction between ποιητὴς 
and δημιουργός : otherwise, when he was talking of God’s producing 
matter, he should have styled him ποιητὴς, not δημιουργός. And 

© Origen. contr. Cels. p. 317. @ Defence of Queries, vol. i. p. 383. 
P ee Eccl. H. lib. x. cap. 4. 1 Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. p. 165. 
p. 316. 


you are as forgetful of what you had said but the page before: 
otherwise you should have made the Father no more than 
Worker of the matter, as well as the Son; because of the word 
δημιουργός. See how strangely you are bewildered in your ob- 
servations, confuting and contradicting yourself. Nothing 
succeeds with you; and I will venture to predict that nothing 
will, so long as you are espousing the cause of heresy, in oppo- 
sition to the faith of the Catholic Church. 

VI. I charged you, sixthly, with three misrepresentations 
together: one relating to Basil, the other two to Athanasius'*. 
Basil you represented as declaring against Unity of essence, 
where he intended nothing but against unity of Person. To 
which you make answer, (p. 21.) that you “dived not into 
“ Basil’s intentions, but cited his words fairly, viz. that the 
“ Sabellian doctrine was corrected by the word consubstanttal.”’ 
A pretty way this, to cite authors without considering whether 
they sntended any thing to the purpose they are cited for, or na. 
‘You cited tBasil, to prove that two things consubstantial make 
teoo essences; whereas Basil meant no more than that they make 
two Persons. This you call fairly citing his words. You mean, 
I suppose, that you fairly transcribe his words, at the same 
time very unfairly perverting his sense. 

As to Athanasius, I observed that you understood what he 
had said against the ὁμοιούσιον, as if it had been said against 
the ὁμοούσιον, betwixt which two that aceurate Father always 
carefully distinguished. To this you reply, that you cited 
Athanasius to confirm this proposition, that ‘they who say the 
“essence of the Son is like or equal to that of the Father, de 
“‘ by that ascribe to him another numerical essence from that of 
‘‘ the Father.” I perceive you do not yet understand a syllable 
of what Athanasius was speaking about. See his meaning ex- 
plained in my Defence, vol. i. p. 513. Athanasius is so far from 
supposing ike and equal to be equivalent, or even consistent, 
that he denies that essence to be equal, which is only like ; and 
he is not observing that either an equal or a like essence must be 
another numerical essence, but that an essence which is only 
like to divine, must be an inferior essence. It is very strange, 
that after a key had been given you to that passage in Atha- 
nasius, you should still go on, as before, to confound yourself 

85. See my Defence, vol.i. p. 513. τ Disquisit. Mod. p. 32. Preef. 


and your readers. As to the other misrepresentatwn of Atha- 
nasius, whom you suppose an assertor of numerical identity, 
(which is making him a Sabellian, according to your sense of 
numertcal,) as to this charge upon you, you are pleased to say 
never a word. That therefore stands as it did. 

VII. In the next place, I blamed you for representing 
Barnabas’s epistle, ἐν νόθοις, interpreting it spurious, though 
that be not the sense of ἐν νόθοις, as it hes in Eusebius. To 
this you make answer, (p. 20,) that you “neither there nor 
“ elsewhere interpret those words at all.” This is another 
instance wherein you appear to be more unkind to yourself, 
than I had been to you. You declare, p. 19. of your Disquisi- 
tions, that Barnabas’s epistle was by the anctents held for 
spurious. This false assertion appeared to have some colour, 
supposing that you interpret ἐν νόθοις in Eusebius, to mean 
spurious: but without that, you have made a mtsreport of the 
ancients, and have no pretence at all for it. Shew me what 
anctents, or where they reckoned Barnabas's epistle spurious®- 
If you choose rather to have it thought that you have told us 
an untruth without any colour for it, than with any, be it so: I 
was willing to put the most candid construction upon the thing ; 
and I shall do so still, if you will give me leave. For I observe, 
that after you had said *that Eusebius ranked this epistle ἐν 
νόθοις, you immediately subjoin these words, “ Cotelerius con- 
““ fesses that he inclines to the opinion of those who think it is 
“ not the Apostle’s.” Now, this is so very like commenting on 
the phrase, ἐν νόθοις, just going before, that hardly one reader 
in a hundred could ever suspect that you understood by ἐν νό- 
Gos any thing else but spurious; that is, falsely ascribed to 
Barnabas. In a word, it seems to me very much the same 
thing, whether you inéerpret a passage thus, or whether you 
lead your reader into such interpretation: the reader is equally 
deceived either way. However, if you insist upon it, that you 
neither tnterpreted the words at all, nor intended to lead your 
reader into any such interpretation, I acquiesce; provided only 
that you give us any tolerable account of your saying that this 
epistle was looked upon as spurious by the axcients. 

ἃ Certe quicquid de hac epistola ““ stolam Barnabe: non tribuerit; ne- 
dicant recentiores critici,eam Barnabz ‘‘ que in ea quidquam apparet, quod 
nostro constanter ascribunt veferes. ‘‘ eam etatem non ferat.” Cav. Histor. 
‘“‘ Nemo certe fuit,” inquit ὁ wav Literar. vol.i. p. 11. 

Cestriensis noster, “qui hanc Epi- x Disq. Mod. p. 9. 


VI. The next thing which I found fault withy was, your 
partial account of the ancient doxologies?. To this you reply, 
(Ρ. 19,) that you “ freely acknowledge your account of the pri- 
“ mitive doxologies to be imperfect, as wanting the doxologies 
“ of St. Paul and St. Jude, which are the beet rule and standard 
“ of doxologies.” What? better than St. John’s or St. Peter's? 
But this it is to aim at wit. You may please to remember that 
we were not talking of the Scripture-doxologies, but of those 
which are to be met with in the writings of the Fathers. You 
had told us in your Disquisitions a notorious untruth, that the 
Fathers of the first and second century never used that form of 
doxology which has been especially called Catholic; but that the 
Arian form had obtained among the early Fathers. This false 
account I softly called a partial account; to be as tender of you 
as possible. It is well known that μετὰ or σὺν, in dozologies, is 
the same as if the particle καὶ be used to connect the Persons: 
and all such forms come under the name of Catholic, as opposed 
to such forms as have only διὰ or ἐν: because, though either of 
those forms may indifferently be used, and have been used by 
Catholics both in former and latter times: yet after the Arians 
had perverted one to an ill sense, the Catholics chose, for the 
most part, to make use of the other. Now of those called 
Catholic forms, I referred to Polycarp’s*, the Church of 
Smyrna’s>, and Clemens’s of Alexandria‘, all within the two first 
centuries, and standing evidences of the falsehood of your report, 
supposing you meant that neither μετὰ, nor σὺν, nor καὶ, were 
applied in doxologies to the Son or Holy Ghost. Indeed, if any 
of them are applied to either of those two Persons, it is a 
contradiction to the Arian pretence that neither of them should 
be glorified with the Father, but the Father glorified in or by 
them. You tell me, by way of Reply, (p. 20,) “ that the words 
“ of Polycarp, and the Church of Smyrna, comparing the varia- 
“tion of copies, are certainly against me.” How certainly ? - 
I know of no variation there is with respect to the Church of 

Y Defence of Queries, vol.i. p.514. σὺν καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι πάντα τῷ ἑνὶ 
2 Disq. Mod. p. 23. ἐν ᾧ τὰ mivra, ἂν ὃν τὰ πάντα ἕν, δι᾿ ὃν 
8. Me@ οὗ σοι καὶ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἡ τὸ ἀεί. οὗ μέλη πάντες. οὗ δόξα, αἰῶνες" 
δόξα, &c. Polycarp. πάντα τῷ ἀγαθῷ, πάντα τῷ καλῷ, πάντα 
MeO’ οὗ δόξα τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ σοφῷ, τῷ δικαίῳ τὰ πάντα" ᾧ ἡ δόξα 
ἁγίῳ πνεύματι. Eccles. Smyrn. καὶ νῦν καὶ els τοὺς αἰῶνας. Clem, Alez. 
© Τῷ μόνῳ πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ, vip καὶ Pedag. lib. ii. p. 311. Ox. ed. 
πατρὶ, παιδαγωγῷ καὶ διδασκάλῳ υἱῷ, 


Smyrna’'s: Eusebius’s copy being but an abstract, wants the 
latter part of the epistle. As to the variation of Polycarp’s, it 
cannot be pretended to make any thing certain against me, 
unless it be certain that Eusebius’s reading be the better of the 
two; which is by no means probable. Besides, that at the 
worst, σὺν 18 applied to the Son, even in Eusebius’s copy: I 
suppose you do not insist upon the variation of your own 
contriving. Besides these, Clemens'’s dozology will still stand 
good against you, and St. Basil’s testimony concerning the 
doxologies of the earlier centuries4, though the doxologies pro- 
duced by him reach no higher up than the beginning of the 
third. But the subject of domologies having been acourately 
handled of late by others, I shall content myself with referring 
to their learned and useful tracts upon it¢. 

TX. I censured your account of Justin Martyr, as being one 
continued misrepresentationf. I considered what I said; and 
shall now justify my censure. You are pleased, indeed, to put 
ΟἹ, ἃ more than usual air of assurance upon this occasion. The 
brightest evidence of truth is what you pretend to, (p.31.) You 
resolve to vindicate yourself from this false imputation, and to 
make me sensible of my conduct; that I have very artificially, _ 
very falsely represented Justin Martyr, (p.31.) have been guilty 
of pious frauds and notorious artifice, (p. 37.) such artifice and 
fraud as you have seldom met with, (ibid.) A crowd of falehoods 
and mtsrepresoniations you charge upon me, (p. 40.) Yet, after 
all these big words and fine flourishes, (the feeble vaunts of a 
desperate cause that needs them,) | will venture to refer the 
matter in dispute to any man of tolerable capacity and moderate 
skill in the learned languages. I intimated in my Defence 
(vol. i. p. 526.) the drift and design of Justin Martyr's Dialogue, 
of that part which we are now principally concerned with. It 
was to shew that there was a dwine Person, one who was really 
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and was not the Father, 
but was the Logos, or Christ. This account of Justin I will first 
demonstrate to be true and right; and next shew how easy it 
is to take off all your boasted reasons, or rather cavtls, to the 

d acini de Sp. S. cap. xxix. p.218, Second Review by the same hand. 

22 Bishopof London’s Letter defended. 
e “Seasonable Review of Mr. Whis- By a Believer. 

ton’s Account of primitive Doxologies. Ἶ Defence of Queries, vol. i. p. 514. 


1. Justin Martyr observes, in the beginning of his Dialogues, 
that the Christians acknowledged no other God than the Jews 
did. ‘There never will be, O Trypho, nor ever was since the 
“ world began, another God (ἄλλος Θεὸς) besides the Maker and 
‘‘ Disposer of the universe: nor do we imagine that ours is one 
“ God and yours another; but it is one and the same, that 
“ὁ brought your Fathers out of Egypt with a mighty hand and 
‘¢ stretched out arm: nor do we rest our hopes in any other (for 
“ there is none other) but in him whom you hope in, the God 
“ οὗ Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” From hence may be seen 
how far Justin is from asserting too Gods. There is not, ac- 
cording to him, nor ever was, nor will be, ἄλλος Θεὸς, another 
God besides the God of the Jews, the God of Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob. Thus far he and Trypho were agreed. 

2. It was agreed likewise between Justin and Trypho, that 
one certain Person, the same that created the world, and who 
is often spoke of in the Old Testament, as Creator of the uni- 
verse; who was owned by the Jews under that title, and by 
“ Christians more especially under the name of Father ; I say, it 
was agreed that that Person was God of Abraham, Isaac, and 

3. Justin Martyr, over and above, asserts that that Person 
had another Person with him, a real and proper Son; which 
Son was also God and Lord, and God of Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob. This was the chief matter in debate between Justin 
and Trypho; and upon which Justin Martyr spends many pages 
in his Dialogue, alluding to it also elsewhere. Now, the main 
point in dispute between you and me is, whether this was really 
Justin’s meaning or no. I must prove every syllable of what I 
here assert; and thereforc must dwell the longer upon this 
article. Justin, I say, asserts another Person, besides the Father, 
to be really God, God of Abraham, &c. He maintains that 
ἄλλός ἐστι Θεὸς ἢ, or ἕτερος Oedsi, another 1s God, which he else- 
where expresses by ἄλλος τὶς), another who is God, besides the 
Father ; which comes to the same as another Person besides the 
Father. Instead of saying Father, he generally expresses it by 
the title of Creator of all things ; the reason of which I conceive 
to be, that both he and Trypho received him under that notion : 
but under the notion of Father, in Justin’s sense, he was not 

& Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 34. Jeb. t Ibid. p. 158, 161, 164. 
h Ibid. p. 147, 163. } Ibid. p. 161, 165. 


received by Trypho, the question betwixt them being chiefly 
this; whether he was a Father in a proper sense, that is, 
whether he had really a Son. Hence, I conceive, it is, that 
Justin so often denotes the Father by the title of Maker of all 
things, rather than by the title of Father. Yet he does some- 
times make use of the title of Father, instead of the other. He 
says in one place, οὐχ ὁ πατὴρ ἦν, instead of saying, οὐχ ὃ ποιητὴς, 
τῶν ὅλων ἦν: which, though not so accurate while disputing 
with a Jew, serves however to shew that those two titles were 
only different expressions denoting the same Person. Justin, in 
his first Apology, where he is again upon the same argument, 
styles the Father, 6 πατὴρ τῶν ὅλων, Father of all things ; in the 
same place censuring the Jews for not acknowledging that he 
had a Son!, that is, not acknowledging him to be a Father, in a 
peculiar and proper sense. This I take notice of to confirm 
what I have already observed, that it was not proper for Justin, 
in dispute with a Jew, to call the Father by a title which the 
Jews did not own, but rather by another which was acknow- 
ledged on both sides; viz. Maker of all things, or however, 
Father of all things, not Father simply. To proceed: Justin 
asserts, and often inculcates, that this Maker, or Father of all 
things, has a Son™, an only-begotten Son, begotten before the 
creation®, begotten of himsel7'?, (ἐκ Θεοῦ, and ἐξ éavrod,) without 
abscission or divisions, strictly and properly® (ἰδίως and κυρίως) a 
Son, and really (not nominally) distinct from him’. He asserts 
further, and proves at large, that this very Son is really God, 
not called God only, but ἐξ Godt: and Justin never says that he 
is God by voluntary appointment, or as representative of the 
Father; but as Son of God, he is God. The same is God of 
the Jews, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, according to 
Justin. This last particular is what you and I chiefly differ 

k Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 261. * Justin. Dial. p. 373. 

1 Just. Apol. i. p. 122.  "Eots καὶ λέγεται Θεὸς καὶ κύριος 
m Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 296, 371. ὅτερος ὑπὲρ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, ὃς 
n Ibid. p. καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται. Dial. p. 161. 

ο Ibid. p.1 3, 187, 295, 296, 364, “Ayyedos καλούμενος καὶ Θεὸς ὑπάρχων, 
375 395. Comp. Apol. i. p. 69, 90, p. 187. Θεὸς καλεῖται, καὶ Θεός ἐστι 
101, 123. ἜΡΟΝ ii. p. 13. καὶ dora, p.176. Θεὸν ἰσχνρὸν καὶ 
Ρ Justin. Dial. p. 182. Apol.i. Ρ.44. προσκυνητὸν Χριστὸν ὄντα “ao 
4 Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 183, 373. Ρ. 231. Θεόν nce elvat, p. 
Comp. Pareen. p. 127. u Just. Mart. Dial. p. 5.1. 366, 
Justin. Mart. Apol.i. p. 44, 46. 370, 371. Apol. i. p. 123. 
Apol. ii. p. 18. 


upon; and therefore I must be the more full and copious in the 
proof of it. 

It is a rule and maxim with Justin, that God the Father 
never appeared; which, 1 suppose, I need not prove to you, 
because you yourself contend for it, and in the title-page of your 
Reply, recommend the determination of the Sirmian Synod in 
anathematizing any that should say, the Father appeared to 
Abraham. Please then to take notice, that Justin Martyr 
quotes * Exod. iii. 16. where it is said, “The Lord God of your 
«{ fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared 
“ unto me, &c.” These words Justin, upon his principles, must 
have understood of Christ: he was the Lord God, the God 
of Abraham, &c. who appeared. And indeed Justin quotes the 
text for that very purpose, to prove that Christ is God. Soon 
after he asks the company, whether they did not yet perceive 
that he who appeared to Moses had declared himself to be the 
God of Abrahams, &o. This passage I before cited in my 
Defence, (p. 296,) to prove that, according to Justin, Ohrist 
himself was God of Abraham. This you complain of, very 
ridiculously, (Reply, p. 37.) calling it a piece of artifice, and 
I know not what, as if I had stopped where I ought not; 
whereas it is impossible that Justin’s words should have any 
other meaning than that which I have given: the following 
words in Justin are so far from confronting this sense, that they 
do nothing more than repeat and confirm the same thing. For 
after Justin had thus plainly asserted that Christ was God of 
Abraham, ὅσο. proving it from the text in Exodus; Trypho 
objects, that possibly it might be an angel only that appeared, 
and God (that is, God the Father) might speak to Moses 
by that angel. To which Justin replies; “Admit that both 
“ God and an angel were concerned in that appearance to Moses, 
“ as has been proved from the text cited; yet, 1 insist upon it, 
“ that the Maker of all things was not the God (or that divine 
“ Person) who told Moses that he himself was God of Abraham, 
‘and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob; but it was he of whom I 
“have proved to you, that he appeared to Abraham, and 
“to Jacob, administering to the will of the Maker of all 

x Just. Mart. Dial. p. 178, 179, λελαληκέναι αὐτῷ, οὗτος αὐτὸς Θεὸς dy 
Comp. Dial. p. 366. σημαίνει τῷ Μωσεῖ, ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ 

Υ Ὦ ἄνδρες νενοήκατε, λέγων, ὅτι ὃν Θεὸς ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ, καὶ ᾿Ιακώβ ; 
λέγει Μωσῆς ἄγγελον, ἐν πυρὶ φλογὸς Just. Dial. p. 179. 


“ things?.” Justin goes on to prove this from the absurdity of 
supposing that God the Father should appear in that manner: 
upon which Trypho is convinced that he that appeared to 
Abraham, and was called God and Lord, and was God, was not 
the Maker of ail things ; not God the Father, but another, who 
was also an angel. Then Justin proceeds to give further proof, 
that none appeared to Moses in the bush but he only, who 
is called an angel, and is really God, namely, Christ the Son 
of God. To these testimonies I shall subjoin one more out 
of Justin’s first Apology, which in English runs thus: “Now 
‘‘ what was said to Moses out of the bush, I am the I AM, the 
“God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of 
“ Jacob, and the God of thy fathers, denotes that they, though 
“dead, are still in being, and are men of Christ himselfs.” 
Tn this passage, Christ is plainly asserted to be the ὁ ὧν, the 7 
am, or God of the Jews, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 
By four express testimonies out of Justin, this momentous point 
is established; and the whole tenor of this Father’s writings 
confirms it. The sum then of Justin’s doctrine is this: That 
there is no other God besides the God of the Jews, the God of 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: that God the Father is God of the 
Jews, God of Abraham, &c. that there is another besides the 
Father, who is also God of the Jews, God of Abraham, &c. and 
this other is the Logos, or Christ, the proper and only Son of the 
Father, undivided and inseparable from him, though begotten of 
him. The conclusion from all is, that Christ is God, and yet 
not another God from the Father, but ἄλλος ris another Person 
only>, This is Justin’s true, genuine, certain doctrine, which 
being thus proved and fixed, all your pretences to the con- 
trary drop at once. However, that I may not seem to neglect 
any thing you have to say, I shall briefly examine your objec- 
tions one by one. 

1. One is, that Justin often speaks of Θεὸς ἕτερος παρὰ τὸν 
ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, another God besides the Maker of all things. 

“οὐχ ὁποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων ἔσται Θεὸς ὁ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ᾿Ισαὰκ, καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ᾿Ιακὼβ, 
τῷ Μωσεῖ εἰπὼν αὐτὸν εἶναι Θεὸν ᾿Αβρα- καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων σου, σημαντικὸν 
ἀμ, καὶ Θεὸν ᾿Ισαὰκ, καὶ Θεὸν ᾿Ιακὼβ, τοῦ καὶ ἀποθανόντας ἐ ἐκείνους μένειν, καὶ 
ἀλλ᾽ ὁάποδει θεὶς ὑμῖν δφθαιτῷ' Ἀβραὰμ εἶναι αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀνθρώπους. 

καὶ τῷ ᾿Ἰακὸξ, τῇ τοῦ ποιητοῦ τῶν ὅλων Just. τερον WP 123. Ox. 

θελήσει ὑπηρετῶν. Ibid. p. 180. ermons, p. 141, δια. of 
8 Τὸ δὲ εἰρη ρημένον ἐκ βάτου τῷ this ἜΣ 

Μωσεῖ, ἐγώ εἶμι ὁ ὧν ὁ Θεὸς "aBpadye 


But I have shewn, from Justin’s own interpretation, (besides 
that in strict propriety the words require no more,) that the 
meaning is only this, that there is ἄλλος ris, another who is God; 
besides him whom both sides acknowledged under the title 
of Maker of all things; that is, besides him whom Christians 
call the Father. Justin then meant only that there is another 
Person besides the Father, who is also God. To this you 
except°*, that the word Person, or Hypostasts, was not known to 
Justin. And what if he uses not the word, might he not 
without the word assert the thing? ἴλλλος τὶς really signifies, 
and is rightly rendered, another Person. But you except further, 
that Justin does not only say ἕτερος, another, but ἀριθμῷ ἕτερος, 
another in number ; and how can Father and Son be numerically 
the same God, if they be numerically differing? To which I 
answer, that they are different Persons, numerically different : 
and that this was really Justin’s sense is manifest from his 
opposing the word, ἀριθμῷ ἕτερον, another thing in number, 
to that which ὀνόματι μόνον ἀριθμεῖται, only differs nominally, not 
really4, He did not intend to say that Father and Son were 
two Gods, but only that they were more than two names of 
the same thing; as some heretics taught, before Sabellius. In 
this sense, none of the Post-Nicene writers ever denied that 
the Son is ἀριθμῷ ἕτερος, or ἕτερόν τι, another, or another thing, 
really distinct from the Fathere. The same way of speaking you 
will find in the Church as low as Damascenf. But you say, 
(Mod. Disquis. p. 29,) that the Post-Nicene Fathers guarded 
their expressions by the word Aypostasis, which Justin does not, 
And what if the disputes which happened after Justin’s time 
made it necessary to guard such expressions, ss having been 
used formerly without offence, came at length to be perverted 
to an ill meaning! There is nothing strange in this. It is well 
observed by the judicious and learned Du-Pin, speaking indeed 
of Theognostus, but the remark is applicable to others of 
the ancients, who may claim the like favour of interpretation. 
“ Photius,” says he, “has wrongfully accused Theognostus to 
“ have erred concerning the divinity of the Son, upon the score 

© Disquis. Mod. p. 2 Ambr. de Fid. lib. iii. op: 15. Greg. 
4 Vid. Justin. Dial. 4 373 Nyss. Cat. Orat. cap 
© Basil. Ep. 300. p.1070. Athan. ἢ Vid. Dariaceh: ἮΝ i. cap. 6. lib, 
Cori iv. B69. Contr. Sabell. p. 41. iii. cap. 6. 
Thesaur. p. 60, 110. 


“of a few expressions that did not agree with those of his own 
“age; without taking notice that though the ancients have 
‘“ spoken differently as to this point, yet the foundation of the 
“ doctrine was always the same; and that it is an horrid injustice 
“to require them to speak as nicely, and with as much pre- 
‘< caution, as those that lived after the birth and condemnation 
“ of heresies.” Ina word, though Justin has not used the like 
guards with the Post-Nicene writers, since he had not the like 
occasions; yet his sense, without any such guards, is plain 
enough to any man that duly weighs and considers it. 

2. You pretend from Justin, (Disqg. Mod. p. 33.) that Christ 
is not Maker of all things. But this you can never prove out of 
Justin: for all that Justin meant, by distinguishing Christ from 
the Maker of all things, was only this, that Christ is not that 
Person, ordinarily and eminently styled Maker of all things ; that 
is, he is not the Father himself, as some heretics pretended, and 
as the Jews in effect taught, by applying these texts to God the 
Father, which Justin interprets of God the Son. 

3. You object that Christ does nothing of his own power. 
This is no where said by Justin of Christ, considered in his 
highest capacity. Justin indeed admits that both the power and 
substance of the Son is derived from the Father. But this is a 
different thing from saying that Christ did nothing by his own 
power. The Father’s power is his power, Christ’s own power. 

4. You object (Disq. Mod. p. 30, 33.) that Christ is no more 
than the chief power, (πρώτη δύναμις,) after the chief God, pera τὸν 
πρῶτον Θεόν. But Justin no where puts those words together 
as you have done. He does indeed say, that the Son is the 
principal Power after (that is, next in order to) the Father of all 
things : which is no more than to say, that he is the neat Person 
to the Father, as all allow. What inference can you draw from 
thence against our principles? As to the words πρῶτος Θεὸς, 
chief God, it is Plato’s expression, and, as such, cited by 
Justin 5. 

5. You object that Christ “hath all that he hath from the 
‘ Father.” This is true, and acknowledged by all Catholics, 
before and after the Nicene Council, from Justini down to 

- © Justin. Mart. Apol.i. p. 66. καὶ κυρίῳ, καὶ Θεῷ. Just. Dial. p. 374. 
h Justin. Apol. i. p. 114. Κ Πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς καὶ τὸ 
1 Αἴτιος αὐτῷ τοῦ εἶναι, καὶ δυνατῷ, πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ τοτρὸ; Tet καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ 


6. You object that, according to Justin, (Disq. p. 33.) 
‘“‘ Christ could not be saved but by the help of God.” This is 
spoke of Christ, in respect of his humantfy ; and brought in 
among the proofs of Christ's being a man!, And it was suitable 
to Christ's humble state on earth, for an example and lesson 
to other men, to refer all to God. 

7. You object that Christ is ‘“ manifestly distinguished from 
“ the God of Abraham.” But this is manifestly false, in your 
sense of it. Christ is plainly God of Abraham, according to 
Justin ; as hath been before shewn. You may say, if you please, 
that the Father is distinguished from the God of Abraham ; 
which is true, as he is distinguished from the Son, who is God 
of Abraham: in like manner, I presume, we may allow that the 
Son is distinguished from the God of Abraham, and leave you to 
make your utmost advantage of it. You observe, that when the 
Son is distinguished from the God of Abraham, there is added, 
“ besides whom there is no other God.” From thence you may 
learn, that though the Son be God of Abraham, as well as the 
Father, yet there are not t00 Gods of Abraham: the Son is not 
another God of Abraham, but another Person only. 

8. You object further, (Disq. Mod. p. 27, 33,) that Christ 
“‘ would not suffer himself to be called good, but remitted that 
“ title to the Father only™.” You should have added, as Justin 
does in the same place, that Christ was a “ worm, and no man, 
“ the scorn of men, and the outcast of the people:” and then 
the reader would have seen plainly what Justin was talking 

g. You object that Christ is not “ called God by Justin, on 
“ account of his having the Father's essence communtcated to 
‘‘ him, but because of his being begotten of him before the cre- 
“ ation :” that is, Justin has not said it in terms, though he has 
in sense. To be the proper Son of the Father, and to be begotten 
of him énseparably, and without déviston, (which is Justin’s doc- 
trine,) is the same thing as to have the nature or essence of the 
Father communicated to him. This is clear from Justin’s simi- 
litudes and illustrations". For, I suppose, one fre lighted of 
another is of the same nature with that other: and thus it ia, 

εἶνα.. Damasc. de Fid. Orth. lib. i. Comp. 303. 
cap. 10. m Ibid. p. 298. 
Vid. Just. Mart. Dial. p. 298. Ὁ Vid. Justin. Dial. p. 183, 373. 


that the Nicene Fathers supposed the Son to be, as it were, 
Light of Inght ; intending thereby to signify his consubstantialty. 

10. But you object, that the Son (according to Justin) “ is 
“God by the will of the Father.” This might be understood 
in a good sense, had it been asserted by Justin. But the pas- 
sage which you build this upon does not say so much; as shall 
be shewn in another place, and as I have before observed in my 
Defence, vol. i. p. 350. 

11. But Christ, you say, is subservient to the will of the 
Father. And what if it pleased the second Person of the blessed 
Trinity to transact all matters between God the Father and 
mankind! be thankful for it, and make not yourself a judge of 
the divine and mysterious dispensations. I observed in my De- 
fence, (vol. i. p. 442.) that one Person may be delegate to an- 
other, without being of an inferior nature: otherwise one man 
could not be delegate to another. This “ thin piece of sophistry” 
you undertake to answer (Reply, p. 73.) in these words: “ One 
“man may be delegate to another, because he is ‘another tndt- 
“ oduum of the same species, but different in his particular 
‘essence from him; but dares the Doctor say the second or 
“ third Person thus differs from the first?” To which I reply, 
that, from your own confession, it is manifest that merely from 
delegation no argument can be drawn to inferiority of nature ; 
which was the point I was upon, and which is sufficiently proved 
by that instance. As to the Persons differing from each other, 
as one man differs from another, I readily deny any such deffor- 
ence among the divine Persons: and I leave you to prove at 
leisure, that all delegation requires it. When you can do that, 
I shall submit to the charge of sophesiry: in the mean time, 
please to suffer it to lie at your own door. 

Having thus considered all, or however your most considerable 
pretences from Justin Martyr, and shewn them to be weak and 
frivolous ; I hope I may have leave once more to say, that your 
account of this Father is one continued misrepresentation. You 
have, under this article, took a great deal of pains to weaken 
the force of an argument which I had used in my Defence, vol. i. 
p. 291, &c. It would break my method too much here to at- 
tend you in it; to shew how you have left my main arguments 
and testimonies untouched, and have done little more than 
endeavoured to confront them with other testimonies; which, 
notwithstanding, when rightly understood, are nothing at all to 


the purpose. If the reader pleases but to consider and compare 
what I have said in my Defence, I am not apprehensive that 
your pretences can have much weight with him. However, if a 
proper occasion offers, and if need be, or if I have not sufficiently 
obviated them already, I may perhaps take some further notice 
of them, either in a second part to this, or elsewhere, whenever 
my adversaries shall favour me with a large and particular ex- 
amination of the whole piece. I shall now proceed, in my method, 
to another article of the charge. 

X. The tenth thing which I charged you with (Defence, vol. i. 
p- 514.) was, that in your Disquisitions, (p. 61.) you took vcca- 
sion from the Latin version to misrepresent Athenagoras, insi- 
nuating from it, that the Son is not like the Father. Here you 
are so ingenuous as to plead guilty, and to give me leave to 
triumph, (Reply, p. 14,) but with this sting in it, that it is “ the 
“ὁ only argument I attempted to answer.”’ But whether that be 
so or no, our readers, I suppose, may be the properest judges; 
to whom I leave it, and proceed. 

XI. I charged you further, (Defence, vol. i. p. 514, 515.) with 
another misconstruction of a passage in Athenagoras; a very 
famous one, and of singular use in this controversy. You ap- 
peared to me to construe the words οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον", not as 
eternally generated ; which is a very new and peculiar construc- 
tion. You deny the fact, as indeed you may well be ashamed to 
own it. But I shall literally translate that paragraph of your 
book,and then the reader may the more easily judge of it. “ Hence 
“1 appears that Athenagoras, with the Christians of the same 
‘‘ age, believed the Father only to be Θεὸν ἀγέννητον καὶ ἀΐδιον, 
“(οὐ unbegotien and eternal, and the Son of God the Father to 
“be styled πρῶτον γέννημα, the first offspring, οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον, 
“not on the account of any eternal generation, properly so 
‘‘ called, such as might constitute the Son ζῶντα καὶ ὑφεστῶτα, 
“ heing and subsisting by himself, in or out of the Father; but 
‘“‘ because the Father, being himself an eternal mind, had from 
“ eternity λόγον, reason, in himself, ἀϊδίως λογικὸς Sv, being eter- 
“ nally rational.” The reader must here observe, that as you 
intermix Greek with your sentences six times, in the same 

© Πρῶτον γέννημα εἶναι τῷ πατρὶ, λόγον didios λογικὸς dv. Athenag. cap. 

οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον, ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ Θεὸς, το. p. 38. 
vous ἀΐδιος ὧν, εἶχεν αὐτὸν τς τὸν Ρ Whitby, Disquisit. Mod. p. 62, 


manner, so in five of them, the words immediately following the 
Greek are plainly intended as the construction or interpretation 
of it. I had therefore good reason, from parity of circum- 
stances, to take the words immediately following those Greek 
words, οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον, a8 your construction or interpretation of 
them: especially smce you begin with the negative particle, just as 
the Greek does. You seem to be so sensible of this yourself, that 
when in your Reply (p. 14.) you come to give your English reader 
a different turn of the passage, you are forced to leave the Greek 
words οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον quite out: for had they appeared here 
in your Reply, as they do in your Disquisitions, the reader would 
have seen at once that my censure was just. But let us, for 
argument sake, admit your plea, that you did not intend those 
words following Athenagoras’s Greek as an interpretation of it ; 
do you consider how unaccountable a part you have acted in 
citing the words at all? They are words which we greatly value, 
and lay a stress upon, as being of irresistible force against the 
Arians. Ought you not, while you were pleading the cause of 
Arianism from this very passage, to have attempted some solu- 
tion of the difficulty arising from those words, which so plainly 
stare you in the face? Sandius and Gilbert Clerke thought them- 
selves obliged to say something, however weak and unsatisfactory; 
which was better than to attempt nothing at all. But what do 
you, if we are to take your own last thoughts upon it? You 
could not but know that these words, in their obvious natural 
meaning, are directly repugnant to the conclusion which you are 
aiming at; you see the very words, you transcribe them, and 
leave them as you find them, without any interpretation or solu- 
tion. Now what is this but to shew that you was aware of the 
objection, and was not able to answer it, nor so much as willing 
to endeavour it; and yet resolutely persist, even against convio- 
tion, to wrest and force the passage to your own meaning? I am 
persuaded you might more prudently have submitted to the first 
charge, than have took this way of getting rid of it. But it is 
frequent with you, for want of considering, to double the fault 
which you hoped to excuse; and for the avoiding of one diffi- 
culty, to run yourself into more and greater. 

To conclude this article: if you intended an interpretation of 
Athenagoras’s words, as I conceive you did, then you have, in 
the whole, misrepresented the author, but with something of 
colour for it: if you did not, still you have, in the whole, mis- 


represented him, and without any colour for it. Either way, 
you have dealt unfairly with Athenagoras, and have endeavoured 
to impose upon your readers. 

XII. The next thing I laid to your charge4 was a ridiculous 
representation οἵ Tertullian ; as if Tertullian believed two angels 
to be as much one, as God the Father and God the Son are. 
To this you reply, (p. 21,) that you “say nothing of what Ter- 
““ tullian believed: but only from these words (the Son of God is 
“ called God from the Unity of substance, for God ἐδ a spirit) you 
“ think it evident, that Tertullian concludes hence the Unity of 
“the Father and the Son, that they are both spirits; which two 
“ angels and two demons also are.” Is there then no regard to 
be had to what an author is otherwise known to believe? Or is 
it fair and just to construe an ambiguous sentence (supposing 
this ambiguoue, and not rather plain enough against you) in 
direct opposition to his certain undoubted principles? But what 
makes it the more unjust in this case is, that Tertullian, in that 
very paragraph, within a line or two of the words which you 
ground your remark upon, resolves the Unity of Father and 
Son into this; that they are de Spiritu Spiritue, de Deo Deus, 
de Lumine Lumen ; Spirit of Spirit, God of God, Light of Lights. 
Can this be said of two angels or two demons, that they are light 
of light, or spirit of spirit? Have they any such relation to, or 
intimate conjunction with, each other, as is here plainly signified 
of Father and Son! Well then, what is the result? You have 
misunderstood Tertullian, or rather perverted his meaning. He 
does not say that Father and Son are one, because they are both 
emrits; any more than he says they are one, because they are 
both Gods ; nor would it be sufficient for one to be Spirit, and 
the other to be Spirit, or one to be God, and the other God, 
unless one were also of the other, inseparably united to him, and 
included in him. Tertullian indeed observes that God the Father 
is Spirit, as he had before observed of God the Son: and this 


4 Defence, vol.i. p. 515. 

F Disq. Mod. p. 108. 

5 Et nos etiam sermont, atque rationi, 
itemque virtuts per quee omnia moli- 
tum Deum ediximus, propriam sub- 
stanttam spiritum inscribimus, cui et 
sermo insit preenuntianti, et ratio adsit 
disponenti, et virtus preesit perficienti. 
Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, et 
prolatione generatum, et idcirco Filium 

Dei et Deum dictum est unitate sub- 
stantiz. Nam et Deus Spiritus: et 
cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio 
ex summa: sed sol erit in radio, quia 
solis est radius, nec separatur sub- 
stantia sed extenditur. Ita de Spirttu 
Spiritus et de Deo Deus, ut Lumen de 
Lumine accensum. Tertull. Apol. 
cap. xxi. p. 202, 203. Lugd. 


was right, that so he might come to his conclusion, that they 
are Spirit of Spirit; which they could not be, unless each of 
them were Spirtt. This therefore is mentioned, not because it 
makes them one, but because they could not be one without it. 
They must be Spirit and Spirit, to be Spirit of Spirit: but the 
latter contains more than the former; and it is into this that 
Tertullian resolves the formal reason of the Unity; or rather, 
both considerations are included in his notion of Untty of sub- 
stance. This will appear from a bare literal rendering of his 
words. ‘We have learned that he (God the Son) is prolated, 
“ and by his prolation generated, and upon that score he is styled 
“ Son of God, and God, from Unity of substance. For even God 
“ (the Father) is Spirtt: and when a ray is produced from the 
** gun, @ portion from the whole, the aun is in the ray, because 
it is the eun’s ray; and the substance ts not separated, but ex- 
“tended: in like manner, here is Spirit of Spirtt, and God of 
“ God, as Light of Light.” You see how Tertullian makes it 
necessary to Unity of substance, that the substance be not 
separate: and thus Father and Son are one, not merely because 
each of them is Spirtt, but because both are undivided substance, 
or Spirit; Spirit of Spirit. When I wrote my Defence, I 
thought a hint might have been sufficient in things of this 
nature; little imagining I should ever have the trouble of 
explaining such matters as these, which appear by their own 
light, upon a bare inspection into the author. 

XIII. In the next place, I charged yout with a misconstruction 
of a noted passage in Ireneus. To this you make no reply at 
all; wherefore it stands as before; and I have, I suppose, your 
tacit allowance to triwmph here, as, in a former place, your 
eopress permission. 

XIV. I found fault" with your representation *of Tertullian ; 
as if that writer believed God the Son to have been, in his 
highest capacity, ignorant of the day of judgment. To this you 
make answer, (Reply, p. 22.) that “you only cite his express 
“ words without any descant upon them.” It is very true that 
you make no formal descané upon those very words; but both 
before and after, you are arguing, with all your might, against 
Tertullian’s belief of the eternity and consubstantiality. I hope it 
is no affront to suppose that you had some meaning in bringing 

t Defence, vol.i. p. 515,516. ἃ Ibid. p.516. Σ Disquis. Mod. p. 147. 


in the passages about the Son’s tgnorance ; and that you would 
have your readers think them pertinent, at least, to the point in 
hand. The whole design of your book, and what goes before 
and after in the same section, sufficiently shew your intention in 
citing those passages ; and are, interpretatively, a descant upon 
them. Your meaning and purport in it is so plain that no 
reader can mistake it: wherefore your pretence now that you 
have made no descant upon the words, after you find that you 
are not able to defend your sense of them, is a very poor evasion. 
There were two citations from Tertullian about the Son’s tgno- 
rance. I had shewn that one of them plainly relates to Christ’s 
human nature; and I might reasonably judge from thence the 
same thing of the other also, since both are of the same author. 
It is not therefore strictly true that I answer nothing, as you 
pretend, to the first citation: for, by answering one, I have, in 
effect, answered both. It was your business to prove that either 
of the passages were to be understood of Christ, in his highest 
capacity: but for want of proof, you are content to insinuate it 
only to your reader; and go you leave it with him, trusting to 
his weakness or partiality. However, instead of asking a proof 
of you, I gave you a proof of the contrary; demonstrating from 
the context, (especially from the words exclamans quod se Deus 
reiquisse, which Tertullian in express words interprets of the 
human nature,) that the supposed ignorance of Christ was under- 
stood by Tertullian of Christ’s humanity only. Now you say 
(p. 22.) that “the words, known only to the Father, exclude the 
‘Son in all capacities.” Very well then; I had the good 
fortune to hit your meaning before, though you made no descant 
upon the words. As to your pretence from the term only, there 
is no ground for it. No man of any judgment, that is at all 
acquainted with Tertullian’s way and manner of explaining the 
exclusive termsy relating to this subject, would ever draw any 
such inference from them. But you have a further pretence, 
that “all the words preceding speak not of the Son of man, 
“but of the Son of God.” The reason is, because he was to 
prove that the Son of God was really distinct from the Father; - 
and that the Father was not sacarnate, as the Praxeans pretended. 

He proves it unanswerably from this topic, among others; that 
in regard to the Son’s ignorance of the day of judgment, Father 

Υ Vid. Tertull. contr. Prax. cap. 2, 5, 18, 19. 


and Son are plainly spoken of, as of two Persons; one as knowing, 
the other as not knowing, though in a certain respect only: 
wherefore the Father himself was not the Person incarnate, 
which was to be proved. In this view, Tertullian’s argument is 
just and conclusive; and the text relating to the Son’s tgnorance 
pertinently alleged, though understood of Christ’s humantty. 
This I observed before, and explained more at large in my 
Defence, vol. i. p. 517,518, &. You resolve, notwithstanding, 
to proceed in your own way, and to make a show of saying some- 
thing, though you find yourself already foreclosed, and every 
objection obviated. You say thus: “From this mistake of 
“ Tertullian’s citing texts relating only to Christ’s human na- 
“ture, he saw this objection would arise, that the Fathers 
“ argued impertinently against the Sabellians.” I did indeed 
foresee, that there might be some colour for such an objection, 
among those that take things upon the first view, without look- 
ing any further. I proposed the objection fairly, and then fully 
answered it; as the reader may please to see in my Defence. 
And now, what have you to reply! I had said that Oatholics 
and Sabellians both allowed that God was incarnate, and that 
the matn question (that is, so far as concerns the incarnation, 
whereof I was speaking) was, whether the Father himself made 
one Person with Christ's human nature, or no. In answer hereto, 
you make a show of contradicting me without opposing me at 
all, except in one particular, wherein you are plainly mistaken. 
You run off for near ἃ page together, telling us only trite things 
which every body knows, concerning the dispute between Ca- 
tholics and Sabellians. If by singular essence be meant the same 
with Hypostasts, or Person, (as you understand it,) that indeed 
was the main article of dispute between Catholics and Sabellians, 
whether Father and Son were one and the same Hypostasis. 
But when the principles of each side were brought down to the 
particular case of the incarnation, then the main point in 
question was, whether the Hypostasis of the Father was incar- 
nate or no. The Sabellians allowing but one divine Hypostasis, 
and yet admitting God to be tncarnate, were of course obliged 
to assert it: and the Catholics, on the other hand, admitting 
more divine Hypostases than one, denied it. How the Catholics 
proved their point, I shewed you distinctly; and you have no- 
thing of moment to reply to it. Only you are pleased to acquaint 
us with an invention of your own, that the “ Sabellians allowed 


“ in Jesus only flesh; and by the Spirit of Jesus they understood 
“ the Godhead of the Father.” But who, before yourself, ever 
reckoned it among the Sabellian tenets, that Christ had no 
human soul? It is very peculiar of you to cite Tertullian in 
proof of it, on account of these words; dicentes Filium carnem 
esse, τ est hominem, id est Jesum; Patrem autem Spiritum, td est 
Deum : when Tertullian, in the very passage, interprets flesh by 
man, and Jesus; and interprets Spirté by divine Spirit, or God. 
As to the belief of Christ’s human soul, it was an established 
article of faith in Tertullian’s time, as appears from several 
passages?; and before Tertullian, as is clear from Irenseus* and 
Justin Martyr>. How then comes it to pass, that none of the 
Catholics ever took notice of this error of the Sabellians, their 
denying a human soul? I mention not how the Sabellian Aypo- 
thesis must have been very needlessly and stupidly clogged by 
such a tenet; for they could never have given any tolerable 
account of the Son’s praying to the Father, of his increasing in 
wisdom, of his being afflicted and sore troubled, and erying out 
in his agonies and sufferings, without the supposition of a human 
soul. What! Was it only walking flesh, or animated clay, that 
did all this? Or was it the Hypostasis of the Father, the eternal 
God, as such, that did these things? You allow only these two ; 
and not caring, it seems, how stupid and senseless you make all 
the Sabellians, one of these you must, of course, father upon 
them. It is true that they supposed the Father to have suffered, 
and they were therefore called Patripasstans: that is, they sup- 
posed the Father to suffer (as we believe of the Son) in the human 
nature. But they were never so gross and wild in their imagin- 
ations as to suppose the Godhead, as such, to suffer, to be sore 
troubled, to be in agontes, to cry out, &e. And yet it is mdiculous 
to apply this to jlesh only, without a soul: neither can it be 
reasonably imagined of the Sabellians, unless they believed of 
men in general, that they have no such thing as a soul distinct 
from the body. In short, their retreating at length to this, 
that there were two Hypostases¢ in Christ, a divine and human, 
in order to solve the difficulties they were pressed with, suffi- 
ciently discovers their sentiments. For neither could that sub- 

2 Tertull. contr. Prax. cap. 16,30. » Justin. M. Apol. ii. p. 26. Ox. 
de Carn. Christi, cap. 10. ¢ Vid. Tertull. contr. Prax. cap. 27. 

® Tren. lib. v. cap. 1. p. 292. ed. Comp. Athanas. contr. Sabell. Gregal. 
Bened. Ῥ. 39. ed. Bened. 


terfuge do them any service, unless Jesus was supposed a distinct 
Person; nor could they be so weak as to imagine a kving carcass, 
a body without a soul, to be a person. To conclude this article, 
the Sabellians, when they retired at length to that salvo, taking 
sanctuary in two Hypostases, understood one of them to be God 
the Father, the other, the man Christ Jesus4: which was after- 
wards the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, and of Photinus, who 
thus refined upon the Sabellian heresy. But I have been rather 
too long in confuting a pretence which has nothing to counte- 
nance it in history; besides that it is plainly repugnant to good 

XV. The next thing I charged you with¢ was, your pre- 
tending, falsely, that Bp. Bull had not shewn that the Fathers 
of the second century resolved the Unsty into the same princi- 
ple with the Nicene Fathers. I observed that the Bishop had 
shewn it, referring you to the place wheref. You now say in 
your Reply, (p. 24,) “That which the Bishop has done in that 
“section is fully answered and refuted, p. 197,198.” I have 
turned to those pages in your Disquisitions, and can see nothing 
like it; except it be your fancy, or /iction, that the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers, when they speak of the Zogos as existing in the Father 
before his coming forth, mean it of an attribute only, and nothing 
veal. This groundless surmise is at large confuted by Bishop 
Bulls: and give me leave also to refer you to what I have 
observed 5 on that head. What you add, relating to Clemens 
Romanus, is only gratts dectum, and wants to be proved. 

XVI. I blamed youi further for referring’ to Basil, as an 
evidence that Gregory Thaumaturgus believed God the Son 
to be a creature. You tell me in your Reply, (p. 24,) that 
you “say nothing of his (Gregory's) faith.” Please to look 
back to your Modest Disquisitions, and revise your own for- 
mer thoughts, which run thus: “ Lastly, it is to be noted that 
“ neither Gregory Thaumaturgus, who, as St. Basil witnesseth, 
“ depressed Christ into the rank of creatures, (in creaturarum censum 
“* depressit,) nor Dionysius of Alexandria, who, as the same 
“ (Basil) witnesseth, denied the consubstantiality, could have 

d See this expressly asserted in δ Bull. Sian Fid. sect. iii. cap. 5, 6, 

Athanasius, tom. li. p. 39. before 7, 8, Nig 10 

referred to. efence, vol. i. p. 360, &e. Ser- 
€ Defence, vol. i. p. 518 mons, ἢ. 149, ὅς. of this volume. 
f Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. sect. iv. i Ibid. vol. i. p. 518. 

cap. 4. k Mod. Disgq. p. 84. 


“ thought rightly (recte sentire potussse) of the proper eternity of 
“ Christ.” Is this saying nothing of Gregory’s favth? though 
he depressed the Son into the rank of creatures, as you tell 
us he did; and though he could not think (i. 6. beKeve) rightly 
of Christ’s proper eternity, as you also say; yet you have said 
nothing of Gregory’s faith. Ridiculous: you have said it, and 
quoted Basil for it; notwithstanding that Bishop Bull had de- 
monstrated the contrary even from Basil himself; as I before 
observed, and you do not gainsay. And now, to use your own 
worde relating to this article, “let the reader judge where the 
“ falsehood lies.” Your repeating some things from Petavius 
and Huetius, upon this occasion, signifies little. Bp. Bull had 
considered and answered what those two great men had said: 
and you come up again with the same baffled objections; though 
you are so sensible that they have been fully answered, that you 
have not a word to reply, but are forced tacitly to allow that 
Gregory's fatth was right; however he happened to drop some 
suspected words, which were made an ill use of. 

XVII. I charged you! with the revival of an old objection, 
which Bishop Bull had ingenuously set forth in its full force, and 
as fully answered™. 

To this you reply, (p. 25,) that you have fully confuted this 
pretended answer of the Bishop’s, in your Dissertation de 
Seriptur. Interpret. Ὁ. 51, 52. and also in the place cited of your 
Mod. Disquis. p. 87, 88. I have turned to your Dissertation, 
and find what you point to in the Preface, p.51, 52. There I 
meet with two or three exceptions, mostly wide of the point, and 
scarce deserving notice. We must suppose our readers ac- 
quainted with the argument we are upon, which it would 
be tedious to give at length: and now I will shew you how 
slight your objections are. 

1. Firat, you say, that the “appearance of Christ’s divine 
‘“ nature” (to the Patriarchs) ‘under human form, did not make 
“ the Logos another God from the Father.” No, certainly; nor 
did any of the Ante-Nicene writers pretend it: but if the 
Logos appeared in certain manner and form; and the Father 
never appeared in any manner or form; the Logos is not the 
Father: which was the thing to be proved. 

2. You object, that “certainly the divine nature of Christ 

! Defence, vol. 1. Ὁ. 518, &c. m Bull. Def. Fid. N. p. 267. 


“was in heaven, when it appeared on earth.” Undoubtedly: 
and those very writers who represent the Father as being 
in heaven, and the Son as being on earth, yet acknowledge 
them both to be equally present every where: and they refer it 
to the οἰκονομία", that the two Persons are represented, as it 
were, in different places; one here, the other there. 

3. You object, that ‘those ancients who looked upon it 
“as imptous to ascribe to the Father such things as they made 
“no scruple of applying to the Son, must have thought there 
‘was some difference between the Father and Son in those 
“ respects.” I answer, that they thought of no more difference 
than this, that one was a Father, and the other a Son; and 
that one was to be incarnate, and the other not. It would have 
been impious to ascribe to the Person of the Father what 
was proper to the Person of the Son; not only because the 
Father was never to be seni, nor to act a mintstertal part, 
any more than he was to be incarnate; but also because the 
tendency of such pretences was to make Father and Son 
one Hypostasis, or Person, and was in reality to deny that there 
was any Son at all. Your citations from Tertullian and Justin 
Martyr are not pertinent, unless you supposed yourself to be 
arguing against Sabellians. Having done with your Disserta- 
tion, let us next come to Disquis. Modest. p. 87. There, I 
must observe, you have hardly one word to the purpose. All 
that you prove is, that Father and Son are not one numerical 
essence, in your sense; that is, they are not one numerical 
Person, which is readily allowed: as also that they have not one 
numerical will, power, &c. in your sense, though they have 
in another. Voluntas de voluntate, potentta de potentia is the 
Catholic doctrine, as much as substantia de substantia, or Deus 
de Deo. In short, if you would do any thing towards confuting 
Bishop Bull, you should answer the authorities which he 
brought, to prove that those very Ante-Nicene writers (who 
argued that it could not be the Father that appeared, and 
descended, and was found in a place) acknowledged, notwith- 
standing, that the Son was, in his own nature, invisible and 

Ὁ Habes Filium in terrie, habes tate: Filium quoque ut individuum 
er in ceelis: non est separatio cum ipso ubique. Tamen in ipea 
ista, sed dispositio divina. Ceeterum οἰκονομίᾳ Pater voluit Filium in terris 
scias Deum etiam intra abyssos esse, haber, se vero in celis. Tertull. adv. 
et ubique consistere, sed vi et potes- Praz. cap. 2. 


omnipresent, as well as the Father; and that the same writers 
(some of them) expressly interpreted those appearances, &c. of the 
οἰκονομία, economy or dispensation, which it pleased God the 
Son to run through; transacting all matters between God 
the Father and the world of creatures. As to the οἰκονομία, 
and what Bishop Bull intends by it, the reader may see in his 
Defence of the Nicene Faith, (p. 10.) What you mean by denying 
it is very hard to conjecture, unless you have some weak evasion 
(Reply, p. 26.) in the words, “beginning from the fall of Adam:” 
for you say, and seem to lay some stress upon it, that * it began 
“ from the beginning of the creation.” Does Bishop Bull deny 
that! See his own words in the margin®. But, it seems, you 
are to construe Bishop Bull’s saying, that it was as “ high as 
“the fall of Adam,” (in opposition to such as supposed it 
to commence at the tncarnation, and no sooner,) as if he had 
said, it began from the fall of Adam: and this you are to 
do, only to find some pretence for contradicting Bishop Bull, 
and diverting the reader from the point in hand. I referred 
you (Defence, vol. i. p. 518.) to authorsP, ancient and modern, 
who asserted the οἰκονομία in Bishop Bull’s sense. To which 
you have nothing of any moment to oppose; only you discover 
ἃ great dissatisfaction that Bishop Bull had so well guarded his 
point, and vindicated his doctrine, that all your most pompous 
and plausible pretences fall before him. 

AVITI. I charged youd with setting Clemens of Rome and 
St. Paul at variance ; and yet giving the preference to Clemens, 
as “‘ laying Christianity before us in its naked simplicity.” To 
this article you are pleased to say never a word. 

XIX. I took notice also, in another place’, of your sophistical 
way of reasoning against the belief of mysteries, or matters above 
eomprehension. I called upon you (vol. i. Ὁ. 459, 490.) to 
explain your meaning, and to let us know distinctly what there 
is in the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity to give you such 
offence, and to raise your zeal against it ; whether it be that the 
doctrine is, in your judgment, contradictory to reason, or only 

© Deus Pater, quemadmodum per Clem. Alex. p. 881, 958. od. Ox. Ta- 
Filam suum mundum primitus con- tian. cap. 8. ed. Ox. ippol. contr. 
didit creavitque; ita per eundem Fi- Noét. p. 12, 15. Fabric. Vales. Not. in 
linm se deincepe mundo patefecit. Euseb. p.5, 6, 90, 252. 
Bull. Def. F.N. p. το. ᾳ Defence, vol. i. p. 519. 

» Tertull. contr. Prax. cap. 2, 3. * Ibid. p. 453. 


above reason ; or that it is unsertptural only, and no more: but 
to this also you vouchsafe no reply. 
. XX. I charged you further (vol. i. p. 350.) with using a bad 
art, to serve a bad cause: which was the severest thing I had 
said of you, and which you had given me just occasion for; as 
I shewed plainly in the place referred to. In apology for your- 
self, (Reply, p. 56.) you cite a passage of my Defence, (vol. 1. p. 
527.) where I say, ** A writer is not to be blamed, in some cases, 
“ for taking what is to his purpose, and omitting the rest.” To 
which give me leave to answer in my own words, as they follow 
in the same page; ““ But, as the case is here, the best, and in- 
““ deed only, light, to direct the reader to the true meaning of 
‘‘ what is cited, is left out.” You say, your “ design being only 
“to prove from the words of Justin’, that Christ was God 
“ κατὰ βουλὴν αὐτοῦ, according to the will of his Father, what rea- 
“gon could you have to add that he was also styled an angel” 
But, do you not yet perceive that the question is, whether Christ 
be said to be God xara βουλὴν αὐτοῦ, according to the will of the 
Father, in that place of Justin, or no? The words, literally ren- 
dered, run thus: “ Who, according to his (the Father’s) will, is 
“ both God, being his Son, and an angel, as ministering to hie 
‘* Father’s will.” The meaning of the passage is not, as you 
represent it, that Christ is ‘“‘ God by the will of the Father,” 
(though even that might bear a good senge,) but that it pleased 
God that his Son, who was God already, as God’s Son, should be 
an angel also. That he was God, was a necessary thing; but 
that he should be doth, was not so. This I took to be the true 
sense of the passage. For Justin gives the reason why he 
was God; it was because he was God’s Son. He resolves his 
divinity into Sonship here, as indeed every where ; and Sonship 
into communtcation of substance, as I have observed above. Now 
let us consider what you had done with this passage. The 
Latin version runs thus: Qui justa voluntatem ejus, σέ Deus est, 
Filius quippe tpsiue, et angelus ex eo quod sententia illus est ad- 
minister. Instead whereof you give us this: Qué ex voluntate 
tpstus, ot Deus est et Filius ipsiust. Here, by putting in the par- 
ticle οὐ before Filius, and leaving out σὲ angelus, you determine 
8 Τὸν κατὰ βουλὴν τὴν ἐκείνου καὶ Persone autem Christi convenit, ut 
Θεὸν ἄντα, υἱὸν αὑτοῦ καὶ ἄγγελον ἐκ et Deus sit, quia Dei Filius; et ange- 
τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῇ γνώμῃ αὐτοῦ. Dial, lus sit, quoniam paterne dispositionis 
p- aie. adnuntiator est. Novat. cap. 26. 
mpare the words of Novatian : t Whitby, Disquisit. Mod. p. 32. 


the words to your own sense, though capable of another sense 
as they lie in the author. This is what I had just reason to 
complain of, that you should take upon you to leave out and 
put in what you please, to tie the words down to your own 
meaning ; when the words otherwise may, or rather must, bear 
a different construction, if you please to let them appear entire, 
and without any interpolation. 

You say, (Reply, p. 56,) that you “had authority /rom 
“ Justin’s own words to do this.” What! Had you authority 
from Justin’s own words to change both his words and his sense? 
He does not say that Christ wus God and a Son too by the will 
of the Father ; but that he was, according to the will of the 
Father, both God, as being his Son, and an angel. I insist 
upon it that the meaning may be no more than this, that it 
pleased God that he who was already God should not only be 
God, but an angel also; and that though it was owing to God’s 
good pleasure that he was both, yet it was necessary for him to 
be one, as he was partaker of the divine substance, being God’s 
Son. You cite other passages of Justin, declaring that Christ 
was Θεὸς ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι τέκνον πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων, God 
as being born (or begotten) before all creatures: and that he was 
Θεὸς, Θεοῦ vids ὑπάρχων, God, as being the Son of God. Now 
these and the like passages make against you, as shewing that 
Justin resolved Christ’s divinity into his Sonship, that 18, commu- 
nton of essence, or substance", not into voluntary appointment. 
If it be objected that he was a Son xara βουλὴν according to 
Justin, and that therefore he must be God κατὰ βουλὴν, if he be 
God as Giod’s Son ; I answer, that the consequence is not just. 
For while Justin understands the Sonshtp of a temporal and vo- 
luntary προέλευσις, or coming forth, he supposes the Logos not to 
have been ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, but from the very substance of the 
Father; and therefore he was God, as having ever existed before 
his coming forth, in and with the Father. In a word, he came 
ον, was not created, and therefore he is God. Had he been 
produced from nothing, as creatures are, he could not be God : 
but since he came forth as a Son, of the same divine substance 
with the Father, therefore he is God. This 1 take to be the 
true account of Justin’s principles relating to this head ; as also 

Ὁ Vid. Justin. Dial. p. 183, 373. Comp. Apol. i. p. 44, 46. Apol. ii. p. 13. 


of all the other Fathers that speak of a voluntary generation. 
See my Defence, vol. i. Qu. viii. You see then, how wide a 
difference there is between your account of Justin and mine. 
I desire only to have Justin’s text fairly represented as it is. To 
put in or leave out any thing here, and thereby to determine the 
sense against us, in so critical a place as this, is very unfair and 
unjust ; and deserves the hardest names that I could give it. 
Let us have no tampering with texts. You may argue and 
reason for your sense of the passage, if you please; as I do also 
for mine. Only let our readers see plainly what the words of the 
author are. To do otherwise is corrupting the evidence, per- 
verting judgment, and giving sentence before the cause comes to 
a fair hearing. This kind of management, especially in so 
weighty a cause, wherein the honour of our God and Savtour is 
so nearly concerned, is what I cannot account for: and if upon 
this occasion I expressed some wonder and astonishment, that 
any should be so “ resolutely eager to ungod their Saviour, as 
“not to permit the cause to have a fair hearing ;” I suppose 
it might become me much better in defence of my Saviour's 
honour, than those intemperate words of yours, “ impudently 
“ false assertion,” become you, in your blind zeal for your own. 

I have now finished what I intended by way of answer to your 
defensive part. Upon the whole, it does not appear to me, that, 
of all the things laid to your charge, whether general fallacies or 
particular mistakes, you have been able to take off so much as 
one. What you have done, or shall do, in the offensive way, may 
perhaps be considered hereafter. I think it best to postpone 
my second part, because you are still going on to supply me with 
new matter for it: and you have promised the public great things, 
to appear in due time. I am now pretty well acquainted with 
you; and may therefore presume to exhibit to the reader, or to 
yourself, a brief account of your chief materials, with which you 
are to work in this controversy, and upon which your cause is to 

τ, In the first place, you have a strong presumption, that 
‘* two or more persons cannot constitute one individual or nume- 
“ rical being, substance, or essence.” You produce testimonies 
of Fathers in great numbers, proving nothing but a real distino- 
tion; and by virtue of the presumption laid down, (which stands 
only upon courtesy,) you persuade yourself, that those testimonies 


are of some weight, and pertinently alleged, even against those 
who admit a reaé distinction, as much as the Fathers do. 

2. In the second place, you have another strong presumption, 
that no kind of “subordination is or can be consistent with euch 
“ equality, or such union as we maintain.” Hereupon you pro- 
duce a further cloud of testimonies from the anctents, proving 
nothing but a subordination : which testimonies, by virtue of this 
your second presumption, (standing only upon courtesy, as the 
former,) are conceived to be of weight, and to be pertinently 
cited, even against those who readily admit of a subordination, 
in conformity with the ancient Fathers. From what I have 
observed here, and under the former article, you may perceive 
that, at least, nine parts in ten of your quotations are entirely 
wide of the point; and it may save you some trouble for the 
future to be duly apprized of it. 

3. Besides this, you have sone expressions of Origen, chiefly 
from those pieces which are either not certainly genuine, or not 
free from interpolation *, or wrote in a problematical way, or 
not containing Origen’s mature and riper thoughts; published 
perhaps without his consent, and such as he himself afterwards 
disapproved and repented of. And those you urge against us, 
notwithstanding that we appeal chiefly to his book against Cel- 
sus, which is certainly Origen’s, and which contains his most 
mature sentiments; and from whence it is demonstrable that 
Origen was no Arian, but plainly Anti-Arian 5. 

4. You lay a very great stress upon Eusebius, as if he were 
to speak for all the Ante-Nicene writers: though we might more 
justly produce Athanasius (with respect to his two first tracts) as 
an Ante-Nicene writer ; and his authority is, at least, as good as 
the other’s. Eusebius must be of little weight with us, wherever 
he is found to vary either from himself, or from the Catholics 
which lived in or before his time. Nothing can be more unfair 
than to represent antiquity through the glass of Eusebius, who 
has been so much suspected ; besides that we can more certainly 
determine what the sentiments of the earlier writers were, (from 
their own works still extant,) than we can what Eusebius’s were ; 
whose writings are more doubtful and ambiguous; insomuch that 

x Vid. Ruffin. de Adulter. Libro-  vol.i. p.2 
rum ca hl p. 240. ed. Bened. Huet. *% vid. Hieron, de Error. Orig. ad 
Origenian. 293: | Pammach. se . Ῥ. 1 P34]: ed. Bened. 

τς γιὰ, ‘Pamp tot tere p. 221. ae a Vid. B Nic. sect, il. 

ened. thanas. cap. 9. 
perceiver VOL. I. B 

258 AN ANSWER &c. 

the learned world have been more divided about him and his 
opinions than about any other writer whatsoever. 

5. Lastly, you bring up again, frequently, some concessions of 
Petavius and Huetius ; such as they incautiously fell into before 
this matter had been thoroughly canvassed, as it hath been since 
by Bishop Bull, and other great men. From that time, most of 
the learned men in Europe, Romanists> as well as Protestants, 
appear to have the same sentiments of the Ante-Nicene faith 
which Bishop Bull had. It is therefore now much out of time, 
and very disingenuous, to lay any great weight upon the judgment 
of Petavius or Huetius, however valuable and learned, since this 
matter has been much more accurately inquired into than it had 
been at that time. Huetius has lived to see Bishop Bull's works, 
(as we may reasonably presume,) and cannot be ignorant how 
highly they have been valued abroad: yet we do not find that 
he has ever complained of any injury done him by the Bishop, or 
that he ever thought fit to vindicate himeelf, or his great oracle 
Petavius ; to whose judgment (as he himself laments) he had once 
dearly paid too great a deference 5. 

It may suffice, for the present, to have left these few general 
hints; by means of which an intelligent reader, without further 
assistance from me, may readily discover the fallacy of your 
reasonings, and answer the most plausible objections you have 
to urge against the received doctrine of the blessed Trinity. If 
any thing more particular be necessary hereafter, J shall (with 
God’s assistance) endeavour to do justice to the cause which I 
have taken in hand; and, as opportunity serves, shall proceed 
in detecting sophistry, laying open disguises, exposing misreporta, 
misquotations, misconstructions, or any other engines of deceit, 
as long as there appears to me any probable danger from thence 
arising to honest well-meaning men, less acquainted with this 
momentous controversy. In the interim, I am with all due 


Your most humble Servant. 

b See Nelson’s Life of Bishop Bull, p. 345, ἄς. 388. 
¢ Vid. Huetii Comment. de Rebus ad illum pertinent. p. 70. 








Digitized by Google 





The occasion and design of these papers. 

REMARKS have been lately published against a clause oon- 
tained in a dll which had been brought into the House of Lords, 
for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy and profaneness. 
It has been observed, among other things, that the clause, being 
intended as a test against Arianism, would be of little use or 
significancy as to the end designed by it; because those who 
are now understood to be Arians are ready to subscribe any 
test of that kind, containing nothing more than is already con- 
tained in the XX XIX Articles. The Remarker takes notice, 
that those gentlemen make no scruple of subscribing to our 
Church’s forms: it is their avowed principle that they may law- 
fully do it in their own sense, agreeably to what they call Scrip- 
ture. This he proves from their declared sentiments, not only 
in common conversation, but in print; and from their constant 
practice of late years, since the year 1712. 

If this be matter of fact, (as I am afraid it is,) it may be 
high time to inquire, somewhat more particularly than hath 


been yet done, into the case of subscription. If instead of ex- 
cusing a fraudulent subscription on the foot of human infirmity, 
(which yet is much too soft a name for it,) endeavours be used 
to defend it upon principle, and to support it by rules of art, it 
concerns every honest man to look about him. For what is 
there so vile or shameful, but may be set off with false colours, 
and have a plausible turn given it, by the help of quirks and 
subtilties? Many, without doubt, have been guilty of prevart- 
cating with state-oaths ; but nobody has been yet found sanguine 
enough to undertake the defence of it in print. Only Church- 
subscriptions, though of much the same sacred nature with the 
other, may be securely played with: and the plainest breach of 
sincerity and trust, in this case, shall find its advocates and 
defenders. It must indeed be owned, that the pretences for it 
have not been particularly confuted or examined. The reason 
is, because they looked more like a wanton exercise of wit and 
fancy, (though it is dangerous playing with sacred things,) than 
any serious design to convince the world of the justice of it. 
Besides that the foundations of moral honesty were thought so 
deeply rooted in the hearts of men, that every attempt against 
them must soon fall, and die of itself. However, because the 
pretences for what I call a fraudulent subscription had been 
recommended by a person of some character in the learned 
world; and might possibly gain ground among such as take 
things tmplicttly, upon the credit of any great name; I had once 
prepared a formal Answer to what had been advanced on that 
head: and I designed to publish it by way of introduction to 
my Defence. But, before my papers were quite wrought off, 
there appeared a second edition of “ Soripture Doctrine,” &c. 
upon perusal whereof I observed that the most offensive passage 
of the Introduction, relating to subscription, was left out: and 
besides that, all those strange and unaccountable interpretations 
of the Athanasian Creed, ὅσο. (which had appeared in the frst 
edition,) were also prudently omitted ; though those were all the 
author had to depend on for the justifying his subscription. 
Upon this, I was willing to hope that the learned Doctor had 
given, or was giving up his former principles, relating to sub- 
scription: and I thought it would be ungenerous now to attack 
him in his weakest hold, after he had himself betrayed a sus- 
picion, at least, that he could no longer maintain it. Wherefore 
I contented myself with a short remark in my Preface, entering 


ἃ caveat only, against any one’s abusing the Doctor’s name here- 
after, or mispleading his authority, in the case of subscription. 
It was not long before a nameless writer of the party took me 
up for the charitable suggestion I had made in favour of the 
learned Doctor. That writer persisting in the Doctor’s first 
sentiments, and being very unwilling to part with so valuable an 
authority, was pleased to oppose the conjecture I had made 
upon the Doctor’s leaving out the passage in his Introduction. 
“I know not,” says he, “for what reason Dr. Clarke omitted 
“those words; but, I believe I may say, it was not for the 
“ reason Dr. Waterland insinuates, viz. that such subscription is 
“ not yustefiable ; because the same thing is still asserted five or 
‘* ix times, at least, in the Introduction as corrected in the new 
“ edition®.” I am not of that gentleman’s mind in this par- 
ticular. Nay, if it might not look vain, I would presume, after 
& competent acquaintance with the Doctor’s books, to have seen 
8 little further into the turn of his thoughts than perhaps that 
writer has done: and, with his good leave, I will still retain the 
same opinion of the Doctor’s good sense and integrity so far, 
which I had when I wrote my Preface. I think I could give a 
tolerable account of the Doctor’s not striking out every passage 
in his Introduction that looked that way: and likewise of his 
great reserve and caution, in not telling the world plainly that 
he had changed his mind. However, if I mistake, I am sure it 
is on the candid and charitable side; and on that which must 
appear much more for the Doctor’s honour, (with all men of 
sense,) than persisting in an error ever can be. That it is an 
error, and a very great one, I mean to shew in these papers: 
and though I must, in appearance, carry on a dispute against 
the learned Doctor, because the objections, for the most part, 
must be produced in és words; yet I would be understood, in 
reality, to be rather disputing this point with the Doctor's dis- 
ciples, who lay a greater stress upon what he has said than 
himself now seems to do; thereby making his first thoughts 
theirs, after they have (as I charitably conceive) ceased to be Ais. 
I shall have no occasion to say any thing in defence of our 
excellent Church, as to her requiring subscription ; and requiring 
it according to her own sense of holy Scripture. This part of 
the controversy has been judiciously cleared and settled by two 

* Account of Pamphlets, -&c. Ρ. 17. 


very ingenious writers; Mr. Stebbing in his Rational Enquiry, 
and Mr. Rogers in his Discourse and Review. My business is 
only to begin where they end, and to shew that, as the Church 
requires subscription to her own interpretation of Scripture, so 
the subscriber is bound, in virtue of his subscription, to that, 
and that only: and if he knowingly subscribes in any sense 
contrary to, or different from, the sense of the tmposers; he 
prevaricates, and commits a fraud in eo doing. This is a cause 
of some moment: it is the cause of plainness and sincerity, in 
opposition to wiles and subtilties. It is in defence, not so much 
of revealed, as of natural religion ; not of the fundamentals of 
faith, but of the principles of mora? honesty: and every heresy 
in morality is of more pernicious consequence than heresies in 
points of positive rehgion. The security and honour of our 
Church are deeply concerned in this question. As to its securtty, 
every body sees what I mean: and as to the honour or reputation 
of our Church abroad, whenever we have been charged with 
Socinianism or Popery, or any other monstrous doctrines, we had 
no defence so ready at hand, or so just and satisfactory, as this; 
that our subscriptions were sufficient to wipe off all slander and 
calumny. The good of the State, as well as of the Church, is 
likewise concerned in this question: because there can be no 
security against men’s putting their own private senses upon the 
pubhe laws, oaths, injunctions, &c. in contradiction to the sense 
of the tnposers, if these principles about Church subscription 
should ever prevail amongst us. But of this more will be said 
in the sequel. I designed only, at present, briefly to intimate 
the importance of the cause I am inquiring into; to invite the 
readers to the more careful examination of it. And I shall 
enter into the merits of it, as soon as I have laid down the 
principles of the men I am now concerned with, in order to let 
us into the true state of the question. 

CHAP. 1]. 

The general principles or sentiments of the modern Arians (some of 
them at least) concerning subscription ἐο our public forms. 
THE author of the Remarks observes, that “it ia an avowed 
‘principle among them, that these Articles” (the XXXIX 
Articles) “may lawfully and conscientiously be subscribed in any 
“ sense in which they themeelves, by their own interpretation, 


“ραν reconcile them to Scripture,” (i.e. what they call Scrip- 
ture; or their own sense of Scripture,) “ without regard to the 
‘‘ meaning and intention, either of the persons who first com- 
“ piled them, or who now impose them.” He says further, that 
“this latitude was expressly asserted in the year 1712, by 
“a learned Doctor of divinity, in a book entitled, ‘ The Scripture 
“ Doctrine of the Trinity;> and was advanced on purpose to 
“ justify their subscribing.” It is very well that the doctrine 
can be dated no higher than the year 1712; 88 indeed it 
cannot; being entirely sew: never heard of among sober 
casuists, at least, before that time. Now, the principal words 
of the author of Scripture Doctrine (as they stand in the 
Introduction to the first edition) are these: “It is plain that 
‘“‘every person may reasonably agree to such forms,” (our 
Church’s forms, or of any other Protestant Church,) “ whenever 
“he can in any sense at all reconcile them with Scripture :” 
i.e. his own sense of Scripture. It is observable that these 
words are general ; and somewhat ambiguous. For the Doctor 
does not say, in any sense whereof the words are capable, and 
withal consistent with Scripture, but consistent with Scripture 
only : and if he speaks there of the forms in general, as he seems 
to do, he might possibly mean, that any man may agree to such 
forms when he can any way reconcile them: whether by giving 
no assent to passages irreconcilable, or whether by substituting 
something else in their room: and this would amount to sub- 
senibing so far as ts agreeable to Scripture. 1 know, the Doctor 
has took pains to reconcile the particular passages in the public 
JSorms to his own hypothesis; from whence one might imagine 
that he takes every particular expression to be capable of a 
sense consistent with his scheme. But I know also, and shall 
shew it in due time, that he has often given a sense of which 
the words he is there commenting upon are really not capable: 
which is substituting something else in the room of what he finds 
in our forms, to reconcile them to his hypothesis. And I do not 
remember that the Doctor has ever expressly said, that every 
single expression of the public forms is capable of a sense 
agreeable to what he calls Scripture. Wherefore I have 
thought that the Doctor's real meaning was to subscribe 
with this reservation, viz. 80 far as is agreeable to Scripture ; 
though he chose to word it something differently, and less 
offensively, by saying, in that sense wherein they are agreeable. 


What confirms me in this suapicion is, that several of the Doc- 
tor’s arguments for subscribing serve equally for one or other ; 
and will either justify both those kinds of reservation, or 
neither. However this matter be, as to the Doctor himself, it 
is certain that others of the party have expressed themselves 
clearly and distinctly on this head; and have condemned the 
way of subscribing with the reserve of, so far as ts agreeable 
to the Scripture; resting their cause entirely upon the other, 
viz. a” such sense wherein they are agreeable. 

The anonymous author of the Essay on tmposing and sub- 
scribing Articles, after declaring his judgment (so far judging 
right) that they are not articles of peace only, but of opinton ; 
proceeds to condemn the notion of subscribing so far as ts 
agreeable to Scripture ; insisting upon it, that the articles are 
capable of a sense in which they are agreeable to what he 
calls Scripture: and he pretends no more than this, that 8 man 
may honestly subscribe in any sense of which the words are 
capable, and withal agreeable to Scripture. 

We are told in another tract, containing an account of 
pamphlets relating to the Trinitarian controversy, that sub- 
scribing the Articles so far as they are agreeable to Scripture, 
is very different from subscribing the same in any sense agreeable 
to Scripture: and that they defend only the Jaffer, having 
“‘ explicitly* condemned the former.” The sum then of what ia 
pretended is this: It is first supposed that the Articles, ὅσο. 
are capable of a sense agreeable to what they call Scripture: 
and then, and not till then, it is supposed they may be sub- 
scribed. Their defence of subscription then rests upon two 
suppositions : 

1. That every expression in our public forms is capable of a 
sense consistent with the new scheme. 

2. That their being capable of such a sense is enough ; with- 
out regard had to the more plain, obvious, and natural signifi- 
eation of the words themselves, or to the tnéention of those who 
first compiled the forms, or who now impose them. 

If either of these suppositions (much more if both) proves false 
or groundless, their whole defence of Arian subscription drops 
of course. I shall shew, 

1. That the sense of the compilers and imposers (where 

= Pige ae: © Page 20. 


certainly known) must be religiously observed ; even though the 
words were capable of another sense. 

2. That, whatever has been pretended, there are several 
expressions in the public forms which are really not capable 
of any sense consistent with the Arian hypothesis, or new 


That the sense of the compilers and wmposers, when certainly known, 
(as in the present case i 18,) ἐδ to be relgiously observed by 
every subscriber, even though the words were capable of another 

BY compilers, I mean those that composed the Creeds, Articles, 
or other forms received by our Church. By smposers, I under- 
stand the governors in Church and State for the time being. 
The sense of the compilers, barely considered, is not always to be 
observed ; but so far only as the natural and proper signification 
of words, or the éntention of the imposers, binds it upon us. The 
sense of the compilers and tmposers may generally be presumed 
the same, (except in some very rare and particular cases,) and 
therefore I mention both, one giving light to the other. The 
rules and measures proper for understanding what that sense is, 
are and can be no other than the same which are proper 
for understanding of oaths, laws, covenants, or any forms or 
writings whatever: namely, the usual acceptation of words; the 
custom of speech at the time of their being written ; the scope 
and intention of the writers, discoverable from the occasion, 
from the controversies then on foot, or from any other circum- 
stances affording light into it. This is the true and only way to 
interpret rightly any forms, books, or writings whatever. 

The pretences to the contrary shall be considered in their 
proper place: I shall now hasten to the proof of my first 
position, and shall be very brief in it; there being little occa- 
sion for proving so clear a point: what is most necessary is, 
to wipe off the dust that has been thrown upon it; and that 
shall be done in due time and place. 

1. I argue, first, from the case of oaths. It is a settled rule 
with casuista, that oaths are always to be taken in the sense 
of the imposers: the same is the case of solemn /eagues or 
covenants. Without this principle, no faith, trust, or mutual 


confidence could be kept up amongst men. Now, subscription is 
much of the same nature with those ; and must be conceived to 
carry much of the same obligation with it. It is a solemn and 
sacred covenant with the Church or government; to be capable 
of such or such trusts upon certain conditions: which conditions 
are an unfeigned belief of those propositions which come re- 
commended in the public forms. To change these propostitons 
for others, while we are plighting our faith to these only, (as is 
supposed in the very acceptance of trusts,) is manifestly a 
breach of covenant, and prevaricating with God and man. It is 
pretending one thing and meaning another; it 18 professing 
agreement with the Church, and at the same time disagreeing 
with it: it is coming into trusts or privileges upon quite 
different terms from what the Church intended ; and is, as one 
expresses it, not “ entering in by the door of the sheepfold,”” but 
getting over it, as thteves and robbers. 

2. To make it still plainer that such subsoription is fraudulent ; 
let it be considered what the ends and purposes intended by th : 
ruling powers, in requiring subscription, are. They are expressed 
in our public /awe and canons to this effect ; that pastors may be 
sound in the faith; that no doctrines be publicly or privately 
taught but what the Church and State approve of; that all 
diversity of opinions, in respect of points determined, be avoided ; 
that one uniform scheme of religion, one harmonious form of wor- 
ship, (consonant to Scripture and primitive Christianity,) be 
constantly preserved among clergy and people. These are the 
main ends designed by subscription. But if subscribers may 
take the liberty of affixing their oton sense to the public forms, 
in contradiction to the known sense of the imposers, all these 
ends are liable to be miserably defeated and frustrated. Pastors, 
instead of being sound in the faith, (which is but one,) may have 
as many different faiths as they happen to have different wits 
or inventions. Multiplicity of doctrines, opposite to each other, 
may be publicly taught and propagated: and, instead of any 
untform scheme of religion, or form of worship, there may happen 
to be as many different and dissonant religions in the same 
church or kingdom, as there are pastors or parishes. These 
being the natural consequences of that latitude of subseription 
now pleaded for, it is evident that such a latitude is a contradic- 
tion to the very end and design of all subscription ; and is there- 
fore unrighteous and full of decett. 


4. I shall mention but one consideration more; and that is, 
the great scandal and pernicious influence of such a fraudulent 
practice. I cannot better express it than in the words of the late 
pious and excellent Mr. Nelson. 

“41 could heartily now have wished,” says he, in a letter to 
Dr. Clarke, “ that we of the laity had no such handle ever given 
‘us, as this your last book hath afforded, as it is to be feared, 
“ but to too many who think themselves able to overturn any 
* foundations whatever, if such a method as you there propose 
“ be allowable with respect to the most solemn acts and deeds 
“ of that Church and community whereof we are members, and 
“ to substitute what they please in their room¢.”” He observes 
further, (p.19,) that “from a method of this nature, we are 
“ threatened with the overturning of foundations both sacred 
“ and civil.” And (p.21.) that “if the judges, and others learned 
“im the law, shall follow the same method of interpreting the 
“ Jaws of the land, and accommodating the civil oaths and en- 
“‘ gagements, as Dr. Clarke has taken in interpreting and accom- 
“ modating the sense of the Church, in her most authentic forms 
‘and declarations before God and man, and of the venerable 
“ Fathers of the Catholic Church; there are many of opinion, 
“ that every thing might easily be leaped over, and that no esta- 
‘‘ blishment could be so strong as to last long :” and “who knows 
‘“‘ whereabouts his religion, liberty, or property may be, if such 
“@ latitude of interpretation be defensible as is avouched in 
«« Dr. Clarke's third part openly; and is therefore suspected in 
“ his first and second?” Thus far Mr. Nelson. And there is 
so much strength of reason and plain good sense shewn in what 
he says, that all the little distinctions, evasions, and subtilties 
pleaded on the other side can never shake it. These and the 
like considerations have ever deterred wise and good men from 
such a method. No conscientious Protestant would subscribe the 
Romish Catechism, or Pope Pius’s Creed; no serious Papist would 
subscribe our Articles; no pious Dissenter would give his assent 
and consent to such parts of our public forms as he does not 
heartily approve of, in the plain and intended sense. Thousands 
have died martyrs to the maxims which I am now asserting ; 
whose great and only misfortune it was not to have been ac- 
quainted with those evasive arts and subtle distinctions, which, it 

© Page 15. 


seems, might have preserved them. I come next to examine 
what those pretences and evasions are: and that they may lose 
nothing in the recital, they shall appear in the very words of 
their authors ; and to every particular plea I shall return a par- 
ticular answer. 


The several pleas and pretences for subscribing, after the new 
method, examined and confuted. 

Prea I. 

‘“‘ The Protestant Churches require men to comply with their 
<< forms merely on account of their being agreeable to Scripture, 
“ and consequently tn such sense only wherein they are agreeable 
“to Scripture.” Clarke's Introd. p. 20. 

“ That this is not highly reasonable among Protestants, and 
“ particularly in the Church of England; or that this hath been 
“‘ ever contradicted or censured by any judgment of the Church, 
“1 leave him (Bishop Potter) to prove.” Bishop of Bangor's Post- 
script, p. 251. 


1. Before ever Popery was known, subscription to creeds, or 
other forms, has been required: and always in the sense of the 

2. It is allowed that no man is by the Church required to 
subscribe against his conscience; or, what comes to the same, in 
a sense which he thinks not agreeable to Scripture. If that be 
any man’s opinion With respect to the sense of our public formas, 
he ought not to subscribe at all. 

3. The Church indeed requires men to comply with her forms, 
merely on account of their being agreeable to Scripture: and, for 
that very reason, must require subscription in her oton sense ; 
because that only sense is (according to her) agreeable to Serip- 
ture. It is a contradiction to suppose that any church requiring 
subscription to her own explanations, (as every church does,) 
should at the same time permit the subscriber to run counter to 
those explanations. For, since she looks upon her own explana- 
tions as the only true sense of Scripture, and requires subscription 
to the true sense of Scripture; she can never be presumed to 
allow other explications which are (in her judgment) not agreeable 
to Scripture; it being her principle to admit nothing but what 


is agreeable to Scripture. Whoever therefore does violence to the 
public forms, must be supposed (by that church whose forms 
those are) to do as much violence to Scripture itself; and con- 
sequently, such a church cannot admit of it. This plea then 
overthrows itself. 

4. That it is reasonable for any Proéestant church to require 
subscription in her own sense, is as certain as that it is reasonable 
to require subscription at all. For whatever church requires sub- 
scription, must require it in such a sense as that church believes 
to be the true sense of Scripture; and not in a sense which that 
church believes to be false. The sense therefore of the tmposers, 
and none other, must be the sense which is required of the sub- 
scriber. The reason of the thing speaks it ; and there is no more 
occasion for any declaration of the Church, in this case, than there 
is for a declaration of the State in the case of civil oaths. For 
who knows not that men ought to be sincere; and not to subscribe 
or swear one thing and mean another ! 

5. It is neither fair nor just to require any express censure or 
judgment of the ruling powers against a practice never begun till 
the year 1712; and which is too absurd in itself to need any 
formal prohibition. It was always presumed, and taken for 
granted, that the public forms should be understood as intended 
by the Church, and not strained or wrested to a foreign sense. 
King James the First, in his proclamation for the authorizing an 
Uniformity of the Book of Common-Prayer, hath these words ; 
“ Concerning the service of God we were nice, or rather jealous, 
“ that the public form thereof should be free, not only from 
‘‘ blame but from suspicion; so as neither the common adver- 
“ gary should have occasion to wrest ought therein contained to 
“* other sense than the Church of England tntendeth; nor any trou- 
““ blesome or ignorant person of this Church be able to take the 
‘* least occasion of cavtl against i.’ 

King Charles the First, in his Declaration prefixed to the 
Articles, prohibits the least difference from the said Articles, and 
expressly forbids the affixing any new sense to any Article. And 
it was the resolution of all the judges of England, ἃ that Smith’s 
subscription to the XX XIX Articles, with this addition, (so far 
forth as the same were agreeable to the word of God,) was not ac- 
cording to the statute of 13 Elizabeth. And one of the reasons 
given is, because the “act was made for avoiding of diversity 

4 Coke Institut. iv. cap. 74. p. 324. 


“ οὗ opinions, ὅσο. and by this addition the party might, by 
‘ his own private opinion, take some of them to be against the 
“ word of God ; and by this means diversity of opinions should 
“ not be avoided, (which was the scope of the statute,) and the 
“very act itself made touching subscription hereby of none 
“ effect.” Now this reason, on which the resolutton of the judges 
was chiefly founded, equally affects the subscription here pleaded 
for, and is equally strong against it. Wherefore it must be 
allowed that such subscription has been sufficiently censured and 
condemned by our laws: and that all wresting or straining of the 
public forms to any new or foreign sense, different from what the 
Church intended, is not only against the very end and design of 
all laws made for the establishing consent and uniformity of doc- 
trine and worship, but has also been expressly prohibited by the 
ruling powers. 

Piea II. 

“Tf tradition or custom, if carelessness or mistake, either in 
“the compiler or receiver, happen at any time to put a sense 
‘‘ upon any human forms, different from that of the Scripture, 
‘“‘ which those very forms were intended to explain, and which 
“is at the same time declared to be the only rule of truth; it 
“is evident no man can be bound to understand those forms in 
“such sense; nay, on the contrary, he is indispensably bound 
“not to understand or receive them in such a sense.” Clarke’s 
Introd. p. 21. 


This plea confounds two very distinct things; the rule for 
understanding, and the rule for receiving any forms. It should 
be proved that an Arian may not be obliged to understand the 
public forms in a sense contrary to what he calls Scripture, (or, 
what comes to the same, contrary to his own Aypothesis:) but 
all that is really proved is this only; that he is not obliged to 
receive them in that sense, but obliged to the contrary; that is, 
to reject them, and not subscribe at all. The argument, reduced 
to a syllogistical form, would stand thus: 

No man ought to receive any human forms in a sense repugnant 
to what he thinks Scripture. 

But the obvious and tntended sense of our public forms is a 
sense repugnant to what some think Scripture. 


Therefore such persons ought not to receive them in their 
obvious, intended sense: neither indeed so to understand them. 

Any young logician will readily perceive that here is more in 
the conclusion than there is in the premises; and that so much 
of the conclusion ΔΒ is really just is entirely besides the question : 
containing nothing but what nobody doubts of; viz. that no man 
ought to subscribe against hts conscience. 

Prea III. 

“The sense in which any human forms appear to a man’s self 
“to be consistent with Scripture, and not the presumed mean- 
“ing of the compilers, (add, or imposers,) is to be the rule and 
‘‘ measure of his understanding them. This is both evident in 
““ reason, (because otherwise every human government makes a 
“ὁ new rule of faith,) and is moreover, by all Protestants, agreed 
‘“ upon without controversy in practice.” Clarke’s Reply, p. 34. 


The Doctor appears to have been in confusion here, as much 
as in the preceding; not distinguishing between the rule for 
understanding human forms, and the rule for receiving. We are 
first to consider what the true meaning and intent of the forms 
are: and this we are to judge of from the natural force of the 
words, and from the scope, drift, and design of the compilers or 
smposers. After this, we are to consider, by the rule of Scripture, 
whether we can receive them or no. If, upon such examination, 
it appears to us that the forms, according to the sense of the 
smposers, are agreeable to Scripture, we may safely subscribe; 
if otherwise, we must not do it for the world. What can be 
plainer ? 

ΑΒ to the suggestion that, in this way, every human government 
makes a new rule of faith; it is mere fancy and fiction. Public 
determinations (at least generally speaking) are more likely to 
keep close to the rule of faith, than private conceits. Scripture 
is still the same rule of faith, only under the prudent guard of 
public explanations, to obviate the wild uncertainty of private 
expostitons. This is not paying more regard to human forms than 
to Scripture; but more regard to some human expltcations than 
to other human explications ; more regard to a select number of 
wise men than to conceited opiniators: in a word, more regard 
to the most prudent and most effectual (though not tnfallsble) 



method of preserving the sacred truths, than to another, which 
is so far from being tnfallible for the preserving of the true faith, 
that it is rather the surest means to destroy it. All Protestant 
churches have took into this approved way of securing, as far as 
possible, the true sense of Scripture, by public and authorized ex- 
positions, And this is paying the tenderest and most religious 
regard to the rule of faith; there being no safer or better way 
than this is to preserve it. But enough in answer to a weak 
suggestion ; which, if it proves any thing, proves the unlatofulness 
of tmposing any forms; not the latofulness of subscribing in a 
sense different from that of the smposers. 


‘“ With respect to civil matters——there is lodged in every 
“ government a legislative power——neither can there in this 
“ease be any other rule by which to interpret the law, but 
“only by discovering, from the obvious signification of words, 
‘* what was in the whole the real sense and intent of the legis- 
“ators. But now in ecclesiastical matters——the case is very 
“ different. The Church in matters of doctrine has no legislative 
power,” ὅς. Clarke's Reply, Ὁ. 32. 


1. This is only amusement. What has legislative power to do 
in this question? If an egual, if an inferior proposes me any 
articles to subscribe, I may indeed refuse subscription, (and so 
I may when proposed by superiors ;) but if I submit to subscribe, 
I must do it in the sense of him that articles or covenants with 
me; and according to the plain, usual, and literal sense of the 

Besides, what shall we think of oaths imposed by an usurper ? 
May I swear to any thing, only because he has no legislative 
power over me? Here will be a fair way opened for any prevari- 
eation in state oaths, as often as any one questions the legality of 
the powers that impose them. 

2. To answer a little more directly ; subscription is required 
by the legislative powers: and there is just the same reason for 
attending to the sense of the émposers, in the matter of subscrip- 
tion, as in any civil oaths, tests, laws, or the like: and every ob- 
jection against the one is equally strong against the other aleo. 
The legislative powers in a Christian state are under the law of 


right reason, and also under the law of Christianity. Now, what 
if the civil oaths, laws, tests, &c. be thought contrary either to 
the dictates of reason, or to the law of Christ, which the latogivers 
pretend to follow and to conform to as their rule? Then, upon 
the principles of the subscribing Arians, any man may force and 
strain the civil oaths, laws, tests, &c. to his own private sense, 
contrary to the meaning of the ruling powers, in order to recon- 
cile them to what he thinks reason or Scripture; that is, to his 
own principles, fancies, or conceits, whatever they be. The case 
is parallel in all circumstances affecting the present question ; 
and the plea that is here used for the justifying a fraudulent sub- 
scription, with a very little change, will serve as well to justify 
a fraudulent taking of the civil oaths or tests; and so there will 
be an end of all trust or mutual confidence, so long as words 
are capable of being wrested or tortured into more senses than 

Piea V. 

“ Every man that (for the sake of peace and order) assents to, 
“or makes use of, any such forms of human appointment, is 
“ obliged to reconcile them with what appears to him to be the 
“‘ doctrine of Scripture, and take care to understand them in 
“ such a sense only as is consistent with that doctrine: otherwise 
“he parts with his Christianity for the sake of a civil and 
« political religion.” Clarke’s Reply, p. 33. 


1. The same plea may serve for Papists, and persons disaf- 
fected to the government, whenever (for the sake of peace and 
order) they may be disposed fraudulently to take the oaths of 
allegiance and supremacy and aljuration. Those oaths, indeed, 
in their Kiteral and intended sense, are directly repugnant to their 
sense of Scripture. But they are to take care to understand 
them in such a sense only as is consistent with their doctrines ; 
otherwise, they part with their Christianity for the sake of a 
civil and political religion. 

2. More directly I answer, secondly, that if any human forms, 
in their obvious and intended sense, appear not consistent with 
what some call Scripture; such persons ought not, for the sake 
of peace and order, neither yet for the sake of a benefice or dignity, 
nor for any consideration whatever, to assent to such forms. 



Nay, they are indispensably bound to refuse assent or subscrip- 
tion to such forms; otherwise they part with their Christianity 
for the sake of the mammon of this world; or, at best, for the 
sake of peace and order; which is “doing evil that good may 
“ come,” and is an abominable practice in the sight of God and 

Pia VI. 

“Bishop Pearson saith, ‘that whatever is delivered in the 
‘“* Creed, we therefore believe, because it is contained in the 
“« Scriptures; and consequently must so believe it as it is con- 
“ tained there: whence all this Exposition of the whole is nothing 
“else but an illustration and proof of every particular part of 
“ the Creed by such Seriptures as deliver the same, according 
“to the true interpretation of them.’” Ezposition on the Creed, 
p. 227. 

“And the whole Church of England has made the like 
“ declaration, in the sixth, the twentieth, and twenty-first of the 
“ XXXIX Articles, before cited; and in the eighth Article, 
“which declares that the Creeds ought to be received and 
“ς believed, because (and consequently only in such sense wherein) 
“* they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.” 
Clarke's Introduct. 


1. What Bishop Pearson has there said relates to the article 
of Christ’s descent into hell ; the sense of which is left indefinite 
and undetermined by our Church; and therefore this is not 
pertinent to the point in hand. To let us see how far that good 
and great Bishop was from countenancing any thing like what 
the Doctor pleads for, I may transcribe one paragraph from the 
preceding page, p.226. ‘Wherefore being our Church hath 
“mot now imposed that interpretation of St. Peter's words, 
‘‘ which before it intimated, being it hath not declared that as 
“ the only place of Scripture to found the descent ento hell upon ; 
“being it hath alleged no other place to ground it, and 
‘“‘ delivered no other explication to expound it; we may with 
‘“‘the greater liberty pass on, find out the true meaning 
“ of this article, and to give our particular judgment in it.” 
Had the Bishop foreseen what ill use might possibly be made of 
his other words, he could not have guarded more particularly 


against it than he has here done. Wherefore it was very 
peculiar to cite him in favour of such a subscription, or such 
ἃ latitude, as he would have utterly abhorred and detested. 

2. As to the doctrine of the Church of England in her 6th, 
8th, 20th, and 21st Articles, it is no more than this; that 
nothing 1s to be received but what ts agreeable to Scripture. And 
for this very reason she requires subscription in her own sense, 
because she judges no other sense to be agreeable to Scripture. 
If any judge otherwise, let them not subscribe. It is but 
shallow artifice of the pleaders for a fraudulent subscription, 
constantly to call their interpretations of Scripture, Scripture; 
and from thence to infer that the Church requires or permits 
subscription in their sense. The Church surely has as good 
a right to call her snterpretations by the name of Scripture; and 
then her requiring subscription to that only which ts agreeable to 
Scripture, is requiring subscription in her own sense of Scripture» 
and none else. Let the Arian sense of Scripture be Scripture to 
Arians; but then let them subscribe only to Arian exposttions ; 
which are nothing akin to those of our Church. 

Piea VII. 

“ When in the public forms there be (as there generally are) 
‘“‘ expressions which, at first sight, look different ways; it 
“cannot be but men must be allowed to interpret what is 
“‘ obscure by that which seems to them more plain and secrip- 
“ tural.” Clarke's Reply, p. 33. 


What a fanciful representation is here of our public forms; 
as if they, either at first sight, or at all, looked towards Arian- 
ism; when the very strongest words which the wit of man can 
devise to exclude it occur every where in our public forms. 
And it is so far from being obscure whether the compilers and 
imposers intended to exclude it, and to profess the Catholic 
doctrine up to the height, that it is demonstration they did 
intend it. This plea therefore has nothing to rest upon but a 
misrepresentation of fact. 

If the meaning be, that the doctrines taught by our Church 
are obscure, that is, mysterious, and therefore they may claim a 
liberty of explaining them away into what appears to them 
more plain and scriptural; I say, if that be the meaning of the 


plea, then it comes to this; that whenever any church imposes 
the belief of mysteries, a subscriber may honestly substitute what 
he pleases instead of the mystery; or may make no mystery of 
it, by reducing it (contrary to the intention and meaning of the 
imposers) to something appearing to himself more plain and 
scriptural. Upon this foot it will be impossible for any church ever 
to secure the profession of any mysterious doctrine against secret 
meanings and subtle evasions: but men may subscribe to 
as many mysteries as they please, and still believe sone of 

Piea VIII. 

‘In the doctrine of the Trinity, I have no way certainly 
“ to inform myself what is the sense of the Church. The words 
“of the first Article are capable of at least four senses; and 
“each of these senses is defended by learned divines of the 
‘‘ Church.—The four senses I mean are these: 

“1. That which makes the three Persons to be only thres 
‘“< modes of one mind; which I call Sabelliantem. 

“2. That which makes the three Persons to be something more 
“ than three modes of one mind, and yet not three minds: i. 9 
“‘makes them to be media between entia, and non-entia, some- 
“ thing and nothing; which I call nonsense. 

“3, That which makes the three Persons to be three equal 
“‘ minds: which I call 7rithetsm. 

“4, That which makes them to be unequal mtnds, one inde- 
“pendent and existing of itself, the other two deriving their 
“ existence from the first:” (which the author should have 
called Artantsm.) Essay on Impoett. p. 42, 43. 


This writer goes roundly to work; and gives us a specimen 
both of his profound sense and his modesty. He first throws dust 
upon the Article, and then complains that it is dark and 
confused. The Arttele is really capable of but one sense; and 
that sense none of the four, as he has represented them. 

It is not capable of the first pretended sense. There is not 
a word of three modes either in the Article, or any where else in 
our public forms. The notion is neither expressed nor implied in 
the Article; and therefore cannot be the sense of it: nay, 
the notion is a contradiction to the very words of the Article. 


Mode, mode, and mode, will never amount to substance: but the 
Article plainly makes every Person to be substance, as invested 
with power and eternity, and as being of one substance with the 
other two Persons, and making therewith one Aving and true 

The second sense, when rightly understood, is the true sense of 
the Article; but not as it lies under the ridiculous representation 
which this writer has made of it. The sense in it is the Article's, 
the nonsense is his own. The Article says not a word of a 
medium between something and nothing: but that the three 
Persona are neither three modes nor three minds, is indeed plain 
enough from the Article. Neither is there any nonsense, but a 
great deal both of sense and truth, in saying, that every Person 
is substance, and yet they are not three substances; every Person 
mind, and yet not three minds; every Person God, and yet not 
three Gods. The union is too close and intimate to admit of 
the plural expressions of minds, substances, Gods; which can 
belong only to separate Persons: three Persons 80 untied as 
these are supposed to be are one substance, one mind, one being, 
one God; and that in a very just and proper sense. 

As to the third and fourth senses of three minds equal 
and unequal, which would imply three substances, the Article 
excludes them both; by making the three Persons one substance 
and one God. Upon the whole, it appears that the first Arttcle 
is not capable of more senses than one: and yet if it were 
capable of many senses, unless the Arian sense were one of 
those many, this gentleman and his brethren could not, honestly 
and fairly, subscribe. 

Prea IX, 

‘ Unless this liberty be allowed, nobody can subscribe the 
“ς Articles, Creeds, and Liturgy of the Church of England at 
‘all. There are several things in these forms which, if taken in 
44 the most obvious sense, contradict one another: and therefore 
“ὁ some of them must be understood in a sense which is not the 
«ς obvious one. In the doctrine of the Trinity, it is plain from 
‘© Dr. Clarke's Collection, chap. i. of the third part of his Sorip- 
“ture Doctrine, that there are a great number of passages in 
“‘the Liturgy which in the obvious sense make for his opinion : 
“and therefore must by those who are of a different opinion be 


“ understood in a sense which is not the obvious one.” Essay on 
Impos. p. 42. 

“1 am sure it is no more a putting of violence upon the ex- 
‘“‘ pressions cited in chap. ii. of the third part, to make them 
““ consistent with Scripture, and with the expressions of the 
“ Liturgy cited in chap. 1. than it is, on the contrary, a putting 
“οὗ violence upon the Scripture and upon the expressions cited 
“ἴῃ chap. i. to make them consistent with the expressions cited 
“in chap. 11." Clarke’s Iniroduct. 


We here meet with the utmost confidence in affirming a 
matter of fact, which every man’s eyes and common sense may 
immediately discover to be false. The sum of the plea is, that 
there are many expressions in our pudlic forms, which in their 
obvtous sense contradict the received doctrine of the Trinity : and 
that those called orthodozw must put as much violence upon one 
kind of expressions to reconcile them to their scheme, as the 
Arians must put upon others to reconcile them to theirs. The 
expressions which are supposed in their obvious sense to thwart 
the received doctrine are such wherein the Father is eminently 
styled God, and sometimes only God, or such as intimate a 
subordination of two Persons to one. 

Now the question will be, what sense of those passages has 
the best right and title to be called the obvious sense? 1s it not 
that sense which has been in use and approved, in this mystery, 
for sixteen hundred years? Is it not that sense which was 
anciently taught and inculeated before baptism ; that which all 
the churches in Christendom receive and approve ; that which 
the comptlers and wunposers of our forms certainly intended ; that 
which is so well known and has so long passed current, that 
nobody almost can mistake it; ¢hat which the words will not 
only dear, (as may be shewn from innumerable instances in 
approved authors,) but which they really require, when con- 
sidered together with what goes before or after them, or with 
other passages in our public forms! Is not that to be looked 
upon as the obvious sense of those passages, rather than another 
of yesterday, never before owned by our clergy or people, never 
suspected to be contained in our forms, never subscribed to till 
very lately ; a new, strange, unheard of sense, (so far as concerns 


our public forms,) and such as, if admitted, must make our forms 
nothing else but a confused heap and jumble of the most irre- 
concilable contradictions? These things considered, I must 
insist upon it, that the only obvious sense of those passages is 
the received prevailing sense of them: it being obvious to every 
man of common understanding, that that, and that only, was ever 
tntended by our Church, or received by our clergy ; or understood 
to be their true sense by Papist or Protestant, Dissenter or Church- 
man, native or foreigner, from the year 1552 to the year 1712. 

Our public forms have been well known to all the churches 
abroad, to all the learned in Europe. What man ever suspected, 
till now, that they were tainted with Arianism, or but looked 
that way! There is no need of putting violence upon any one 
passage to reconcile it to the received doctrine: all is easy and 
consistent throughout, formed entirely upon Catholic principles. 
Sometimes the Father is styled only God, oftener all three: 
sometimes two of the Persons are introduced in a subordination 
of order to the first; at other times their perfect equality of 
nature is os fully and clearly professed. No one that has been 
tolerably instructed can be at a loss for the meaning of these 
things. But as to the violence used by the Arian party in tor- 
turing our Creeds and Liturgy; it is such, I believe, as was 
never before practised with any words whatever. The old 
Arians would have detested such practices: the Ομοούσιον alone 
was such a stumblingblock to them, that very few could get 
over it; and they would never insert it in their Creeds. And 
yet they were artists in their way; and had carried the mystery 
of equivocatton and chicane far beyond any thing that had been 
known in the Church in the ages before them. As to the ctolence 
which those gentlemen are forced to use with our Church’s forms, 
it will appear more fully in the sequel. At present, I shall 
content myself with two observations, which may help to give 
the reader a just idea of the difference between the orthodox and 
them in this particular. 

1. The first is, that what the orthudox subscribe to, in respect 
of the Trinity, is no more than what all Catholics, even the most 
zealous opposers of the Arians, were ever ready to profess, and 
in the same terms as we do. But (as I have already hinted) 
what our modern Arians subscribe, is what the ancient Arians 
would never have admitted. They abhorred the very name and 


thing of consubstanttality, coequality, coeternity ; one Godhead in 
three Persons, or the like, which are all plainly laid down in our 
- public forms. From hence it is manifest that the vtolence we 
are charged with would never have been thought any by our 
predecessors on the Catholic side: but the vtolence which we 
charge the Arians with is such as their predecessors would have 
allowed to be such. 

2. Another observation is, that what the orthodoz clergy sub- 
scribe to, they are ready also to profess from the press, or the 
pulpit, or in common discourse, which are all of a piece with 
their subscription ; at least, generally speaking. They scruple 
not in sermons, in writings, in discourse, to give the title of God 
eminently, or of only God, to the Father: nor to admit of such 
expressions as imply a subordination of order in the sacred 
Trinity. But the Arians, on the contrary, never use any ex- 
pressions like to some which they subscribe to. They will never 
say from the press, or from the pulpit, or in common conver- 
sation that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one God; that 
they are coequal, coeternal, &c. They allow of these expressions 
as often as they subscribe; but never else. They understand 
what such words mean in any other place but in our. public 
forms ; and they do not think they can conscientiously make use 
of them at other times, however conscientiously they may sub- 
scribe to them. Should any man of them, in a treatise or 
sermon, throw out any such shocking assertions, (shocking, I 
mean, to them,) he would be looked upon as a deserter by the 
party; and a detrayer of the cause which he had undertaken to 
defend. But if he subscribes to them, and solemnly gives his wn- 
feigned assent and consent thereto; this, it seems, and this only, 
is harmless and inoffensive. 

I shall confirm what I have said by a remarkable instance. 
Dr. Clarke did but once declare, in a paper laid before the 
Bishops, that “ the Son of God was eternally begotten by the 
ἐς eternal incomprehensible power and will of the Father ;” (an 
expression nothing near so strong for a costernity as forty others 
which he has subscribed tvo,) and his Arian friends could not 
bear it*. It occasioned a real and sensible grief amongst them. 
They looked upon it as giving up the cause, in a manner, and 
made broad hints of his being led by corrupt nature into a very 

e See Apology for Dr. Clarke, p. 49, ὅς. 


culpable prevarication. See how easily those gentlemen can 
understand the force of words any where else but in our forms ; 
and how carefully they guard against the use of such expressions, 
as they scruple not however to eudscribe to. Let any man 
compare this conduct of the Arians with that of the orthodow; 
and he will plainly see that the former are themselves con- 
scious of the violence they put upon the Church's forms; while 
the latter are not conscious of any violence, on their side, at all. 

Ριβα X. 

“ By an induction of particular passages there are 186 
“ places wherein our public forms are clearly on his (Dr. Clarke’) 
‘‘ side; and 27 only which seem to differ from him. Must not 
“then the smaller number be reconciled to the greater? Or, 
“ on the contrary, must the lesser number, and the more modern 
‘¢ phrases, be the standard of doctrine, and the rule of inter- 
“ preting the more ancient phrases, and the Jarger number?” 
Modest Plea, p. 120. 


This is pleasant and pretty. Of the 186 pretended places, there 
is not one either clearly or at all on the Doctor’s side, as to the 
points of difference between him and us. They are passages 
which may indeed be used by Arians (and so may they by 
Catholics) consistently with their principles. They are capable 
of different views, according to what they happen to be joined 
with. But as they stand in our forms, in company with other 
passages express and full for the Catholic doctrine, they can 
reasonably bear no other but the Catholic meaning. I think it 
not material to inquire into the truth and justice of this writer’s 
calculation, founded only upon Dr. Clarke’s arbitrary disposition 
of his sections or paragraphs ; sometimes making one sentence a 
distinct passage, sometimes crowding many into one; and some- 
times only referring to passages omitted. Let the number be as 
186 to 27; those 27 do not only seem, but are directly opposite 
to the Doctor’s principles, according to the plain, literal, and 
natural force of words, as well as the known sense of the 
jsmposers. The question then justly stated lies thus: Whether 
186 passages which might (if the compilers and inposers had not 
intended them in a Catholic sense) have been indifferently claimed 
by either Catholic or Arian, should yield to 27, which are 


utterly repugnant to Arianism, or the 27 to them. That 
is, whether those that can bear but one of the senses should 
yield to those that may fairly admit of either; or the contrary. 
Imagine 186 men to be wdtferent, or but nearly indifferent, in 
any point of dispute; and 27 resolute on one side. Which is the 
way to reconcile them, and unite them all in one verdict ? Is it 
to drag over the 27 by force of arms to what they are irrecon- 
cilably averse to! Or is it not rather to bring over the 
186 to the 27, to whom they have little or no aversion, and 
to whose side they are no way disinclined? This latter, I think, 
is the proper and only method to promote harmony and concord 
in the whole. The application I trust with the ingenious ; 
and here take my leave of this fanciful reasoning of the Modest 

Prea ΧΙ. 

“The Article in the Apostles’ Creed concerning Christ's 
“ς descent into hell, is now universally understood in a sense 
“probably different from what the composers of the Creed 
“« intended.” Clark's Reply, p. 34. 


How Christ’s descent into hell was understood by the com- 
posers of the Creed is uncertain: neither is it certain that it is 
universally understood in any one sense. However that be, one 
thing is certain, that our Church has left that Article at large, 
intending a latitude; and indulging a liberty to subscribers 
to abound in their own sense. This is not the case of the 
Articles relating to the Trinity. Their sense is fied, and 
bound upon the conscience of every subscriber by the plain, 
natural signification of the words: and by the known intent 
of the compilers and tmposers. If it be asked from whence 
we are to learn what was the intent of the imposers, or how 
it may be known; I answer, first, from plain words; and 
next, from history and observation, in the like manner as 
the intent and scope of any writer is to be known. 

Piea XII. 

“ The damnatory clauses in the Athanasian Creed are now by 
“ very few understood in that sense which, in all probability, 


“ the compiler of it in that very dark and ignorant age designed 
“to exprees.” Clarke's Reply, p. 34. 


1. That the Athanasian Creed (so called) was composed in a 
“ very dark and ignorant age,” is more than the Doctor knows; 
and therefore should not be so positively affirmed by him. The 
Creed, however, has no signs or tokens of darkness or ignorance ; 
but of great accuracy and solid judgment: and is the best exposi- 
tion (for its compass) of the doctrines of the Trinity and incarna- 
tton, that we shall any where meet with. 

2. Another thing which the Doctor affirms without knotting 
is, that “ few understand the damnatory clauses in the sense of 
‘the compiler.” Let any man shew what sense it is most rea- 
sonable to understand them in; and the same reasons (if good) 
shall serve to shew that that was the sense of the compiler. I 
know many have strained the damnatory clauses to an unreason- 
able rigour, on purpose to disparage the Creed: but they have 
not been able to prove that the compiler so intended it. 

3. The compiler’s sense being doubtful, and the ¢mposers having 
left those clauses without any exposition; the subscriber is at 
liberty to understand them in such sense as the words will bear ; 
and such as best answers the main intent and design of that 
Creed ; and is most agreeable to Scripture and reason. This 
instance is nothing parallel to the case of the Articles concerning 
the Trinity; whose sense is fixed and certain, as before said. Fix, 
in like manner, the sense of the damnatory clauses; and it shall 
soon be proved that every subscriber ought to acquiesce in it. 

Prea XIII. 

“ The procession of the Holy Ghost set forth in the Nicene and 
“ Athanasian Creeds, in one sense, is by Mr. (now Dr.) Bennet, 
“in his explication of his own sense concerning that point, shewn 
“ to be now understood by many (without any suspicion of insin- 
“ cerity) in a different sense.” Clarke’s Reply, p. 34. 


1. This is only argumentum ad hominem, (to make the most of 
it,) and therefore is not sufficient. 
2. The argument comes not up to the point in hand. Dr. 


Bennet was of opinion that our Church had determined nothing 
in this matter; otherwise he would not presume to interpret 
the procession in his own way. His words are; “If our Church 
“ had any where determined this matter, and declared in what 
‘ gense she understood the procession in the Athanasian Creed, 
“ the case would be altered.” And again: “Our Church never 
“ once adds the epithet eernal to the word procession; nor has 
“she any one passage, that I know of, which may not be as 
“ well understood of the temporal as of the eternal procession, 
“either in her Liturgy, her Articles, or her Homiliess.” I am 
not of Dr. Bennet’s mind in this particular; believing that the 
Church has determined the meaning of the procession in those 
Creeds; or rather, that the meaning is so plain, all things con- 
sidered, as not to need any further determining. However, it 
appears to be Dr. Bennet’s principle, relating to subscription, 
that where the Church’s sense may be known, that sense must 
be received; and that there is, in such a case, no latitude or 
liberty left to the subscriber. Upon this principle, he both does 
and must condemn Arian subscription; since both the plan 
meaning of words and the intent of compilers and tmposers ex- 
clude Artentsm. And it is well known with what zeal and 
earnestness Dr. Bennet remonstrates) against that collusion 
which he takes Dr. Clarke and his partizans to be guilty of in 
the matter of subscription. 

Piga XIV. 

“ The doctrines of predestination and original sin are at this 
“‘ day, by all eminent divines, (after the example of Archbishop 
“‘ Laud, and of the learned Bishop Bull,) understood in a sense 
“which there is no appearance the composers of the XX XIX 
‘“‘ Articles meant to teach; and which there is all appearance 
“ the composers of the Homilies intended should not be taught.” 
Olarke’s Reply, p. 34. 

“T cannot condemn Archbishop Laud, Bishop Bull, and 
“ others, who departed manifestly from the received sense, not 
“οἵ one, but of several Articles; nor that Declaration of King 
« James I. (read Charles I.) by which he openly patronized the 
““ subscribing the same Articles in several, not only different, but 
“ contradictory senses: and in effect declared it for the honour 

f Page 292. & Page 293. bh Bennet on the Trinity, p. 226. 


“ of the Articles that this should be so; and that all should 
“ acquiesce in it without mutual reproaches.” Lord Bishop of 
Bangor, Postscript, p. 259. 


1. It hath often been pretended by the Calvinists that the 
compilers and imposers of the Articles &c. intended a sense 
different (with respect to predestination and original sin) from 
that which now generally prevails. But this pretence has been 
often and abundantly confuted by great men; and particularly 
by the learned Bishop Bull, in his Apology against Dr. Tully : 
where he has unanswerably vindicated the present doctrines 
from the Articles, Liturgy, Catechism, and Homilies of the Church 
of England i, 

2. A distinction should be made between such Articles as, 
being formed in general terms, leave a latitude for private 
opinions; and such as, being otherwise formed, leave no such 
latitude. It is ridiculous to pretend that, because some articles 
are general or indefinite, and may admit of different explications, 
therefore ali may, allowing that either Calvinist or Arminian 
may subscribe to the Articles, (the Articles being general, and 
the main points in dispute left undetermined,) would it not be 
weak to argue from thence, that both Papists and Protestants 
may likewise subscribe to the Articles of the Church of England ? 
Now it is no less absurd to pretend that both Catholics and 
Arians may subscribe to our forme; some articles being as 
Jul and strong tests against Arianism, as others are against 

3. It is not fairly, because not truly, suggested, that when 
men of different sentiments, as to particular explications, sub- 
soribe to the same general words, that they subscribe in contra- 
dictory, or even in different senses. Both subscribe to the same 
general. proposition, and both in the same sense; only they differ 
in the particulars relating to it: which is not differing (at least, 
it need not be) about the sense of the Article, but about partt- 
culars not contained in the Article. For instance: let two per- 
sons assent to a general proposition, This figure ts a triangle; one 
believing the triangle to be equilateral, the other believing ite 
sides to be unequal: they are directly opposite in their senti- 

i cag ag Dr. Bennet on the 17th Article. Directions for studying, &c. 
Ρ. 93, &e. 


ments, as to what kind of triangle it is: but in the general 
proposition, that the figure ἐδ a triangle, both agree, and in the 
same sense. 

In like manner, imagine the article of Predestination (and the 
same may be said of any other in like circumstances) to be left 
in general terms. Both sides may subscribe to the same general 
proposition, and both in the same sense: which sense reaches 
not to the particulars in dispute. And if one believes predesti- 
nation to be absolute, and the other conditionaie, this is not (on 
the present supposition) differing about the sense of the Article, 
but in their respective additions to it. 

4. It is very uncautiously and unaccurately said, that King 
Charles I. patronized the subscribing the same Articles either 
in contradictory or different senses. His order is, that every 
subscriber submit to the Article in the “ plain and full meaning 
“ thereof,” in the “ literal and grammatical sense.” What! is 
the plain and full meaning more than one meaning? or is the 
one plain and full meaning two contradictory meanings? Could 
it be for the honour of the Article (or of the King) to say this! 
No: but the royal Declaration, by “plain and full meaning,” 
understands the general meaning, which is but one; and to which 
all might reasonably subscribe. And he forbids any one’s “ put- 
“ting his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the 
“ Article,” or to “affix any new sense” to it: that is, he forbids 
the changing a general proposition into a particular; he stands 
up for the general proposition, or for the Article itself; and pro- 
hibits particular meanings, as not belonging to the Article; nor 
being properly explications of it, but additions to it. This is the 
plain import of the royal Declaration: and it is both wise and 
just; free from any of those strange consequences or inferences 
which some would draw from it. 

5. I must further remark, that the present instance has no 
relation to the point in hand. The propositions concerning the 
holy Trinity, contained in our pudliic forms, are not general or 
indefinite, but special and determinate, in the very points of 
difference between Catholics and Arians, (consubstantiality, co- 
equality, coeternity, &c.) and that in as clear and strong words 
as any can be devised. This is the reason why the subscriber 
has no latitude left in this case; and why an Arian can claim 
no benefit from any latitude allowable in other Articles where 
circumstances are plainly different. And it must be thought a 


very peculiar way of reasoning to argue that, because a man 
may take a liberty where the Church and State have allowed it, 
therefore he may take the same liberty where they have not 
allowed it: which is all that this plea amounts to. 

I cannot but observe from the disputes and clamours that 
have been raised about the 17th Article of our Church, what a 
tender regard has all along been paid to the point of the sud- 
scription ; and how jealous men have been of any the least 
appearance, or umbrage of prevarication, in 8o serious and sacred 
a thing. What then must be said of those who plead for a 
plain, open prevarication, in a case which can admit of no 
dispute with any considering man, and has hardly so much as a 
colour left for it ἢ 

Ριξα XV. 

“ That Article in the Nicene Creed (of one substance with the 
“ Father) is now (through the ambiguity of the Latin and 
“ English translation) by most men taken much otherwise than 
“the Council intended it. For the greater part of modern 
“ Christians (if we may judge by the writings of eminent divines) 
“understand it (as if it had been ravroovows) to signify of one 
“individual substance with the Father, whereas all learned men 
“know that the Greek word (ὁμοούσιος) never had any such 
“ signification, and that the Council meant no such thing.” 

Clarke's Reply, p. 35. 

Here is little more in this plea than a cavil upon the double 
meaning of the word individual; which has been sufficiently 
exposed in another place. It has also been shewn that the 
doctrine of the Nicene Council is rightly enough understood by 
modern Christians ; and that while the Doctor so magiaterially 
censures the whole Christian world, in a manner, yet no one 
ever understood this matter less, or talked more crudely of it 
than the Doctor himself hath done, in this very page of his 
Reply. See my Defence, vol. i. p. 544. and Reply to Dr. 
Whitby, p. 203, &c. of this volume. 

Prra XVI. 

“It becomes a sincere man (especially if he varies from 
“notions commonly received) to declare plainly in what sense 


“he understands any words of human institution; that his 
‘“‘anferiors and equals may not be imposed upon by him, and 
“that his superiors may judge of such declaration.” Clarke’s 
Reply, p. 33. 

‘‘ Dr. Clarke, of all men, could least be charged with collusion, 
‘“ because he has declared publicly his opinions in this matter.” 
Modest Plea, p. 221. 


I have reserved this plea to the last, as being of a very 
different kind from the rest, and withal carrying a more 
plausible show of frankness and sincerity in it. Nevertheless, 
this, though it has an appearance of fairness, will by no means 
serve the purpose for which it is brought. 

Suppose any disaffected persons in this kingdom should invent 
some strange, forced, unheard of interpretation of the civil 
oaths, to elude and frustrate the intent of them; and declare 
in print, that they themselves take the oaths in this new sense, 
advising their brethren to do the same; would such declaration 
be sufficient to salve their honesty, or to make them righteous in 
the sight of God or man? would they not be rather thought 
the more notoriously wicked, as not only venturing upon perjury 
themeelves, but instructing and seducing others into the same 
crime ! 

Their giving netice of the prevarication would not be acquit- 
ting themselves of the guilt, but proclaiming it; and, in some 
respects, increasing it: as it would not only be doing an ἐϊ 
thing, but, what is worse, boasting of it, and teaching others 
to do the like. One dishonest act, or more, are not so dan- 
gerous or pernicious, as the laying down principles, and con- 
triving subtities and artificial evastons, whereby to undermine 
the very foundations of moral honesty. 

I am not sensible that there is difference enough between 
this and the other case, to make one innocent and the other 
highly criminal. Nothing can be pleaded for it but the presumed 
consent of the superiors, after declaration made. But that no 
such presumed consent can have any place in the matter of sud- 
scription, may appear from the reasons following : 

1. Because superiors may often connive at, or tolerate offences : 
which are never the less offences for such conntvance. 

2. Because so long as our superiors continue the same forms, 


which clearly express such a sense, they must be presumed 
to tntend the same sense, till they declare otherwise. And 
their permitting the same forms to stand is a much surer 
argument of their still intending the same thing, than their 
suffering an offender to escape, with impunity, can be of the 

3. The expressions of our Articles, Liturgies, Creeds, and Lava, 
are all so plain and full for the received doctrine of the Trintty, 
and against the new scheme, that a man must have a very mean 
opinion either of the wnderstanding or integrity of his superiors, 
to suppose that they can ever allow him to trifle at such a rate 
in so serious a matter as subscription. And it must be observed 
that our superiors speak by the pudblic forms, as much as 
the legislature speaks by the public laws: and no sense can 
be their sense but the plain, usual, literal meaning of those 
publtc forms; till some as public and as authentic declaration 
alters the case. 

If the subscription contended for be in itself fraudulent, 
as elusive of the /aw, a man’s declaring, or giving notice of it, 
does not alter its nature, or make it legal. Suppose ἃ man 
should declare that he subscribes only so far as is agreeable 
to Scripture ; (a method disallowed by our Jaws, according to the 
unanimous resolution of all the judges, as before observed :) such 
declaration would never alter the nature of the subseripiton; but 
it would be as much against /aw as ever, notwithstanding : and, 
for that very reason, it would be unrighteous and dishonest. 
But I have also observed, that subscribing in any sense contrary 
to the plain force of words, and known meaning of the tmposers, 
is equally tegal with the other: and therefore neither can this 
be justified any more than the other. And since whatever is 
tllegal is of course condemned by our supertors, who speak by 
the public laws, it is evident that our superiors condemn this 
kind of subscription ; and consequently there is no pretence left 
for a presumed consent, unless our superiors can be presumed 
both to allow and condemn the very same thing at the same 

4. I must add, that our superiors have, from time to time, (as 

there has been occasion,) sufficiently testified their disallowance 

of any attempts tending to undermine the Catholic recewwed 

doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity. His present Majesty's 

Directions, at this very juncture, are yet fresh in our minds: 


where (to the general joy and satisfaction of the kingdom) 
he has signified his just resentments against those “ impious 
“tenets and doctrines which have been of late advanced and 
ἐς maintained with much boldness and openness, contrary to the 
“ great and fundamental truths of the Christian religion, and 
“particularly to the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed 
“ Trouity.” And his royal command is, that “no preacher 
“presume to deliver any other doctrine——concerning the 
“ blessed ΤΈΙΝΙΤΥ, than what ἐδ contained in the holy Scriptures, 
“and is agreeable to the three Creeds, and the XXXIX 
« Articles of religion.” Now the 8th Article of our Church 
expressly affirms that the “ three Creeds may be proved by most 
‘‘ certain warrants of holy Scripture.” Whosoever therefore 
gives it out for Scripture doctrine, that “the one God always 
“ὁ signifies the Father ;” or that “‘more Persons than one cannot 
“be, or are not, one God ;” or that “God with any high epithet 
“ always signifies the Father ; or that “the Son or Holy 
‘ Ghost is not God, Lord, Almighty, eternal, uncreated, and 
“ς incomprehensible, as much as the Father;” I say, whoever 
pretends Scripture for these, or the like positions, (positions 
plainly repugnant to the Athanasian Creed, which Creed may 
be proved from Scripture, according to Article the 8th,) 
does at the same time act in opposition to his superiors, who 
have enjoined the observance of the Creeds and Articles. If it 
be said that such general orders or dtrections of supertors reach 
not to this particular case, as not containing any formal pro- 
hibition of those newly-devised senses put upon the Creeds 
and Articles; I answer, that there is no more occasion for 
a formal prohibition against perverting the plain sense of the 
Creeds or Articles, than there is for the like prohibition against 
perverting the sense of the ctvtl oaths. All that have common 
understanding are supposed to know, that directing us to 
adhere to the Creeds and Ariétcles, is directing us to adhere to 
their true sense, that being always implied. To pervert their 
true and certain sense, is not adhering to our Church's forma, 
but contradicting them : which, though it be done in an insidious 
way, and under the false name of explaining them; yet, in 
reality, means the same thing as the most direct and formal 
opposition to them. And however the disguise may be serviceable 
in the eyes of men, yet conscrence is not a thing to be played 
with in that manner; neither will such vain pretences avail any 


thing in the sight of God. Subscribing in this method is really 
nothing else but eluding the whole design of the /aws, and im- 
posing upon the ruling powers: but it must be doubly rude and 
absurd, at the same time, to presume, that any man can have 
their consent for it. So much for this. 

I have now run through all the pleas, pretences, or excuses 
(arguments I will not call them) that I could any where meet 
with for the new method of subscribing. The reader is not 
to wonder at the nwmber of them, which is an argument only of 
8 bad cause. Had there been any good reason whereon to found 
it, there had been no need of running out into such multiplicity. 
But when men have once left the plain and true way to follow 
their own wanderings, invention is fruitful; and it is very easy 
always to have a great deal to say, after a man is gone beyond 
the rule of speaking to the purpose. I believe, I may now venture 
to affirm that the cause which those gentlemen have taken in 
hand is one of the weakest that was ever undertaken by wise 
men. False facts, groundless surmises, and inconclusive rea- 
sonings, are all that it has to subsist upon. And yet I have 
hitherto allowed them, for argument sake, one supposition ; 
namely, that the expressions in our forms are capable of a sense 
consistent with their principles: and I have shewn, notwith- 
standing, that their subscription is fraudulent ; because repug- 
nant to the more plain and obvious sense of the words, and the 
known intention of the tmposers. But I must now examine 
the truth of that supposition which has been thus far allowed 
them: and if that also proves weak and groundless; there will 
then be nothing of colour or pretence left for that subscription ; 
but the very men themselves who either use it or plead for it, 
must be sel/-condemned. I shall therefore next examine how that 
case stands; not that I need put the issue of the cause upon it, 
(for it is a clear point that the subscription pleaded for is un- 
justifiable, though I allowed them the present supposition,) but 
ea abundanti, and to shew how miserably weak, and destitute of 
all support, the opposite persuasion is, 1 may inquire whether 
even this their last refuge may not be taken from them. 



That several expressions in our public forms are really not capable 
of @ sense consistent with the Arian hypothesis, or new scheme. 

IT must be owned that words are arbitrary signs of things; 
and so, in some sense, it may be said that the word whtée is 
capable of signifying black, and the word light might signify 
darkness, if the custom of speech had not otherwise determined. 
I suppose, those gentlemen will not extend their notion, of words 
being capable of their sense, thus far. They must have regard 
to custom of speech, to use of language, to common rules of gram- 
mar and criticism, in determining whether words be capable of 
such a sense or no. And whatever forms are capable of that 
sense which is contended for, must be conceived capable of being 
paraphrased into that same sense, by putting other equivalent 
words into their place. By these rules and measures I shall 
proceed in the inquiry, whether the expressions of our public 
forms are capable of an Arian sense or no. Dr. Olarke has re- 
duced the number of those which we chiefly insist on to 27. 
I shall single out some of them, following the order wherein 
they lie, in the first. edition of “Scripture Doctrine,” together 
with Dr. Clarke’s interpretation of them. I shall begin with the 
Athanasian Creed : 

‘¢ Whosoever will be saved; before all things it is necessary 
“ that he hold the Catholic faith. 

‘‘ Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled ; 
‘“‘ without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 

« And the Catholic faith is this, &c. 

“He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the 
“ Trinity. 

‘This is the Catholic faith; which except a man believe 
“ faithfully, he cannot be saved.” 

These are what they call damnatory clauses: and it ought to 
be matter of serious inquiry, in what sense the gentlemen of the 
Arian persuasion can subscribe them, without subscribing their 
own damnation. The very lowest sense and import of those 
damnatory clauses has ever been conceived to intend thus much, 
that the matn doctrine of the Trintty and incarnation, the doc- 
trine of worshipping one God in three Persons, and three Persons 


tn one God; and the doctrine of perfect God and perfect man, 
united in one God-man, are necessarily to be believed (or how- 
ever not disbelieved) by all persons of years and discretion, (who 
have had the opportunity of being duly instructed,) under peril 
of eternal damnation. As the author of the Creed could not 
intend less than this, so neither can the words themselves import 
less. And yet there is just reason to question whether the ad- 
vocates for the new scheme think it necessary to worship God the 
Son or God the Holy Ghost at all; it being a principle much 
contended for amongst them, fo direct their prayers uniformly to 
God the Father ; *meaning, I suppose, to him, and to him only : 
and it is certain that they neither believe three Persons to be one 
God ; nor perfect God (in the sense of the Creed) to be united 
personally with perfect man to make one God-man. Dr. Clarke, 
in his Comments, takes a great deal of pains to prove that par- 
ticular explications of all or any part of the doctrine of the 
Trinity cannot be necessary to salvation. This proceeding of 
his would be right, if he had been teaching his followers to sub- 
scribe with this reserve, viz. so far as is agreeable to what they 
think Scripture: but since they are to subscribe in some sense 
whereof the words are capable, as well as agreeably to Scripture, 
his pains would have been better employed in shewing how the 
damnatory clauses can be capable of a lower sense than that 
which has been given. 

“ We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.” 
Here it is to be noted, that Dr. Clarke and his adherents always 
by one God understand God the Father only: and will never 
allow two Persons in one God, though the words of the Creed 
plainly include three. Let us see then how these words must be 
paraphrased, to make them consistent with their principles. It 
is thus : 

“ ‘We worship one God (the Father) in Father, Son, and 
‘“‘ Holy Ghost: and we worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
“in one God the Father. That is, by referring all the worship 
“‘ to the Father ultimately, as to the one supreme Head.” Let 
us consider what can be made of this construction. It may be 
turned two ways: either thus, We worship one Person in three 
Persons, and three Persons in one Person, (which is flat enough, 
and scarce sense;) or else thus, We worship one God, the 

k See Modest Plea, p.177. Brief Answer to Dr. W. p. 64. 


Father, principally, worshipping three Persons ; and we worship 
three Persons, worshipping one God, the Father, principally. This 
indeed is sense; but such as no one ever did or ever would 
express in the words of the Creed. It is not said, Unum Deum 
Patrem precipue venerantes, Trinitatem veneremur ; et Trinita- 
tem venerantes unum Patrem precipue veneremur: but it is, 
Unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in Umtate veneremur. 
ἕνα Θεὸν ἐν Τριάδι, καὶ Τριάδα ἐν μονάδι σέβωμεν. Plainly sig- 
nifying, that the one God to be worshipped is the Trinity, and 
the Trinity to be worshipped is the one God. We may proceed 
to what follows : 

“ Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. 
“For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, 
‘and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the 
“ Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, &c.” 
Here the meaning of the words is very plain, that the Persons 
must not be confounded, because Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
are distinct Persons: nor the substance of the three Persons be 
divided, because the Godhead of the three is all one. To para- 
phrase the words, upon the Doctor’s principles, they must run 
thus : 

“ Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Father’s 
“« substance : for the three Persons are distinct, but the dtwinity 
“ of the Son and Holy Ghost is no other than what is communi- 
“ cated from the Father.” By this paraphrase, the whole force 
of the sentence is broken and confused. Understanding sué- 
stance of the three Persons, the whole is well connected: for 
here is a reason given why their substance is not divided ; viz. 
because their Godhead is one. But what sense or connection is 
there in saying that the Fathe’s substance is not divided ; for, 
or because, the divinity of the Son, &c. is no other than what is 
communicated from him? No one would ever have expressed 
‘the Doctor’s sense in those words of the Creed, or in that man- 
ner. esides, the words Godhead all one, (una divinitas, pla 
θεότης,) applied here to three Persons, are of known, certain sig- 
nification ; denoting that the substance of the three is one, and 
that all are one God. So that if either the coherence of the sen- 
tence, or the grammatical sense of words, or their constant and 
customary use in Church writers, be of any weight; the passage 
now before us 18 not capable of that sense which the Doctor 
would wrest it to; but must be construed in another: which 


other is likewise confirmed by the words following; “ the glory 
‘“‘ equal, the majesty coeternal.” 

As to glory equal, the Doctor takes care to tell us, it must not 
be understood in the same sense as coordinate beings are equal to 
one another. Well, that we know: but what sense must the 
subscriber understand it in? The Doctor says, in ‘“‘ such a sense 
‘‘as he who derives his essence or being from another, can be 
“equal, &c.” Well, but what if the subscriber, according to his 
Arian sense of deriving being, &c. thinks that the glory of the 
second and third Persons can be in no sense equal to that of the 
first ; any more than the glory of a creature can be equal to the 
glory of the Creator ; how then can he subscribe to these words, 
which are express for equality of glory, in some sense or other? 
The Doctor's last shift is, that it may be understood in such 8, 
sense as Christ is said to be ἴσος Θεῷ, (or ἶσα Θεῷ,) as God, or 
equal with God. But the Doctor’s construction of ta Θεῷ, 
(Phil. 11. 6,) is no more than to be honoured as Lord of all things, 
that is, with honour equal, or suitable to such a Giod, or Lord, so 
exalted; not with honour equal to that which belongs to God 
the Father. But the Creed plainly makes the glory of each 
Person equal to the glory of any other Person: wherefore the 
words are not capable of such a sense as the Doctor has put 
upon ἶσα Θεῷ, but the subscriber is left to seek out for some 
other; or else to subscribe the words in no sense at all. The 
next words of the Creed are, 

“Majesty coeternal.” The word coeternal is of a fixed and 
known sense in ecclesiastical writers: never used to signify any 
thing less than absolute eternity, without beginning and without — 
end. How contradictory this sense is to the principles of the 
party, may be seen from the author of the Apology for Dr. 
Clarke, who says thus: ‘“‘ Though the generation of the Son, and 
““ procession of the Holy Ghost may, in a sense, be said to be 
“ eternal, as they were mpd πάντων and πρὸ αἰώνων, yet what is 
“this to the absolute eternity of a self-existent Being!?” We 
see what the Apologist thought of the great, the infinite dis- 
parity between the eternity of the Father and the eernity of 
either of the other two Persons: nor did the Doctor in his 
answer to him disapprove of his sentiments; but rather (¢acitly 
at least) acquiesced in them. How then can these gentlemen 

1 Page 50, 51, 438. 


subscribe to the coeternity of the three Persons? The Doctor 
in his comments admits that the second and third Persons have 
always been with the first, which he explains by before all ages, 
and before time. If this comes up to a coeternity, it is well: if 
not, he does but deceive himself and his followers; for coeternal 
can bear but one sense, and can admit of no degrees, no differ- 
ence in point of duration. 

The reader should here observe the artful method of explain- 
in away the sense of a creed, or of any other writing: not for 
the sake of learning it, (for it is not worth it,) but to be armed 
against it, and to prevent being imposed upon by it. When a 
word occurs, of a fixed sense, and which is not liked; the way is 
first to look out for another word that is ambiguous, which may 
bear the same sense, but may also bear another. Draw but a 
reader thus far to let slip the first word, and to take this other 
instead of it, and then the work is half done. Having a word 
with two senses, drop by degrees the sense you have no mind to, 
and take the other, still substituting other words which may 
come nearer and nearer to the sense you aim at; till at length, 
by several removes, you get quite off from the sense of the word 
you began with. 

Thus in the present instance; from coeternal, a word of fized 
sense, and rather too high for the Arian hypothesis, the learned 
Doctor puts ‘always with the Father ;” which might indeed 
signify the same thing, but is however capable of a lower sense: 
and to bring the sense gradually down, the Doctor next sub- 
stitutes the phrase “ before all ages,” which again is equivocal, 
and does not sound quite so high as the former: then, to lower 
the sense still further, he has another phrase, viz. “ before time :” 
and time, ‘in a restrained sense, may be said to have commenced 
with the world. So now he is got low enough, and the reader 
may be supposed, by these several steps, to have lost the sight 
of coeternal. But to pass on. 

“Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy 
“* Ghost.” The Doctor’s interpretation of it is; “such in all 
‘‘genses wherein he that derives. his essence or being from 
‘ another, can be such as is he from whom he derives it.” Here 
again he leaves his subscriber in the dark. For what if he had 
said, such in all senses wherein a creature can be such as his 
Creator ? which I am afraid is the true meaning of most of his 
disciples. This would come to the same as saying such in 


no sense: so that by this limitation, he takes away the plain force 
of the words; and teaches his followers to subscribe, not “ in 
‘‘ such sense as the words are capable of:” but “so far as is 
“ agreeable to what they call Scripture.” The Creed is positive 
that the second and third Persons are such as the first; and 
immediately after specifies the respects in which they are 
such. Such in respect of their being eternal; such in respect of 
their being wnereated ; such in respect of their being tncom- 
prehensible, Almighty, God, and Lord. That is, all the three 
Persons are equally, and in the same sense, uncreated, eternal, 
sncomprehensible, Almighty, God, and Lord. This is plainly 
the doctrine of the Creed ; the literal and grammatical sense of 
the words. Now, to qualify absolute propositions with reserves 
and limitations, in the manner the Doctor does, is not explaining 
their sense, but contradicting it. Neither can this be called 
subscribing in a sense in which the words are capable, but only 
“‘so far as is agreeable to what some call Scripture :” which rule 
of subscribing is condemned by those gentlemen. 

“The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy 
“Ghost uncreate——And yet not three uncreated, but one 
“‘uncreated.” The Doctor here teaches the subscriber to 
acknowledge every Person to be wuncreated, (ἄκτιστος,) and 
yet, to say that there are not three uncreated (ἄκτιστοι) 
Persons, but one uncreated Person; which is a staring con- 
tradiction: besides, it is owning two of the Persons to be 
creatures, in some sense, which the Doctor at other times 
studiously avoids. But he was here in great straits; and 
was to venture upon any thing, rather than admit what he 
has the utmost aversion to, three Persons to be one uncreated 
Being, or God. 

He has no possible way of reconciling the seeming contra- 
diction contained in his comment, but by making a distinction 
between derived uncreatedness and underived uncreatedness : 
which would have appeared so odd and fanciful, that he chose 
not to mention it in terms, but only to hint it in generals. 
W hat precludes this, and every other pretence of that kind, is, 
that the Creed plainly makes the uncreatedness of the second and 
third Persons to be such as the Father’s is, that is, of the same 
kind, and to be understood in the same sense, there being no 
difference or distinction in that respect. 

‘‘The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, 


“and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible——And yet there are 
‘“ not three incomprehensibles, buf one incomprehensible.” The 
Doctor takes the same way with this as with the former 
passage; and runs into the like contradiction to avoid the 
admitting so shocking a thing to him, as the notion of three 
Persons being one incomprehensible ; which is the certain meaning 
of the Creed. I shall say no more to this, but refer the reader 
to what I have observed upon the passage preceding. 

‘The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost 
“eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one 
“eternal.” Here the words are so express for three Persons 
being one eternal, (which the Doctor can by no means bear,) that 
he had no way left but to change they are not into there are not: 
without considering that the subscriber must give his wnfeigned 
assent and consent to they are not; and must so read in the public 
congregation. Besides this inconvenience, which the Doctor 
seemed to be unapprised of; there is another which he was 
forced to run upon, (contrary to his usual caution,) and that 
was to say, “ there are not three eternal Persons,” hereby denying 
the eternity of two of them. And yet the Oreed, more than once, 
expressly asserts the coeterntty of all three; and besides plainly 
teaches that the eternity of the second and third Persons is such 
as the Father’s is. Nor will the Doctor's distinction of a 
derived and underived eternity help him in this matter: for the 
sense of the word efernity has nothing to do with that dis- 
tinction, being but one, and importing neither more nor less 
than beginningless and endless duration. 
᾿ς “ The Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy 
“Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, 
“but one Almighty.” Here the Doctor again changes they are 
not into there are not: thereby signifying that the subscriber 
cannot honestly assent to, or make use of, they are not; though 
he does not tell him how to avoid the doing of it, solemnly, and 
in the face of the public congregation. 

I take no notice of the Doctor's choosing τρεῖς παντοδύναμοι, 
rather than τρεῖς παντοκράτορες, because he will claim the 
privilege of taking which he likes best: otherwise the Greek 
copies favour the latter as much as the former; and the Latin 
original is indifferent to either. 

“ The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is 
God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” We 


have the same collusion again practised, in changing they are not 
into there are not, only for the sake of avoiding what the Creed 
mainly intends to teach, that the “ three Persons are one God.” 
I shall not here repeat what I have before said; but shall only 
observe an omission which the Doctor is guilty of, in not 
teaching the subscriber how to reconcile the contradiction of 
every Person being a God, (for so it must be on his principles,) 
and yet not three Gods. For though there be but one supreme 
God, (upon the Doctor’s hypothesis,) yet one supreme God, and 
two inferior Gods, are three Gods, in such a sense as neither 
Scripture nor antiquity can ever allow. The like might be said 
of the next paragraph, respecting one Lord and three Lords. I 
shall just take notice of ἃ slight inconsistency of the Doctor, in 
explaining this paragraph. To account for the Holy Ghost's 
being here called God, he is forced to admit that he is repre- 
sented in Scripture as “ exercising divine power and authority,” 
Ρ.435. But if we turn back to Prop. xxv. p. 296. we are there 
told that the Holy Ghost, in the New Testament, is never 
expressly styled God, “because he is no where represented as 
*‘ sitting upon a throne, or exercising supreme dominion, &c.” 
So that it seems the Doctor can make it out either way; that 
the Scripture has, or has not, given ground enough for 
styling the Holy Ghost God, just as occasion serves. But to 
pass on. 

“ In this Trinity, none is afore, or after other” (Nihil prius 
aut posterius—— or, Nemo primus aut postremus. οὐδὲν πρῶτον 7 
torepov—altier, οὐδεὶς πρῶτος ἣ ἔσχατος) “ but the whole three 
‘“‘ Persons are coeternal.” The coeernity could not be expressed 
in stronger words than is here done, both posttively and ne- 

If the Doctor and his friends believe it, it is well: if not, it is 
very certain that they cannot honestly subscribe, even upon their 
own principles; for the words are not capable of any lower 

‘None is greater or less than another; but the whole three 
“ Persons are-———coequal.” 

The Doctor's comment upon the words none ἐδ greater, &c. 1, 
that the second and third Persons are every where with the first, 
as they are always. I doubt not but the sole reason which led 
the Doctor into this remote and strained construction, was 
his apprehension that the phrase every where, like the word 


always, might help him to a double entendre, for the uses above 

But if every where be capable of two meanings, the words of 
the Creed are not so; “none greater or less ;” and if they must 
be understood of presence, they can signify nothing lower than 
this; that all the three Persons are equally omnipresent. 

I am content with this meaning ; and if it be consistent with 
the Doctor’s hypothesis, am very glad of it: or if it be not, then 
he must be conceived to advise the subscriber to subscribe in a 
sense of which the words are not capable. 

After I had proceeded thus far, and had looked a little 
forwards, I was much surprised to find the Doctor interpreting 
coequal very differently from the words, “none is greater, &c.” 
as if they did not both mean the same thing, first negatively, 
and then positively expressed. But the Doctor, it seems, stands 
by no rules of interpreting. They are “ coequal” (says he sow) 
“in such ἃ sense 88 one or more Persons can be equal to 
“another (from whom they derive their being) by a plenary 
“communication of power, knowledge, dignity, &c.” He has 
the like come-off for the words “equal to the Father as touch- 
‘ing his Godhead ;” that is, says he, equal “in such a sense 
“ as @ derived being can be.” I have before observed something 
of this general salvo, for some other passages: and indeed it is 
such a sovereign salvo for every difficulty, that he need not have 
made use of any other. In reality, it comes to no more than 
this, that he admits the words, and the sense of them, so far as 
consistent with his own hypothesis, or his own sense of deriving 
being. In the same way, a man might subscribe to the decrees 
of the Council of Trent, or to every article of Pope Pius’s Creed. 
For instance: I believe saints may be worshiped, but in such a 
sense as worship can be due to saints. I admit transudetantiation, 
but in such a sense as it can be consistent with Sonpture and 
reason. I admit prayers in an unknown tongue, but tn such a 
sense as can be reconciled with the 1 Cor. xiv. And thus we 
need not scruple any thing. Apply the same salvo to the cicil 
oaths, and it may serve as well there, to elude and frustrate 
them: and a man may swear to any king, without acknow- 
ledging his just right or title. It is but saying thus; I believe 
such a person to be the only rightful and lawful king of these 
realms, in such a sense as he can be rightful and lawful, upon my 
principles, &c. And what may not a man swear, or subscribe to 


in this loose method? Now in truth, though this kind of collusion 
is disguised by the words such a sense, as if there were a certain 
sense, in which the subscriber might fairly understand the words, - 
consistent with his own Aypothesis ; yet it really amounts to no 
more than this, the subscribing so far as 48 consistent with his 
own opinions. For a man may make use of the same salvo, 
whether the words be capable of any such sense, or whether they 
be not. If they be capable, he is indeed bound up to such sense : 
if not, he is free, having subscribed to them no further than they 
can be so understood; which perhaps may not be at all. I 
cannot but from hence observe, how unfairly and unjustly the 
very worthy and learned Bishop of Oxford has been treated for 
confounding (as is pretended) these two things: subscribing 80 
far as ἐξ agreeable to Scripture; and subscribing in such sense as 
ts agreeable to Scripture. For however distinct these two things 
may be in the general, they are really confounded by Dr. Clarke 
himeelf in this particular case, as I have often observed. Neither 
will he ever be able to defend the point of subscription upon the 
latter only, without taking in the former also. His talking of 
such sense seems only to be a cover, or plausible disguise, for so 
far as, (which has deceived his unwary followers who have not 
seen so deep into this matter as he;) and hence 1 conceive it is, 
that he has never expltcttly condemned the subscribing with the 
reserve of so far as ts agreeable; though others of the party, 
being ashamed to stand up for so unaccountable a latitude, 
have indeed plainly rejected it; not being aware of the need 
they should have of it. But to return to the Creed. 

“God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the 
‘“ worlds; and man, of the substance of his mother perfect 
“‘ God, and perfect man.” 

The Doctor did not think proper to take any notice of this 
passage. I know not how any words can be stronger for the 
Son’s having the same divine nature with the Father, as much 
as he has the same human nature with his mother: perfect God, 
and perfect man, having all that belongs to the nature of both. 
This is utterly repugnant to the Arian hypothests ; and can no 
more be reconciled with it than light with darkness. 

We may now take leave of the Creed, (called Athanasian,) 
and proceed to the Litany. 

“© holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Persons, and 
“ one God, have mercy &c.” 


Here the three Persons are all together invoked, and under 
the style and title of one God, directly opposite to the Doctor’s 
. principles. The Doctor has no way to evade their force, but by 
understanding the title of one God to belong to the Father only. 
Hia sense is this: 

““O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Persons, and 
“ one God, viz. the Father, have mercy &c.” This collusion 
the subscriber is to practise in his most solemn devotions: 
excluding two of the Persons from the one Godhead here, 
though he had addressed them both under the title of God in 
the two preceding petitions; and though the epithets, holy, 
blessed, and glorious, are equally attributed to all three, in the 
very same petition. If this be to “ pray with the understanding,” 
(as the Doctor pretends it is,) let it rather be the wish of every 
honest man to have less understanding, and more grace than to 
trifle in this manner with the tremendous Deity. 

In the Collect for the third Sunday in Advent, we thus ad- 
dress our blessed Saviour : 

“0 Lord Jesu Christ——who livest and reignest with the 
ἐς Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without 
“end.” Any one, at first sight, may here see that the title of 
one God is not attributed to the Father only, but to all the 
three Persons: contrary to the Doctor’s principles. The Doctor 
does not attempt to shew that the words are capable of any 
other meaning. Only he draws up another form suitable to his 
own hypothesis, and little akin to the words in the Collect ; sub- 
stituting that in the room of the other. If the subdscriser can 
content himself with such shuffling in his solemn prayers, let him 
look to it. 

There is just such another passage in the conclusion of the 
Collect for Christmas-day, (which the Doctor has omitted,) and 
there is anothor in the Collect for the sixth Sunday after Epi- 
phany, (which he has also omitted,) running thus: 

“ With thee, O Father, and thee, O Holy Ghost, he (Christ) 
“ liveth and reigneth, ever one God, world without end.” Here, 
whether Christ alone, or all the three Persons, (and one of these 
it must be,) be called one God, it is equally repugnant to the 
Doctor’s principles. And he cannot subscribe to this, “in such 
“‘a sense as the words will bear,” (for they cannot bear his 
sense,) but only “so far as is consistent with his principles :” 
which is not assenting to the words of the prayer, but to some- 


thmg else of his own inventing. The like may be said of the 
Collects for Septuagesima, and the first Sunday in Lent, and 
Good Friday, twice, and Easter-day, and Ascension-day, and 
the Sunday after; all which the Doctor has omitted out of his 
collection : an omission indeed not worth the mentioning, were 
it not that the Modest Pleader has been pleased to object the 
smallness of the number 27, which, we see, might have been 
enlarged; and were it not an aggravation of the great sin of 
prevaricating with God and man, to consider how often it must 
be repeated in the yearly course of the prayers. 

The Doctor takes notice of the Collect for Whitsunday, and 
shifts it off in a loose manner: and 80 passes on to Trinity- 
Sunday, dealing much the same way with that also. He omits 
the Collect for St. Matthew's day; which is more express and 
JSull against his principles than either of the two former. I shall 
pass over all the other places in our Liturgy or Articles, except 
one, with which I shall shut up this chapter. It is the proper 
preface for Trinity-Sunday, in the Communion- Office, running 
thus : 

“0 Lord, Almighty, everlasting God; who art one God, one 
‘“‘ Lord, not one only Person, but three Persons in one substance. 
“ For that which we believe of the glory of the Father, the 
‘ same we believe of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without 
“ any difference or inequality.” 

The Doctor here pleasantly says, that “there is no passage 
“ in the whole Service so apt to be understood in a wrong sense 
“ag this;” meaning, I suppose, so apt to be understood in the 
sense the Church intended, and so hard to be perverted to any 
other. And it must indeed be thought a very clear and full passage 
on the orthodomw side, when a person of the Doctor’s abilities, in this 
kind, and after he had worked his way through the Nicene and 
Athanasian Creeds, (besides a great part of the Liturgy,) began 
at length to feel himself nonplused by it, and almost at the point 
of confessing it. His first endeavour was to perplex and puzzle 
the Church’s sense; and next to introduce his own. 

He pretends that the words “Lord, Almighty, everlasting 
« God,” are personal, and must be understood of one Person only, 
though he cannot but know that every one of those words are 
used in the Athanasian Creed (to say nothing of the Liturgy) of 
all the three Persons taken together; and they are here ex- 
preasly declared to belong, not to “one Person only,” but to 



“ three Persons in one substance.” The words, who art, he 
thinks, cannot be properly applied to more Persons than one. 
But that they are so applied here is manifest, and by those who 
were competent judges of propriety: and if he likes it not, why 
should he subscrise? When he comes to give us his own mean- 
ing, he never attempts to shew (good reason why) in what sense, 
consistent with his principles, a subscriber may believe “three 
«« Persons in one substance,” and that the same glory belongs to 
all, “ without any difference or inequality.” It would be trifling 
to take notice of what he endeavours to put upon a subscriber, 
in order to satisfy his conscience in one of the most serious and 
solemn things in the world. I can never give myself leave to 
think that he could at all satisfy himeelf in it, upon second and 
cooler thoughts. Indeed, I should ask the Doctor’s pardon for 
dwelling so long upon those extravagant explications; which, 
I doubt not, he now heartily despises, as well as 1. Neither 
ought they to be any longer imputed to him, who has expunged 
them, and cast them off, from the time his second edition has 
appeared. But since his disciples and followers are still proud 
of his refuse, and set a value upon his érijies, which he has too 
much sense to do himself; since they insist upon it that all the 
expressions of our public forms are, at least, capable of a sense 
consistent with their principles; and appeal, for proof of it, 
(having indeed nothing else to appeal to,) to the Doctor’s per- 
formances on that head ; in a word, since they have been pleased 
to rest the whole cause of subscription upon the Doctor’s expl- 
cations, it was necessary for me to take under examination those 
things upon which such a stress was laid; unless the Doctor 
himself would have been so kind (for which I should have heart- 
ily thanked him) as to speak more plainly in this matter than 
he has thought proper to do. One half-sheet, one small adver- 
tisement from his hand, to discountenance this kind of sudserip- 
tion, would have done the business at once, and have saved me 
the labour of doing any thing. The credit of his name was, in 
a manner, all it had to stand upon: and had he but pleased to 
take off the countenance of his authority, hia reasons should have 
been left to stand or fall by themselves. But as the case now 
is, (and as the author of the Remarks observes,) that the whole 
party are gone after him, and still persist in the Doctor's first 
thoughts relating to subscription; neither has the Doctor took 
any sufficient care to reclaim them, or to bring them back; the 


cause is too important to wait his slow motions, or to be left 
any longer in suspense. The glory of God, the honour of our 
most holy religion, and the security of Church and State, call 
for our best endeavours to root out, if possible, those false and 
pernicious principles, and to reestablish the matter of subscription 
upon its true and solid foundations. How far I have been able 
to contribute to so good an end, must be left to the reader’s 
judgment. My design however was well aimed: and this is my 
apology for disturbing the learned Doctor, late, and unwillingly, 
on this head. 

I shall now briefly sum up the particulars of what has been 
advanced above, for the reader’s clearer apprehending of it, as 
well as the better retaining it. 

1. The Church of England requires subscription, not to words, 
but things; to propositions contained in her public forms. 

2. Subscribers are obliged, not to stlence or peace only, but to 
8 serious belief of what they subscribe to. 

3. Subscribers must believe it true in that particular sense 
which the Church intended, (so far as that sense may be known,) 
for the Church can expect no less; the design being to preserve 
“one uniform tenor” of faith, to preclude “diversity of opinions,” 
to have her own exzplications, and none other, (as to points de- 
termined,) taught and inculcated; and to tie men up from 
spreading or receiving doctrines contrary to the public deter- 
minations. These and the like ends cannot be at all answered 
by subscription, unless the subscriber give his assent to the 
Church’s forms in the Church’s sense; that is, in the sense of 
the compilers and tmposers. 

4. The sense of the compilers and unposers is to be judged of 
from the plain, usual, and iteral signification of words; and 
from their intention, purpose, or design, however known: the 
rule for understanding the public forms being the same as for 
understanding oaths, laws, wmyunctions, or any other forms or 
writings whatever. 

5. Where either the words themselves, or the tnéention (much 
more where both) is plain and evident; there the sense of the 
imposers is fully known; and there is no room left for a sud- 
scriber (as such) to put any contrary, or different sense upon the 
public forms. 

6. If words be capable of several meanings, but yet certainly 
exclude ¢ts or that particular meaning; a subscriber cannot 

xX 2 


honestly take the forms in that meaning which is spectally ea- 
cluded. For this would be subscribing against the sense of 
the Church at the same time that he professes his agreement 
with it. 

7. It may be certainly known that any Aran sense of our 
public forms is such a sense as our Church tntended to exclude, 
and has excluded, in as full and strong positive terms as the wit 
of man is able to devise. And all men of sense must allow, that 
when compilers and tmposers have done the utmost they could, 
and as far as any words can reach, to express the Catholic 
doctrine of the Trinity; they may and must be supposed to 
mean that very doctrine which they have industriously laboured 
to express, and none other. 

8. And that it may not be pretended by our modern Arians, 
that their sense is not Arian, (which nevertheless it certainly 
is,) it is further evident, and hath been shewn, that the main 
particulars of their scheme (call it what they please) is specially 
excluded, both by the plain words and undoubted ¢tntention of 
our public forms. 

9. Therefore none of the advocates for the new scheme can 
fairly or honestly subscribe to our Church’s forms, though they 
could invent a sense for them consistent with their own princi- 
ples; it being evident that any such sense is contrary to our 
Church’s sense, and to the intention of the tmposers. 

10. The pleas and excuses devised to justify the subscribing 
in a sense contrary to, or different from, the Anown sense of the 
imposers, being’ founded either on false presumptions or weak 
reasonings, are of no weight or significancy; but the Arian sub- 
scriber must be blamable for going counter to the known sense 
of the Church, even though the words were capable of another 

11. Yet, upon examination, it appears that many expressions 
of our public forms are really not capable of any sense consistent 
with the eto scheme. And therefore, if the patrons of it subscribe 
to their own sense, (as they must be conceived to do,) they sub- 
scribe to a sense which is no sense of our public forms at all, on 
any supposition. 

12, The subscription therefore of those gentlemen, however 
glossed over with the pretence of subscribing “in such sense as 
“ is agreeable to (what they call) Scripture,” really amounts to 
no more than subscribing “‘so far as is in their opinion agreeable 


“to Seripture.” Which way of subscribing not only defeats 
every end of subscription, and stands condemned by our (ates, 
and by the express resolution of our judges, but is also absurd in 
itself; as leaving room for any prevarication whatever, in the 
matter of oaths or tests; and for subscribing the Romtsh Confes- 
ston, or even the Alcoran, or any thing; and is moreover ez- 
plcitly condemned, even by the generality of those who plead 
for Arian subscription. 

Digitized by Google 






Digitized by Google 





WHEN I drew up the “Case of Arian Subscription,” &c. I 
was apprehensive that eo plain a charge, and so home pressed, 
might exasperate the persons concerned ; though I took care to 
treat them with all the mildness and tenderness that the subject 
would bear: confining myself to the reasoning part, naming no 
particular men but such as I was obliged to quote, and candidly 
exempting the principal man of them, that the charge might be 
as general and inoffensive as possible; falling rather upon the 
thing itself, than upon this or that particular person. If the 
argument be provoking, I cannot help it: the same objection 
lies against the detecting or reproving any vice or tmmorality 
whatever. It is the proper business of a divine to state cases of 
conectence, and to remonstrate against any growing corruptions 
in practice, and especially in principles. If Arian subscription 
be really fraudulent and immoral, (which no considering man 
can doubt of,) it may concern those gentlemen rather to testify 
their sincere repentance, than to acquaint the world with their 
causeless resentments, I shall here say nothing to the abusive 
flirts of the nameless author, who has been pleased still to 
persist in the defence of Arian subscription; except it be to 
remind him, that those assuming strains very ill become either 
so weak ἃ cause or such a gutlty practice. I was once inclinable 


to take no notice of so mean a pamphlet; concluding that I had 
said enough, when I had said enough for men of sense and com- 
mon ingenuity; and it is often not advisable to press things to 
the utmost. But since this is a cause of very great moment, 
wherein the very foundations of moral honesty, as well as of 
Christian sincerity, are deeply concerned; I think it incumbent 
upon me to proceed somewhat further in it: and if those gen- 
tlemen resolve to go on in maintaining an open fraud as long as 
it is possible to amuse or deceive, though only the weakest and 
most ignorant readers ; I also must resolve (by God’s assistance, 
and for God’s glory) to go on in the defence of sincertéy and 
probity, till the very meanest readers may sufficiently understand 
it. To come to the business. 

The pamphlet lately published, is entitled, ‘The Case of Sub- 
scription to the XX XIX Articles considered; occasioned by 
Dr. Waterland’s Case of Arian Subscription.’ The author is 
but just, as well as modest, in not calling it an answer to mine : 
for indeed he has left the most material points untouched, with- 
out so much as attempting any thing like an answer. If you 
will take his bare word for it, the Articles of our Church, so far 
as concerns the Trinity, are general, indefinite, undeterminate; 
not particular, special, or determimate. He takes this for 
granted, and reasons all the way upon that supposition; which 
is very unaccountable: unless it were because I had damnon- 
strated the contrary, beyond all reasonable reply; and so there 
was no other way left but to stifle the evidence, to protest against 
fact, and to bear the reader down with a false presumption. 
Such a management as this is, in effect, little else but a more 
untoward way of giving up the cause; where a man does the 
thing, but loses all the grace and credit of it by his manner of 
doing it. But let us see how he goes on to give some colour, 
at least, to his pretences. I had pressed the Arian subscribers 
with the Athanasian Creed, the Liturgy, and the Articles, to 
prove that our Church was particular and determinate in the 
points disputed. Not a single word has this writer to shew, 
either that the Athanasian Creed or Liturgy is not determinate, 
as I represented: and as to the Articles, he seems to make no 
account of any but the first: of which he often intimates, that 
he has some way of evading it, but he does not care to tell us 
what, for fear he should be found faultering even there, and lie 
open to rebuke for it. The ἡγε Article alone, is, I am very 


certain, more than he can fairly deal with: but I must remind 
him further, that the 2nd and 5th Articles do also require his 
consideration ; and then there is the eighth, which, unfortunately 
for him, carries all the three Creede in the bowels of it: creeds 
which, as the Article says, (and as this writer says, if he sub- 
seribes to it,) “ought thoroughly to be received and believed ; 
“for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy 
“ Scripture.” 

Well then, we have the Creeds wrapped up in the Artteles ; 
and the subscriber must be content to take in all or none: let 
us next see to the Liturgy. This gentleman thinks he has a 
fetch for that: he subscribes not to the éruth of every particular, 
but to the use only, and that “it contains nothing contrary to 
“the word of God.”’ Now, says he, “I must freely own that I 
“ see no contradiction, no necessary absurdity, in the use of what 
‘a man may wish to have in some things corrected?.” I would 
be as favourable to this wriver as possible. I do allow of his dis- 
tinction, and that it may be proper and pertinent in some cases ; 
but I can never allow that a man may ue a solemn formal sie, 
in his prayers, and often repeat it, under pretence that we may 
admit the use of some things which might be corrected. This is 
arguing from gnats to camels, and widening the rule beyond all 
measure and proportion. This will best be understood in the 
sequel, when the reader comes to see what kind of things those 
are which this gentleman desires to use, without bekeving a syl- 
lable of them. I must observe further, that the subscriber is 
tied up to believe that the Liturgy “contains nothing contrary 
“to the word of God.” “Does not this pinch a little closer than 
this writer might wish? Has he nothing to object against any 
expressions in the Liturgy, but that they contain things seem- 
ingly contrary to natural reason? Have they nothing contrary 
to Serspture, to what he calls Soripture? I should be thankful 
to him for so obliging 8 concession. After all, I would advise 
this zriter not to pretend to be wiser than Dr. Clarke. The 
Doctor had considered these matters much and long: and I 
have not yet fouhd any disciple of his that has endeavoured to 
refine upon him, but what has exposed himself in doing it. The 
wary Doctor was sensible that Articles, Creeds, and Liturgy, 
must all come into account, and all be reconciled (if possible) to 
his own hypothesis. He made no distinction between admitting 

® Case of Subscription, &c. p. 46. 


the truth of this, and the use only of that; well knowing, that 
truth and use are coincident in a case of this high moment; and 
that he could not submit to the use of those prayers but in such 
a sense as he thought true. He took the only way of settling 
that matter for his purpose, had there really been any: but as 
his failed, the flaw in the architecture is never to be made up by 
common hands. 

Having shewn that Creeds, Articles, and Liturgy must all 
come in, to determine in our present question; I would now 
proceed to cite passages from our publte forms, and confront 
them with select sentences drawn from the writings of the new 
sect, that every common reader (for to such I now write) may 
have ocular demonstration of the truth of what I affirm, that 
the expressions of our public forms are spectal, precise, and déter- 
minate against the new scheme; not general, or indefinite, as this 
writer wishes, I can hardly say, believes. But I must first take 
notice of a remark which he has page the 8th, that we are 
obliged to subscribe only the English Articles, not the Latin. 
I know not what uses he intends by it; though he intimates 
there may be some; keeping upon the reserve, as usual, when 
he suspects an advantage may be taken. Dr. Clarke, to do him 
justice, openly declared what evasions or salvos he had to justify 
his subscribing. He considered, I suppose, that without this, 
it would be subscribing with mental reservations; which is per- 
fect Jesuitiem. But this zriter, perhaps, thinks there is no harm 
in it, that it is an innocent practice} and that so long as he 
can but invent some secret evasion to himself, he need have no 
concern about satisfying the world. To return to the matter in 
hand. As to the Articles, English and Latin. I may just observe, 
for the sake of such readers as are less acquainted with these 
things, first, that the Articles were passed, recorded, and ratified 
in the year 1562, and in Latin only. Secondly, that those Latin 
Articles were revised and corrected by the Convocation of 1571. 
Tlardly, that an authentic English translation was then made 
of the Latin Articles by the same Convocation, and the Latin 
and English adjusted as nearly as possible. Fourthly, that the 
Articles thus perfected in both languages were published the same 
year, and by the royal authority. /1/thly, subscription was re- 
quired the same year to the English Articles, called the Articles 
of 1562, by the famous act of the 13th of Elizabeth. 

b See the particulars proved at large in Dr. Bennet’s Essay on the XXXIX 



These things considered, I might justly say, with Bishop 
Burnet¢, that the Latin and English are both equally authentscal. 
Thus much however I may certainly infer, that if in any places 
the English version be ambiguous, where the Latin orginal is 
clear and determinate; the Latin ought to fix the more doubt- 
ful sense of the other, (as also vice versa,) it being evident that 
the Convocation, Queen, and Parliament intended the same sense 
in both. For instance, in Article the first, the three Persons are 
declared to be of one substance ; in the Latin, eyusdem essentia, 
that is, of the same essence: from hence it is manifest, that one 
substance is equivalent to same substance, or essence. Again, in 
Article the second, the English version runs thus: “ The Son, 
“ which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of 
“ the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the 
“ Father, &c.” Now in the English, the words, “ the very and 
“ eternal God,” may possibly be referred to the Father just 
before mentioned: but the Latin Article‘ plainly shews that the 
words are to be referred to God the Son, and could not have 
been intended of God the Father, in that place. From hence 
we see how useful it may be to compare the English and Latin 
together, in any doubtful cases: for there cannot be a more 
demonstrative proof than this is, (where it can be had,) of the 
true sense and meaning of compilers and imposers. And let this 
writer pretend what he pleases, when once the true and full sense 
of the tmposers is fiwed and certain, that very sense, and that 
only, is bound upon the conscience of every subscriber. This I 
have abundantly proved in my former papers: to which I shall 
only now add this plain reason; that, since words are designed 
to convey some meaning, if we take the liberty of playing upon 
words after the meaning is fixed and certain, there can be no 
security against equivocation and wile, in any laws, oaths, con- 
tracts, covenants, or any engagements whatever: all the ends and 
uses of speech will hereby be perverted; and there can be no 
such thing as faith, trust, or mutual confidence among men. 

I proceed now to set before the reader the tenets of our new 
guides, in one column, with the tenets of our Church in another, 
opposite column ; that from thence we may form a judgment of 
their agreement or disagreement. I shall take my citations of 

¢ Burnet, Preface to the Articles, sterno a Patre genitus, verus et eter- 
-10. | nus Deus, ac Patri consubstantialis, 
d Filius, qui est Verbum Patris,ab &c. Art. II. 



the first column from Dr. Clarke and his professed disciples ; not 
from Mr. Whiston and his, who are known to be less reserved, 
and who abhor this kind of fraudulent subscription as much 
as I do. I shall not scruple citing some passages out of the 
jira edition of “ Scripture Doctrine,” which are left out in the 
second ; because, though the Doctor does not own them, yet his 
disciples must, till they either give better, or yield up the cause 

of subscription. 

The Scripture doctrine of the 
Trinity, according to Dr. 
Clarke and his followers. 

Dr. Clarke’s scheme makes 
the Unity of the Son and 
Spirit with the Fatherto be only 
figurative, not (necessarily 9) an 
unity of essence, or individual 
substance, but of authority and 
consent. Modest Plea, p. 7. 

The Father alone is, abso- 
lutely speaking, the God of the 
untverse. Clarke, Prop. 8. 

The Scripture, when it men- 
tions the one God, or the only 

© Note, that the two words, seces- 
sarily and sndividual, here stand for 
nothing but to soften the expression. 
Necessarily is of no moment, because 
the subscriber is to acknowledge that 
the doctrine of one substance 18 war- 

The Scripture doctrine of the 
Trinity, according to the 
Church of England m her 
public forme. 

In the Unity of this God- 
head there be three Persons of 
one substance. Art.1. 

The Son——of one substance 
with the Father. -Ar?. 2. 

The Holy Ghost of one sub- 
stance with the Father and the 
Son. Art. 5. 

It may be proved by most 
certain warrants of holy Scrip- 
ture, (Art. 8.) that the Son is 
of one substance with the Father, 
(Nic. Creed,) and that he is 
God of the substance of the 
Father; and that we ought 
not to confound the Persons, 
nor divide the substance. Athan. 

In the Unity of this God- 
head there be three Persons. 
Art, 1. 

It may be proved by most 
certain warrants of holy Scrip- 
ranted by Scripture, and therefore 
necessarily to be believed. And as to 
individual it signifies nothing here ; 
the Doctor, it seems, denying ail ; 

of substance, and admitting only unéty 
of authority and consent. 


God, always means the supreme 
Person of the Father. Clarke, 

Prop. 9. 

The Apostle says, God és the 
Father, which is the direct con- 
tradictory to your notion, whose 
definition of God is, that he 
is——the three Persons. Modest 
Plea, p.150. 

Demonstration that one God 
is one Person only— otherwise 
impossible for one Person to 

be God. Collect. of Queries, 
p. 108. 
There are not three uncreated 

Persons. Clarke, Script. Doct. 
Pp: 429, edit. 1. 

The Father (or first Person) 
alone is self-existent, underived, 
unoriginated, independent, made 
of nonef, begotten of none, pro- 
ceeding from none. Mod. Plea, 
Pp: 5. 

If any thing, it is most na- 
tural to infer that he (the Son) 
4s not the very G'od, because he 
is here so expressly contradis- 
tinguished from him. 

{ Note, that the Father alone ie here 
said to be made of none; which is 
directly saying that the other two 
Persons are made. I had observed 
the same of Dr. Clarke’s fifth Pro- 
position, but had it intimated to me, 
that the Doctor had put a semicolon 
at tndependent ; to shew that alone 


ture, (Art. 8.) that the Godhead 
of the Father, of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost, ts all one, 
that they are not three Gods, 
but one God. Ath. Creed. 

O holy, blessed, and glorious 
Trinity, three Persons and one 

Nothing contrary to the word 
of God contained in this form. 

O Lord, Almighty, everlast- 
ing God; who art one God, 
one Lord, not one only Person, 
but three Persons in one sub- 
stance, ὅθ. Comm. Off. 

Ever one God world with- 
out end, frequently applied to 
all the three Persons in our 
Church’s Collects. 

It may be proved by most 
certain warrants, &. (Art. 8.) 
that the Son is wacreate, and 
the Holy Ghost uncreate: the 
Son sot made, nor created : the 
Holy Ghost neither made, nor 
created. Athan. Creed. 

One Lord Jesus Christ—— 
begotten, not made. Nto. Oreed. 

The Son——the very and 
eternal God. Art. 2. 

Very God of very God. 
Nicene Creed. 

reached no further, the rest being to 
be understood of Father without the 
restriction of alone. But, it seeme, 
the Modest Pleader was not aware of 
the significancy of the semicolon, but 
puts a comma only: wherefore I may 
justly charge him with making two of 
the Persons creatures. 


The Word, when he ap- 
peared in the form of God, and 
as God, was no more than the 
minister and angel of God. 
Mod. Plea, p. 30. 

It is without any colour from 
Scripture, that you affirm each 
of the three Persons to have 
the same right of dominion. 
Mod. Plea, p. 159. 

When Dr. Clarke excepted 
supremacy and independency, he 
plainly, in reason and conse- 
quence, excepted absolute &tn- 
jinite powers, so that the ob- 
jector might well have spared 
asking in the aixth Query, 
whether infmtte perfection can 
be communicated to a finite 
being. Collect. of Queries, p. 57. 

The divine attributes of the 
Son are not indtordually the 
same with those of the Father 
As to their differing as 
finite and injinite, there can be 
but one intelligent Being® ab- 
solutely infinite in all respects. 
Collect. of Queries, p. 54, 55- 

God, when he is styled Fa- 
ther, must always be under- 
stood to be (αἰτία) a true and 

& Note, the word absolute is only to 
soften the expression. The author, in 
reason and consequence, plainly inti- 
mates that the powers of the Son and 
Holy Ghost are not infinite, and that 
they are finite beings. 


The whole three Persons are 
coeternal together and coequal 
——equal to the Father as 
touching his Godhead. Ath. 

It may be proved by moat 
certain warrants of holy Scrip- 
ture, (Art. 8.) that such as the 
Father is, such is the Son, and 
such is the Holy Ghost ——the 
Father is Lord, the Son Lord, 
and the Holy Ghost Zord ; and 
yet not three Lords, but one 
Lord. Ath. Creed. 

There is but one living and 
true God, everlasting-——of in- 
Junite power, wisdom, and good- 
ness——and in Unity of thus 
Godhead there be three Per- 
sons of one substance, power, 
and eternity. Art. τ. 

That which we believe of the 
glory of the Father, the same 
we believe of the Son and of 
the Holy Ghost, without any 
difference or inequality. Oomm. 

It may be proved by most 
certain warrants of holy Scrip- 
ture, (Art. 8.) that the Son is 

h Note, that intelligent Being is with 
this writer, and the whole party, 
equivalent to person: eo that here 
two of the Persons are declared to be 
Jinste beings. 


proper Causei, really and effi- 
ciently giving life: which con- 
sideration clearly removes the 
argument usually drawn from 
the equality between a Father 
and Son upon earth. Clarke, 
Script. Doctr. p. 239, 273. ed. 

The Father alone perfect im 
himself. Soript. Docr. p. 273. 

Necessary existence is as in- 
consistent with being begotten, 
as to have no cause of existence, 
and to have a cause. Mod. Plea, 

Self-existent, unoriginate, or 
underived, properly expressed 
by necessary existence. Mod. 
Plea, p. 216, 217. 

The Son is not self-evistent. 
Clarke, Prop.12. Comp. Reply, 
162, 230, 231. 

—avowedly maintain, that 
the Son is not necessarily antst- 
ingk. Phileleuth. 2nd Letter to 
Mangey, p. 27. 

An angel might strengthen 
him|!, who was now in that 
state of humiliation, made a 
little lower than the angels. 
Modest Plea, p. 93. 

! Dr. Clarke’s notion of a true and 
cause is of a person acting 
upon choice, or rather, acting; (for 
acting, with him, implies choice:) so 
that his meaning here is that the Fa- 
ther might ckoose whether the Son 
should exist or no. The latter part of 
the citation insinuates, that the Son 
is not as truly equal in nature to the 
Father, as one man is to another. 
k N.B. To deny the Son’s seces- 



God of the substance of the Fa- 
ther,——and man of the sub- 
stance of his mother ; perfect 
God and perfect man.— Equal 
to the Father as touching his 
Godhead. Ath. Creed. 

The Son begotten, not made, 
of one substance with the Fa- 
ther. Nic. Creed. 

The Son—not made, nor cre- 
ated, but begotten. Ath. Creed. 

The Son——the very and 
eternal God. Art. 2. | 

Very God of very God. Nic. 

It may be proved by most 
certain warrants of holy Scrip- 
ture, (Art. 8.) that the Son is 
Almighty, perfect God,——equal 
to the Father, as touching his 
Godhead. | 

sary existence is the same as to assert 
him to be a precarious being, depend- 
ing as much on the will of the Father, 
for his existence, as any creature what- 
ever, and therefore a creature. 

1 Note, this is said of the Son of 
God, even in his divine nature, and 
whole Person, nor does this author 
ever allow the distinction of divine and 
human nature, but rejects it, as im- 
plying a division of person. See p.97. 



The grand principle (of Dr. 
Bennet) was, that the Word ts 
the very God. When this was 
once established, it was rightly 
thence inferred, that #e Word 
cannot be exalted——nay, this 
supposition will indeed justify 
those questions, Was the very 
God exalted thereby? Is it not 
blasphemy to suppose it? 
Our Saviour was highly exatted 
as the reward of his sufferings 
From the Doctor's prin- 
ciple, it is a just inference that 
the Word never was exalted. 
But on the other hand the 
Scriptures are clear, that he 
who was the instrument of his 
_ Father in the work of creation, 
yet had not a kingdom, and 
judgment, and dominton, then 
committed to him———but after 
his sufferings and death, &c. 
Mod. Pléa, p.97, 98. 

This power and dominion to 
which Christ is advanced at the 
right hand of God, is not only 
the highest character and pre- 
rogative of his Sonship, spoken 
of in Scripture, but is the foun- 
dation of as personal Godhead 
and adoration. Collect. of Quwe- 
rve8, Ὁ. 75: 

The Son hath a relative on- 
niscience communicated to him 
from the Father; I mean that 
he knoweth all things relating 


The Son the very and 
eternal God. Art. 2. 
Very God of very God. re. 

The Son, which is the Word 
of the Father, degotien from 
everlasting of the Father, the 
very and eternal God, of one sub- 
stance with the Father. Art. 2. 

God, of the substance of the 
Father, begotten before the 
worlds. Ath. Creed. 

Only-begotten Son of God, 
begotten of his Father before οἷ 
worlde, God of God, very God 
of very God. Nic. Creed. 

One living and true God, of 
infinite power and wisdom: in 
the Unity of this Godhead there 
be three Persons, &c. Art. 1. 


to the creation and government 
of the universe: but yet he 
himself confesseth, Matt. xxiv. 
36, of that day and hour, &c. 
By which all the ancient Ante- 
Nicene writers™ understand 
that our Lord, as the Adyos, or 
Son of God, did not then know 
the day of judgment. Collect. of 
Queries, Ὁ. 48, 49. See also 
Unity of God not inconsist. p. 8. 

There are not three eternal 
Persons. Clarke, Script. Doctr. 
Ρ. 433. rst ed. 

The eternity of God the 
Father is revealed in the Old 
Testament—in the New Testa- 
ment it is emphatically ex- 
pressed, Rom. i. 20. But in 
neither is there any mention 
of the Son’s. Coll. of Queries, 
Ρ. 50. 

The Word incarnate passible 
according to the express de- 
claration of St. John and St. 
Paul. — Whether they who— 
make only the heman nature 
passible, do not shew too little 
regard to the plain evidence 
of Scripture? Coll. of Queries, 

. 143. 

If Dr. Clarke’s scheme be 
right, it seems to follow 
that all worship ought to be 
directed to the Father through 
Christ : excepting only that 
such worship may be paid to 
Christ as Mediator, for which 

m Note, that this writer everywhere 
ofesses his agreement with the Ante- 
icene writers: and though he is en- 


That which we believe of the 
glory of the Father, the same 
we believe of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost, without any 
difference, or mequality. Com. 

It may be proved by most 
certain warrants of holy Scrip- 
ture (Art. 8.) that the Son is 
eternal, and that the whole 
three Persona are coeternal to- 
gether, and their mayesty co- 
eternal, and that they are one 
eternal. Ath. Creed. 

One living and true God 
without body, parts, and pas- 
sions (impassibtlts) in the 
Unity of this Godhead there be 
three Persons, &c. Art. 1. 

The Son—the very aad efer- 
nal God —very God and very 
man. Art. 2. 

It may be proved by most 
certain warrants, ὅσο. (Art. 8.) 
that the Unity in Trinity, and 
the Trinity in Unity is to be 
worshipped. Atk. Creed. 

tirely false in reporting ther senti- 
ments, yet it cannot be doubted but 
he here gives us his own. 



we have express warrants from 
examples in Seripture. 

Absolutely supreme honour O holy, blessed, and glorious 
due to the Person of the Father Trinity, &. Lit. 
singly, as being alone the sn- O Lord, Almighty, everlast- 
preme original author of all ing God, who art one God, one 
being and power. Clarke, Prop. Lord, not one only Person, but 
43. three Persons in one substance, 

Gc. Oom. OF. 

From this view of the doctrine of our Church, compared with 
that of our new teachers, it appears that they are entirely oppo- 
site to each other, and are no more to be reconciled than light 
and darkness. And yet I have not took the advantage of 
pursuing the doctrine of those gentlemen through its direct, 
immediate, and inevitable consequences, in order to make the 
contradiction between that and our Church’s forms still more 
glaring and palpable. Nobody can doubt of their believing the 
Son and Holy Ghost to be creatures, if either Arius, or Eu- 
nomius, or even Mr. Whiston, ever believed it. They unde- 
niably believe them to be what every body means by creature, 
in common speech and language. This is demonstrable, many 
ways, from their writings, and from those very passages which 
I have here selected. 

1. If the Father alone be.made of none; then it follows that 
the other two Persons are made, that is, are creatures. The 
premises are theirs, the conclusion makes 1086]. 

2. If the Father alone be necessarily existing, (as those gentle- 
men expressly teach,) then is the Son a precarious being, which 
is only another name for creature. The same will follow of the 
Holy Ghost. 

4. If the Son, even as Son of God, wanted an ange to 
strengthen him, he must of course be a weak, frat! being, that 
is, 8, creature. 

4. If the Son, as the Λόγος, or Word, was properly evalted, 
and in such a sense as cannot without blasphemy be asserted of 
the very God, (as these men teach,) then it is evident that the 
Son is an imperfect and mutable being, that is, a creature. 

5. If God the Son was once tgnorant, in his highest nature, 
(as these men teach,) and tgnorance can belong to nothing but 
creatures, he must of consequence be a creature. 

6. If neither the Son nor Holy Ghost is the one true God, but 


excluded from the one true Godhead, (as these men aseert,) they 
must of course be creatures only. 

7. If neither the Son nor Holy Ghost be the one injintte 
Being, nor have injintte powers, (as these men pretend,) they 
ean be only finite beings; and every finite being is, of course, 
& creature. 

8. If Christ’s evaltation, after his resurrection, be the sole 
JSoundation of his personal Godhead, (as these men say,) then he 
was not God before that exaltation; nor since, in any just and 
proper sense, but a creature only. 

9. If Christ be passté/e, in his highest nature, (as those men 
teach,) and nothing is passtble but a creature ; it evidently follows 
that he is a creature. 

Thus may it be demonstrated, nine several ways, (and more 
might be added,) from their own writings, that the abettors of 
the new scheme make God the Son, (and so the Holy Ghost of 
course,) as very 8 creature as ever did Arius, or Eunomius, or 
any Arian whatever. 

They must not here pretend to run into general declamations 
against charging men with consequences which they do not own. 
I allow such a plea to be reasonable in some cases, but not in 
this. For instance, when a Calvinist is charged with the dis- 
belief of God’s holiness, justice, or goodness; or an Arminian 
with the disbelief of God’s presctence, sovereignty, &c. both sides 
charging each other with consequences respectively, as if they 
were truly their tenets; such conduct on either side is justly 
condemned. But why justly condemned? Because it is certain 
that those consequences, which they draw for each other, are 
really not their tenets; since they, respectively, disavow and 
abhor any such tenets ; and because they are, respectively, ready, 
upon every occasion, to declare their full and entire belief of 
those atirtbutes, which they are said to deny; and would rather 
give up their main hypothesis, than be really guilty of any such 
wmprety against God's perfections. But now as to the consequences 
which I charge upon our modern revivers of Arianism, let it be 

1. That they are many of them so direct, plain, and immediate 
from their tenets, that they are hardly so properly consequences, as 
the very tenets themselves, differently expressed. 

2. Those gentlemen, when pressed with those consequences, 
give but too plain suspicion, that they both see and own them, 


and only verbally disclaim them. For they express no abhor- 
rence or detestation of the supposition of the Sox and Holy 
Ghost being finite, being precarious in their existence, being 
dependent on the will of another. Nor do they ever declare 
(except when they subscribe) that either of those two Persons 
is injinitely perfect, is strictly omniscient, is all-suffictent, or tn- 
dependent, as to existence, on the will of another. Instead of 
taking off the suspicious consequences, they do all they can to 
insinuate them into their readers; avoiding nothing but the 
name of creature; all the while inculcating the thing. And if 
they are further pressed, they must at length allow, that they 
do admit the Son and Holy Ghost to be creatures, in our mean- 
ing, in the common meaning of creature; only in some particular 
meaning of their own, they think they may deny it, of the Son, 
hardly of the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost must be a crea- 
ture with them, even upon their own definition of a creature; as 
being one of those beings brought into existence by the power of 
the Son of God, in subordination to the will and power of the 
Father". I say then, since the consequences, wherewith we 
charge those gentlemen, are plain, certain, and irrefragable ; 
wince they are not able to shew where they fail, or that they 
are ΠΟ consequences; since they are not solicitous to ward them 
off by expressing any abhorrence of them, or by any acknow- 
ledgment of the divine perfections of the Son or Holy Ghost, in 
their full extent, as understood of the Father; since they ap- 
pear only to avoid offensive xames, in the mean while insinuating 
and inculcating, in other words, the very ἐδέησε with which we 
charge them: such being the case, it is just to charge them 
with those consequences, as being really their zenets: I say, sust, 
in the way of disputation; as to legal censure, 1 concern not 
myself with it.. 

Having shewn how opposite the new scheme is to our Church’s 
doctrine, it may now be proper to represent, in its true colours, 
the case of Arian subscription; that every such person, when 
he presumes to subscribe, may understand how mean and vile 
a part he is therein acting. Let his own real sentiments be 
here specified, together with his professions, in the words of our 
Church, and his evasions to satisfy his conscience, in this sacred 

“ My faith is, that the three Persons are Hires Beings, and 

n See Collection of Queries, p. 60. ΄ 


“ three substances; two of them differing from the firgt, as finite 
“ and injintte: yet I profess with Article the ist, that they are 
“οὗ one substance, (efusdem essentia,) because the words of one 
‘* substance may either signify I know not what, (see the Case, 
“* p. 40,) or may be interpreted as Eusebius did the ὁμοούσιον, to 
“ signify that the Son and Holy Ghost have no likeness at all to the 
“ things which are made, (therefore not made,) but are like the Father 
“ an every respect, (see the Case, p.17,) therefore not differing in- 
«« finitely, or as finite from infinite. 

“ My faith is, that the Father only, in opposition to al other 
“Φ Persons whatever, is the very and clernal God; and conse- 
“ quently, that the Son is sot the very and eternal God: yet I 
“4 make no scruple to profess, with Article the 2nd, that the Son is 
“* the very and eternal God: not the same God, but another God ; 
“two very and eternal Gods, the divinity of the latter being 
“‘ demved from the former. 

“1 believe that the Holy Ghost is no where set forth in Sorip- 
“ture as God, and that he is not included in the one snjinite 
“ substanee, but finite of course: yet I readily profess with Article 
“the sth, that the Holy Ghost ts of one substance, majesty, and 
“ glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God: not 
“4 the same God, but another; in all, three very and eternal Gods°, 
“ by ineffable communication of divine powers and dignity from 
“ one to the other two. 

‘© My faith is, that to say, God ts three Persons, is the direct 
“ contradictory to the doctrine of St. Paul. Nevertheless, it 
“ may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture, that 
“ the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is 
“ all one, and that they are not three Gods, but one God. This I 
“ geruple not to profess, because I can understand ἐάν are not, 
“ when I read they are not. 

“Ὁ My faith is, that the Oreed called Athanasian, composed in 
“ a very dark and ignorant age, has affirmed more than is seces- 
“ sary, and more than is trueP, according to the compiler’s sense : 
yet I willingly subsoribe to Article the 8th, asserting that it 
*‘ ought thoroughly to be received and believed, and may be proved 
“ by most cortain warrants of holy Scripture; because I hope, 

° Ses my Defence, vol. i. p. 469, δ ba eggelonan ΒΥ ΓΝ ὑἐ ate 
47°, 4η6, 477- ubscription, page 394, &c. of this 
P See Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, volume. 


“some way or other, to wrest it to a meaning suitable to my 
“ own hypothesis. 

“I do not believe it at all necessary to salvation, to worship 
“* one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; or to profess perfect 
“ God and perfect man4 united in one Person: yet I readily ac- 
“ knowledge, with Article the 8th, that it may be proved by most 
““ certain warrants of holy Scripture, that whosoever does not keep 
“ this faith whole and undefiled, shall, without doubt, perish ever- 
“ lastingly. 

“ My faith is, that there is but one Godhead supreme, viz. the 
“ Godhead of the Father; and that the Godhead of the Son is 
“not the same Godhead, but inferior, and the Godhead of the 
“ Holy Ghost still more inferior: yet I willingly allow, with 
“ Article the 8th, that it may be proved by most certain warrants, 
“ &e. that the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
“ Ghost ts all one, the divinity of the two latter being derived 
“‘ from the former. 

“ My faith is, that there are not three eternal Persons, and that 
“ὁ particularly as to the edernity of the Son, there is no mention at 
“all of it in Scripture: yet it may be proved by most certain 
“ warrants of holy Scripture, that the whole three Persons are co- 
“ eternal together; that is, so far as an existence before times, or 
“ὁ ages, necessarily implies coeternal". 

“1 do by no means allow that the three Persons are, or can 
“ be, one eternal: yet I readily profess it may be proved, &c. that 
“ they are not three eternals, but one eternal, because I can put there 
“ for they, tacitly supposing one, when I read the other. 

“* My faith is, that God the Son is precarious in his existence, 
“that he has no foundation of his personal Godhead, but his 
“ exaltation, that he is no more than an angel of God, that an 
“angel might strengthen him, that he was once tgnorant in his 
“ highest nature, and was properly exalted, (all which it would 
“ὁ be blasphemy to ascribe to the very God, or to any thing but. a 
“ oreature, according to the common acceptation of creature,) 
“ὁ yet I scruple not to assert that he is very God of very God, 
“and that he is the very and eternal God, neither made, nor 
“ created ; that is to say, neither made nor created by himsel/s, 
“ but by the Father only. 

1 See my Case of Arian Subscrip- tion, ἐν 521 7, &c. of this volume. 

tion, p. 295, Σ ke. of this volume. llection of Queries, p. 60. 
r my Case of Arian Subecrip- 


“ My belief is, that to say, three Persons are one God, is con- 
“ trary to Scripture: yet I scruple not to declare that the Book 
“ of Common Prayer, which frequently asserts and inculcates that 
“ very thing, contains nothing contrary to the word of God. 

“I do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 
“ one God; it is contradictory to St. Paul: yet I am content to 
“ say, O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Persons and 
‘‘ one God, &c. And frequently, in my yearly course of prayers, 
“61 call upon ali the three, under the style and title of one God : 
“ for, though it be delivering a formal /te, before God and man, 
“and in a point of the highest consequence; yet 1 make no 
“gcruple of it, because 7 must freely own, that I see no con- 
“ tradiction, no necessary absurdity, in the use of what a man may 
“ wish to have im some things corrected. 

“‘ To conclude, I do not believe that the glory of the Son, or 
“ οὗ the Holy Ghost, is any way comparable to the glory of the 
“ Father: yet I scruple not to be the mouth of the congre- 
“ gation, in saying, ὁ That which we belheve of the glory of the 
“ Father, the same we believe of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
“ without any difference or inequality. This solemn mockery, 
“in the face of God and man, may Jatw/fully be used ; because, 
“ again, I see no absurdity in the wse of what a man may wish 
‘to have in some things corrected.” 

This representation of the import of Arian subscription, 
I take to be fully supported by what hath been above cited ; 
though I have not every where used their very words ; thinking 
it sufficient to give their certasm sense. I might easily have 
drawn it out into a much greater length, but that I am un- 
willing to be tedious, and incline to think that the very meanest 
readers may now fully apprehend what a grimace and banter 
our Arian reconcilers make of their solemn subscription. Yet 
they stand up for it, even in printed books; as if the first 
elements of sincertty were almost lost; or common sense were 
extinct among us. This it is that has obliged me to be so 
particular, and to lay these things plain and open before the 
eyes of the readers, that they may even see how the case stands, 
almost without the pain of any thought or reflection. 

I might here take leave of this writer, having abundantly 
confuted his confident assertion about the generality, or latt- 

t See Case of Subscription to the XXXIX Articles, p. 46. 


tude of expresaion, supposed in our Church’s doctrine of the 
Trinity. It is, now at least, clear and manifest, that the 
expressions of our public forms (so far as concerns the points 
in dispute) are fired, special, and determinate as possible: nor 
could the wit of man invent any more particular or stronger ex- 
pressions against the new scheme, than are already in our Oreeds, 
Lhturgy, and Articles. 

This writer's main pretence being thus taken off, other oc- 
casional or incidental passages may deserve the less notice. 
But since I have begun, I shall now go through with him, and 
answer every little cavil, which may either seem to require it, 
or may give me an opportunity of further illustrating any part 
of our present argument. 

Object. “ΤΊ the meaning of the Articles be in such a sense one 
“‘ meaning, that they can be subscribed honestly only by such as 
 apree in that one meaning; all, or all but one, of those great 
‘men, Bp. Bull, Dr. Wallis, South, Sherlock, Bennet, &c. must 
‘ have been guilty, &.” p. 5. 

Answer. If this writer can shew that any of those great 
men contradicted any point of doctrine plainly determined 
by our Church, as I have shewn of him and his party; 
then 1 condemn those men, be they ever so considerable, 
as well as the Arian subscribers: but if they differed in ever 
so many questions relating to the Trintty, (as there may 
be a great many,) and pone of those questions decided either 
way by our Church; their differing in such undetermined 
points does not affect their subscription, any more than their 
differing about the tnhabitants of the moon. Let this gen- 
tleman shew what positions of those great men plainly con- 
front the positions of our Church; that so they may be 
condemned, as they ought to be, and their subscription with 
them. Or if this cannot be shewn, how snportinent is the 
objection ! 

Object. “ When any Church requires subscription to its own 
“4 sense of particular passages of Scripture, which do not contain 
‘‘ the terms of salvation,.and refuses communion with those who 
“«“ cannot conform to that, it is confessed that such a Church does 
“ that which it ought not to do,” p. 5. 

Answer. This is entirely foreign. Subscription is not a term 
of lay-communton, but of ministerial conformity, or acceptance 
of trusts and prtvileges: so that this gentleman here seems 


to have forgot what he was upon. Besides that, had the 
dispute really been about the terms of communion, his pretence 
is not pertinent ; because the Doctrine of a coeternal Trinity is 
really a fundamental Article, and such as our Church deolares to 
be necessary to salvation. 

Object." “ The Articles are so composed, that some of them 
“are on all hands allowed to be left at large, the composers 
“ intending ἃ latitude, &o.” p. 8. 

Answer. I admitted this, in my papers before, and suffici- 
ently shewed how impertinent the plea is to the point in hand. 
Undoubtedly, it never was the intent of our Church to de- 
termine all questions relating to every subject whereof it 
treats. Yet she intended to determine, and has determined, 
many questions ; particularly the main questions between Pro- 
testanis and Papisis, between Catholics and Arians. When 
Franciscus a Sancta Clara" took upon him to reconcile our 
Articles to Popery; what did he else but play the Jesus, and 
render himself ridiculous? The like has been since done by our 
Arian reconcilers, with as much wresting and straining, and with 
as little success. It might be diverting enough, (were not the 
thing too serious, and full of sad reflections,) to compare the 
Papist. and the Arter together, and to observe which of them 
has been the greater master in this exercise of wit, and has 
found out the most ingenious and surprising comment upon an 
Article. Our Articles however will stand, in their own native 
light, in defiance to both; so long as gravity, sobriety, and 
manly thought shall be esteemed and valued above the little arts 
of equivocating, and playing upon words. . The Articles are not 
general, eo far as concerns our present debate ; and we need not 
inquire further. There is a medium, I suppose, between deter- 
mining aW@ questions, and determining none: one might justly 
wonder how this writer could be ingensible of it, and fall into so 
unacoountable a way of reasoning. 

Object. “« We must have some criteria by which we may judge 
“‘ which these particular Articles are, &c.” 

Answer. The oriteria, in the preeent case, are plain words, 
not capable of an Arian meaning. In other cases, any certain 
indication of the imposer’s meaning is a criterton to fix the sense 

Ὁ The title is, Expositio paraphrastica Artieulorum Confessionis Anglice. 
Published A. D. 1634. 


of a proposition. When there are neither plain words, nor any 
other certain indication of the tmposer’s meaning ; the Article, so 
far, is left at large, and the point left undetermined. 

Olyect. ““ One man subscribes to the truth of this general pro- 
“ position, in the Unity of this Godhead——there be three Persons : 
“meaning by this, that each divine Person is an individual 
“ intelligent Agent, but as subsisting in one undivided substance, 
“ they are altogether, in that respect, but one undtvided sntelligent 
“© Agent. Another man, who does not understand this notion, 
“ nay, that sees a contradiction in it, is convinced that each of the 
“ three Persons is an intelligent Agent, whereof the Son and 
“ Holy Ghost is subordinate to the Father: what hinders that 
“he cannot subscribe honestly and fairly to the general propo- 
““ sition!” p.12,. 

Answer. Here are several mistakes. In the first place, that 
proposttion of the first Article is not general, but spectal, in respect 
of the Arian controversy. This Godhead plainly denotes the 
one divine nature, “the one living and true God,” before de- 
scribed in that Article. “In the Unity of this Godhead there 
‘‘ be three Persons ;” therefore the three Persons are the “ one 
“ living and true God ;” directly contrary to the Arian doctrine, 
and to the new scheme; which is nothing else but old Arianiem 
revived. As to the explication which this gentleman carps at, it 
is not properly an explication of the Article, (which meddles not 
at all with the question of tntelligent Agents,) but it is deter- 
mining & point relating to the subject, more particularly than the 
Article hath done ; and this in answer to an objection raised out 
of men’s over curiosity in those matters. I know no reason this 
eoriter has to find fault with that soluéion, more than this, that it 
fully answers an objection which the party are apt moet to 
triumph in. Intelligent Agent ia understood either of Person or 
Beng. Unus intelligens Agens, or unum intelligens Agens, may 
be equally rendered one intelligent Agent: the former signifying 
intelligent Person, the latter intelligent Being. In the former 
sense, every Person is an intelligent Agent; in the latter, all the 
three are one intelligent Agent: therefore intelligent Agent and 
Person are not reciprocal. He that teaches this doctrine sud- 
scribes honestly, because he believes αὐ that the Article teaches ; 
and besides, guards it from objections. But he that interprets 
the Article to mean no more than that there are three Persons, 
two of which are subordinate to one, is worthy of censure : first, 


for giving us, at least, a lame interpretation, short of the true 
and full meaning of the Article: or, secondly, for doubling upon 
the word subordinate, understanding by it enfertor; excluding 
the two Persons from the one supreme Godhead, and thereby 
running directly counter to the true sense of the Article, which 
supposes all the three to be the “ one living and true God,” and 
expressly asserts that they are “‘ of one substance, power, and 
“eternity.” This writer may now be able to distinguish 
between an honest and a fraudulent subscriber; if he does but 
know the difference between one who fully believes the whole of 
what he professes, and one who either believes it but in part, or 
really disbelieves the greatest part of it. 

Object. ““ Should any one arise, and declare those men to be 
“ prevaricators——who differ from the doctrine he lays down as 
“the meaning of the Article; I ask, whether this be not to put 
“ his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article ?—— 
‘The fault which is condemned by the King’s Declaration, and 
“which King Charles threatened with displeasure, was, the 
“‘ drawing the Article aside any way or esther way,” p. 13, 14. 

Answer. I perceive, this author knows little either of the 
history, design, or meaning of King Charles’s Declaration. The 
design was to put a stop to the guinguarticular controversy, 
then warmly agitated. The King, to prevent or quiet those 
disputes, thought it the most prudent way to forbid either 
party’s being more particular than the Articles themselves had 
been. And we find that, in fact, both sides were censured when 
they launched out beyond the general meaning of the Articles 
in that controversy; the King looking upon any meaning 
beyond the general one, to be a man’s own meaning or sense, 
not the meaning or sense of the Article. What is this to the 
point we are upon, where the meaning was never thought to be 
general only, either by that King, or any other, or by any 
considering man else? He that declares and demonstrates the 
sense to be special and determinate, against ancient or modern 
Arians, does not put his own sense upon the Articles, neither 
does he “ draw the Articles aside any way ;” but he secures to 
the Articles their own true and certain meaning, and rescues 
them from the fraudulent comments of those who really “ draw 
“them aside,” and most notoriously pervert them. The royal 
Declaration orders every man to submit to the Article “ in the 
“ plain and full meaning thereof,” which if it be understood to 


reach to our present case, (though the King seems to have had 
an eye chiefly, or solely, to quite another thing,) is a clear oon- 
demnation of this gentleman, and of every Arian subscriber. 

Object. ““ When Mr. Rogers published his Comment upon the 
« Articles, his book, says Dr. Fuller, gave very great offence, 
“ because he confined the Articles to too narrow a meaning,” 
Ρ. 17. 

Answer. Very right; and I take Mr. Rogers to have been 
blamable in so doing. But it is not said that Mr. Rogere 
confined ai the Articles, or the Articles concerning the Trinity, 
to “ too narrow a meaning ;” nor can this writer shew that we 
do it, in condemning the Arians as fraudulent subscribers. 

Object. “ Such a latitude of subscription was allowed by the 
“« Connoil of Nice,” p. 16. 

Answer. The fact cannot be proved; but the contrary may, 
if there be a proper occasion. However, I have no need to insist 
upon it, at present, because our Lituryy, Articles, and Athanasian 
Oreed are more particular and determinate than the Council of 
Nice: so that, now at least, the sense of the ὁμοούσιον is fixed 
and determined, to every subscriber, beyond all cavil or ex- 

Object. “ Had the compilers or imposers intended to have 
‘‘been more determinate upon any point, they ought to have 
‘“ been more explicit and particular,” p.17, 18. 

Answer. I defy the wit of man to invent any expressions 
more particular and explicit, than many of those are, which 
appear in our public forms; so far as concerns the true faith in 
the Trinity in opposition to the Arian doctrines. They have 
guarded against every thing but equivocation, mental reservation, 
and a violent perverting of their certain meaning. This is 
enough among men of sense and probity, which is always sup- 
posed. No laws, oaths, covenants, or contracts, can ever stand 
upon any other foot than this, that when they are plainly 
enough worded for every man to understand that will be honest, 
it is sufficient ; though it were still possible for men of guile to 
invent some sinister meaning. I desire no other favour than to 
have our public forms, in this case, tried by the same rule. 

I may observe, by the way, how unwarily this writer has 
farnished us with an argument (which his party perhaps may 
give him no thanks for) in behalf of our forefathers, for their 
enlarging of Creeds. He would have told them, even after the 


compiling of the Athanasian Creed, that “ they ought δέ to 
‘‘ have been more explicit and particular,” if they would secure 
the point they aimed at. I do not altogether differ from him, 
provided the thing could be done; and upon the supposition that 
we have been gradually departing, further and further, from the 
primitive plainness and sincerity. Nevertheless, I can hardly 
think of any additional security to what is already, except it 
were such as we have seen added to the abjnration oath ; a caveat 
against any eguwivocation, evasion, or mental reservation whateo- 
ever: which yet would not bind up those that can leap over any 
thing; (and honest men are the same, without it or with it;) 
only it might make them ashamed of ever appearing after, in 
defence of any equtvocating practices. 

Object. “ Where a man does al that he is commanded to do, 
““and dees it openly, and with all the circumstances enjoined, 
“ he cannot be taxed with any defect in, or breach of, regard to 
“ his superiors,” p. 18. 

Answer. For the purpose; if a man takes the abjuration oath, 
openly, with all the circumstances enjoined, only not δοίῥουϊη ἃ 
syllable of it; he is, no doubt, very fatthfel to, very observant of: 
his superstore. There is only this cercumstance wanting, (which if 
it be not enjoined, is always supposed necessary, and to need no 
enjeining,) that the man be sincere: and this one defect turns all 
his pretended regard to his superiors into a direct affront, rade- 
ness, and miquity towards them. 

Otject. “ He that thinks the general words, Swear not at all, 
“ to be exclusive of αὐ oaths, and he that thinks it lawful te 
“‘ swear in some cases, can subscribe to, or give an unfeigned 
‘* assent to, St. Matthew’s Gospel,” p. 21. 

Answer. But if either of them as certainly knows that his 
pretended sense of “ Swear not at all,” is not the true sense of 
Christ, as our Arian subscribers know that their sense of the 
Articles is not the true sense of our Church; such a Person in 
professing an unfeigned assent to St. Matthew's Gospel, would 
give himeelf the he, and be guilty of a vile hypocrisy and pre- 
varication. This aatkor is forced to allow, in the next page, 
(p. 22,) that he and his party “ take the propositions” (of our 
Church “ in a sense which they know was not the sense of the 
“ compilers and imposers,” p. 22. 

Object. “ 1f they” (the compilers and imposers) “ happen so 
‘Sto have expressed themeeclves that their words are consistent 


“ with Scripture, their propositions may be assented to, though 
“in a sense different from what they were originally intended 
* by the compilers.” 

Answer. They have not happened so to express themselves as 
that their words may be consistent with what this writer calls 
Scripture; any otherwise than as a man may happen, after using 
the plainest and strongest words that can be thought on to 
express his sense, to fall into ill hands that will industriously 
pervert it. This indeed may happen, in any laws, oaths, contracts, 
or engagements whatever, however cautiously worded: nor is 
there any security against it (as before said) but the common 
sense and probity of mankind; nor any rue to go by in such 
cases, if a liberty be once taken of running against the knoton, 
certain meaning of the ¢tmposers. Get loose from this, and the 
rest is wild confusion, endless playing upon words, and making 
a jest and banter of all speech and language. 

Object. “ If their words are fairly capable of a Scripture 
“ meaning, then a man may subscribe to those words: if they 
“ are not, it is not lawful to subscribe,” p. 23. 

Answer. By Scripture meaning, this writer understands his 
own Artan meaning. I readily rest the issue of the whole cause 
upon this very point. If the words of our Church’s forms be 
Jairty capable of such a meaning, it is lawful to subscribe. But 
it is evident as the light, that they are many of them neither 
fairly, nor at all capable of such a meaning as the new scheme 
requires; and therefore, by this gentleman’s own confession, 
it 18 not lawful for him or hia party to subscribe. Indeed, words 
are not fairly capable of a false sense, if we are any way certain 
of the true one; that is, of the sense intended by the speaker or 
writer. We cannot fairly misconstrue any words, if we are fully 
conscious of the true construction ; though the words themselves 
might otherwise bear it. This I lay down as a rule of truth, 
which I think will hold in most, perhaps in all cases. But I have 
no occasion for it in the present dispute, because the words 
themselves are by no means capable of an Artan construction, 
consistent with grammar, or custom of speech. This I have abun- 
dantly proved in my former papers, (chapter the 5th,) and now 
again in these: and this writer himself appears to be sensible of 
it, with respect to the Liturgy and Athanasian Creed, at least, by 
his profound silence on that head; never attempting to confute 
that part, though the most material in our present controversy. 


When therefore this gentleman says, that he pleads not for 
subscription with such reserves as, “(so far as is agreeable to 
“‘ Seripture,” he only betrays his want of reach. Dr. Clarke 
never yet discarded that principle, so far as I know, though his 
disciples have; and perhaps he is the wiser in not doing it. 
However, I never directly charged the Doctor with holding that 
principle, as this writer falsely pretends, page the 24th; but I 
shewed that the Doctor must have that, or nothing, to retreat 
to at length, and that he had expressed himself in such a man- 
ner as to create just suspicion that he really gave intoit ; having 
never expressly condemned it, and having used such arguments 
for subsertbing, as will either justify both kinds of reservation, or 

Olyect. “Τὸ is a shallow artifice indeed, in controverted points, 
“to assume that a man’s interpretations of Scripture are Scrip- 
“ ture, and that his adversary’s are not so: but it is the artifice, 
“ shallow as it is, that runs through the Doctor’s book, and 
“ makes him treat his adversaries with so much insolence,” p. 2.5- 

Answer. This writer appears here to have been much out of 
humour: the reason is, I had unravelled a piece of sophistry 
whereon a mighty stress was laid; which is very provoking. The 
sophistry was this: 

‘* The Church of England permits the subscriber to receive and 
“ believe whatever is agreeable to Scripture. 

““ We of the new scheme are ready to receive whatever is agree- 
“ able to Scripture, as by us interpreted. 

‘‘ Therefore the Church of England permits us to subscride in 
‘“‘ our own sense of Scripture.” 

The fallacy, I observed, lay here, that the Church of England, 
by Scripture, must mean her ovwn sense of Scripture, as to points 
by her determined: and therefore the argument really concluded 
for the Church’s sense, which they made to conclude for the Arian 
sense, though not the Church's. ‘The Church surely,” said I, 
“ has as good a right to call her interpretations by the name of 
“ Scripture, as the Arians have to call theirs so; and then her 
“ requiring subscription to ‘ that only which is agreeable to Scrip- 
“ ture,’ is requiring subscription in her own sense of Scripture, 
‘and none else. Let the Arian sense of Scripture be Scripture 
“to Arians; but then let them subscribe only to Artan exposi- 
“ tions; which are nothing akin to those of our Church*.” 

x See my Case of Arian Subscription, p. 276, 277, of this volume. 



Now, this angry gentleman, either not understanding (for 
what is so blind as passion ?) what I was talking about, or in- 
dustriously dissembling it, represents me as not allowing the 
Arians to call their own sense of Scripture Scripture: notwith- 
standing that I had allowed it, in full and express words. But 
I suffer them not to think that they subscribe according to the 
true intent and meaning of our Church, by subscribing to their 
own sense of Scripture, which is not the Churck’s, but repugnant 
to it. I suppose only that the compilers of our forms, and tnposers, 
were not bereft of common sense, were not downright idiots; 
intending a subscription to bind men up, and at the same time 
leaving every man as much at liberty as if there were no sud- 
scription. They that can suppose the governors of Church and 
State so weak and silly as this comes to, must not take it amiss, 
if we remove the undeserved reproach from wise, great, and good 
men, and return it to the proper owners. 

Object. “It is an unaccountable method of arguing, in Dr. 
“« Waterland, that because state oaths, which are contrived and 
“ penned without ambiguity, and on purpose to guard against 
‘‘ gome particular things or persons, ought not to be taken in 
“any sense but that of the tmposers——that therefore sub- 
‘“‘ gcriptions in cases which are not parallel, are fraudulent. 
« Such arguments are only arguments of calumny and slander ; 
‘and only prove that he that urges such, wants nothing but 
‘“* power to persecute,” p. 19. 

Answer. This gentleman is again pressed somewhere very hard, 
to make him forget his temper. I have told the world nothing 
but the plain truth, that the case of oaths and subscriptions 16 
parallel, I now appeal to the passages above cited: and, let 
every reader judge whether they be not as directly opposite to 
the new scheme, as the aljuration oath iteelf is against a Popish 
successor ; saving only the caveat in the close, against egutvoca- 
tions. Which proviso, however, is always to be understood 
(though not particularly expressed) in all subscriptions, contracts, 
covenants, oaths, &c. Our courts of justice have not judged it 
necessary to add the like caveat upon the taking of every oath, 
because the age is not, at present, thought wicked enough to 
want it: what it may be in a while, if such loose principles as 1 
am here confuting, prevail, I do not say. But to proceed: it will 
not be a harder matter to elude and pervert any oath whatever, 
than it is to evade the many strong expressions of our Church 


in favour of a coequal and cocternal Trinity. This is what the 
gentleman is so angry at, that he has no way to avoid the force 
of the argument but by a confident avowal of a false fact; as if 
our public forms, as well as state oaths, were not penned, in this 
case, without ambiguity, and on purpose to guard against some 
particular thengs or persons. He that calls this plain argument 
calumny and slander, commits the very fault. which he condemns, 
in calling good, exit: and as to the mean insinuation about per- 
secuting, I suppose it needs no answer. 

Olyect. “ If the Archbishops and Bishops, or even the Legts- 
“ lature iteelf, cannot determine what shall be judged agreeable 
“ or disagreeable to the Articles, the insolence of a private man 
‘“‘ must be intolerable, who shall presume to dictate to others, 
“ and to charge men with prevarication and fraudulent subscrip- 
“ tion, &e.” p. 32. 

Answer. Softer words might have served as well, and have 
never hurt the argument, if it be any: the world will easily see 
the difference between reasoning and rasling. I take not upon 
me to determine what the Bishops or Legislature may do: nor is 
it my province to make authentic interpretations valid in the 
courts of law. But, I humbly conceive, it lies within my compass 
to state a plain case of conscience, to detect loose caswisiry, and to 
remonstrate against it. 1 know of no insolence there is in deter- 
mining, that coequal signifies coequal, or coeternal coeternal ; 
that one God does not signify three Gods, nor one substance three 
substances; or that the word they is something more than a 
different spelling for there. These and the like plain things 
common sense had determined long ago; I only repeat: deciding 
for the court of conscience, not the courts of justice, as this gentle- 
man, by mistake, seems to apprehend. 

Object. “ Dr. Waterland indeed refers us to the writers of 
“the time when the Articles were compiled———-To send a man 
“to the writers of that time to know the meaning of the 
“ Articles, when no man wrote by authority, is to make those 
“writers the standard of the Church of England, and not its 
“ own words or declarations,” p. 34, 35. 

Answer. It is pleasant to observe how this author strains to 
make me say something which he thinks he may tolerably 
answer, diverting the reader from the main point. I referred 
to the scope and snioniton of the writers, in order to know the 

Υ See my Case of Subscription, p. 267 of this volume. 
Z 2 


meaning of their writings; which I hope is no unreasonable 
method: and I was there speaking of writings in general. 
But as to the particular case, now in hand, I no where send a 
man to the writers of that time; nor does so plain a matter 
require it. The words themselves are sufficient, and carry their 
own interpretation with them. I desire no further postulatum 
than this, that our language has not been quite reversed; that 
light does not now signify darkness, or a triangle a square. I 
can wave abundance of niceties which might occur on the subject 
of subscription, and might be properly brought in, upon more 
doubtful cases. In the mean while, I may observe, that this 
author's argument is ridiculous enough, that the writers of the 
time may not be useful to discover the scope and intention, 
(suppose of a daw or an article,) because those writers were not 
law-makers, or men in authority. It is well for the htstortans, 
that they do not often meet with such hard measure. 

Object. “ Let Dr. Waterland vindicate the Arminians from 
‘the charge of unrighteousness and decett, and I will venture 
“ then to acquit even his adversaries from the same charge, by 
“ the same arguments.——All the world must own (our Articles) 
“to be formed upon Calvinisttcal principles; and to have been 
« deemed Calvinistical Articles by our own Archbishops, and by 
‘whole Convocations in England and Ireland.—Has that 
“ learned Bishop (Bull) proved unanswerably, that the sense of 
“ the compilers of our Articles was not Calvinistical ? It is one 
«“ thing to say, that the Articles are so expressed, as not neces- 
ἐς garily to oblige men to profess Calvinism : but it is another to 
“gay, that the sense of the compilers was not Calvinistical. 
“ Did Archbishop Whitgift know the sense of the compilers of our 
“ Articles? Did Archbishop Usher? Did our Universities in 
“ Whitgift’s times? Did the Irish Oonvocations which settled 
« their Articles? Did our Divinity Professors in Queen Elizabeth’s 
““ days ?” 

Answer. Before I come directly to the matter, I must observe 
that this writer here seriously delivers his persuasion, that our 
Articles are Calvinistical, and formed upon Calvintstecal prin- 
ciples; at the same time, as I conceive, acknowledging himself 
an Arminian; which I suppose may be true of the rest of the 
party. If this be really the case, I must come upon them with 
a double charge of prevaricating in their subscription. The 
Calvinists, agreeably to their principles, have indeed often pre- 


tended that the Articles are Calvinistical: the Anti-Calvinists, 
on the other hand, have as constantly pleaded that the Articles 
are not Calvintstical, but rather Anti-Calvinistical ; that they 
are not against them, but rather on their side. And thus the 
contending parties have gone on, endeavouring to justify their 
subscriptions, respectively, by their different persuasions. But 
here, it seems, is a new set of men, believing the Articles to be 
Caleinistical, and subscribing in Arminianisem: and they are the 
first that ever boasted of so unaccountable a conduct. To ex- 
cuse one fault they commit another, heaping sin upon sin, and 
proclaiming their own condemnation. Let them get off from 
the charge as they can: as to others, who understand the nature 
of our Articles too well to think them Calvinistical, they are 
very excusable in their avowal of Armintantsm; so far as our 
divines do really avow it: for I know not that they have ever 
adopted the whole Arminzan system. The historical hints given 
by this writer carry so little of argument in them, that if he has 
not a great deal more to urge, he will never be able to prove 
that our Articles are Calvinistical. When he speaks of all the 
world’s owning it, he betrays nothing but his unacquaintedness 
with books and men. Has he never seen Dr. Bennet’s Di- 
rections, or Bishop Bull's Apologia, or Heylin’s Quinquarticular 
History, or Plaifere’s Appello Evangelium, or Mountague’s 
Appello Ceesarem, to name no more! Does all the world own 
that these great men were mistaken; or that they have not 
sufficiently shewn that the pretence of the Calvinists is entirely 
groundless ? 

For my own part, I think it has been abundantly proved, 
that our Articles, Liturgy, &o. are not Oalvinistical ; but I have 
no need to insist upon the negative: let this writer, or any man 
else, prove the affirmative, that they are Calviistical, as is 
pretended. What he means by whole Convocations in England, 
determining the Articles to be Calvinistical, I do not at all 
understand. When he tells me what Convocattons, and when, 
the thing may be considered: in the mean while, let it pass for 
a slip of his pen. His other historical hints may be thrown into 
order of time, and in such order I shall here briefly consider 
them. His vouchers are, 

1. Archbishop Whitgift. 
2. Our Divinity Professors in Queen Elizabeth’s days. 
4. Our Universities in Whitgift’s time. 


4. The Irish Convocations. 
5. Archbishop Usher. 

These are the particulars of the evidence, hinted rather than 
produced, to prove that our Articles are Calvinistical, or formed 
upon Calvin’s principles. 

As to Archbishop Whitgift, the Universities, and their pro- 
Jessors, they all fall within the same compass of time; and their 
judgment in this matter was discovered chiefly in the year 1595: 
in the two famous cases of Mr. Barret and Dr. Baro. At that 
time Calvinism appears to have prevailed at Cambridge beyond 
what it had formerly done?. The seeds had been sown by 
Cartwright some time before, while he was Margaret Professor 
there; and the learned Whitaker, who was made Regius Pro- 
fessor in 1580, very much promoted and furthered their growth. 
Yet Dr. Baro, of Anti-Oalvinistical principles, was Professor 
(Margaret Professor) before Whitaker, about 1571; and had 
for many years gone on in his Lectures, without any censure or 
disturbance. Calvinism however by degrees prevailing, and 
especially under the influence and authority of Whitaker, the 
opposite opinion, of course, lost ground. But there were several 
considerable men, notwithstanding, who approved not the 
Calvinian tenets ; and among the rest, Mr. Barret, then Fellow 
of Caius College. In the year 1595, he took the freedom, in a 
Sermon ad clerum, to censure the Calvintan tenets, and even 
Calvin himself, very smartly. This gave offence to the Véce- 
Chancellor (or deputy Vice-Chancellor) and Heads, who pro- 
ceeded against him, and forced him at length to sign a feigned 
retractation, which they had drawn up for him. It appears 
from the form of refractation, that the Heads who drew it up, 
or enjoined it, thought our 17th Article to favour them. 
Within a while, this matter was laid before Archbishop Whit- 
gift, who, in a letter to the Lord Burghley, expresses his great 
dislike of the proceedings against Barret, for that some of the 
points which the Heads had caused him to recant, were “ such 
“as the best learned Protestants, then living, varied in judgment 
“upon; and that the most ancient and best divines in the land 
“were in the chiefest points in opinion, against their reso- 
“ lutions’,” the resolutions of the Heads, in Barret’s case. 
Hitherto then we have little reason to believe that our Articles 

z See Mr. Strype’s Life of Whitgift, p. 435. 8 Ibid. p. 450. 


favoured Calvinism, if Archbishop Whitgift was any judge of it. 
But besides this, the Archbishop had sent a letter to the Heads», 
wherein he tells them that in some points of Barret’s Retrac- 
tation, they had made him to affirm “that which was contrary 
“to the doctrine holden and expressed by many sound and 
“learned divines in the Church of England, and in other 
“ churches likewise, men of best account; and that which, for 
“ his own part, he thought to be false, and contrary to the 
“ Scriptures. For the Scriptures were plain, that God by his 
“ absolute will did not hate and reject any man. There might 
“be impiety in believing the one; there could be none in 
“ believing the other. Neither was it contrary to any Article of 
“ geligion, established by authority in this Church of England, 
ἐς but rather agreeable thereto.” 

He goes on to ask, upon this and that point maintained by 
Barret, against “what Article of religion established in this 
‘“ Church was it! and some opinions of Barret which the Arch- 
bishop thought untrue, yet, he said, had no “article directly 
“ὁ against them.” Thus far the Archbishop. Next it is ob- 
servable that Whitaker, in his Answer to the Archbishop®, 
specified no Article of the Church to justify the proceedings 
against Barret. ‘For the points of doctrine,” saith he, “we 
“are fully persuaded that Mr. Barret hath taught untruth, if 
“ not against the Articles, yet against the religion of our Church, 
“ publicly received; and always held in her Majesty’s reign, and 
“ὁ maintained in all sermons, disputations, and lectures.” This 
plea of Whitaker’s is false in fact, though he might not be aware 
of it. For, to say nothing of Harsnet’s Sermon at St. Paul’s 
Cross, in 1584, and of Hooker’s at the Temple, in the year 1585, 
both condemning absolute reprobation; Dr. Baro, at Cambridge, 
had held lectures, preached sermons, and determined in the schools 
against the Calomian tenets, for the space of fourteen or fifteen 
years before: as may be inferred from a letter of the Heads to 
the Lord Burghley, their Chancellor, extant in Heylin4, bearing 
date March 8, 1595. But, however this matter be, it is ob- 
servable, that though the Heads in Barret’s case had appealed to 
Article the 17th, and the Archbishop had particularly demanded 
of them to make good their proceedings by any Articles of 
the Church; yet Dr. Whitaker then thought it the wisest 

Ὁ See Strype, p. 440. ¢ See Strype’s Appendix, p.199. 4 Heylin’s 
Quingquarticular Hist. p- 624. i 


and safest way to drop further appeals to the Articles, and to 
rest his cause rather upon the current doctrine of divines. Now, 
though it were ever so true that Calvinism had obtained many 
years in the pulpits, and professors’ chairs, it no more follows 
from thence that Calvinism was the doctrine laid down in 
our Aréscles, than that the Cartesian philosophy was there, for 
the time it prevailed. All that can be justly inferred from it, 
is, that the generality of our divines thought the Calvinian tenets 
to be consistent with our Articles; and they might mistake even 
in that aleo. But to proceed in the story of Barret. 

The Heads of the University, afterwards, make their humble 
suit to the Archbishop, to favour and countenance their pro- 
ceedings against Barret. ¢They allege that several positions of 
Barret were contrary to the Articles, Catechisms, and Common 
Prayer ; but they neither specify those postéions , nor at that 
time point to any Article, or particular passage of the Catechtsms 
or Common Prayer ; so that this general charge is of little or no 
moment. Some time after, Dr. Whitaker charged Barret upon 
the Articles of the Church, and particularly on the 11th, of Jusétt- 
fication. But the Archbishop still declared that he did not yet 
perceive’ how such a certain position of Barret’s, which he had 
been charged with as impugning the Articles, did really differ 
from any Article of our Church. And as Dr.Whitaker had 
particularly charged him upon the Article of Justification, the 
Archbishop was not satisfied with it; but desired that further 
inquiry might be made of those points “ wherein they thought he 
“varied from the book of Articles.” & At last a favourable re- 
tractatton was by the Archbishop appointed for Barret; and so 
this matter ended. From the whole proceedings nothing certain 
can be gathered as to any Calvinism being taught by our Ar- 
ticles. The Calvinists were willing to claim them, and made 
some pretences that way; but, at length, rather dropped than 
pursued it; not being able to make that point good, though 
often insisted on by the Archbishop. 

It may be said, that the Archbishop however, upon this 
occasion, countenanced and authorized the Lambeth Articles, 
drawn up by Whitaker on the foot of Calviniem. This is very 
true, though it is not so certain that the Archbishop understood 
them in so strict a sense as Whitaker did: for that they were 

© See Strype, p. 450. f Ibid. p. 456. ε Ibid. p. 4655. 


thought capable of a milder and softer construction, appears by 
Baro’s orthodox explanation» of them, which he sent to the 
Archbishop, vindicating his own sentiments to be consonant to 
the doctrine of the Church of England, in her avowed Articles, 
and urging that the Lambeth Articles were not to be understood 
so as to thwart the old Articles of the Churchi. However, 
admitting that the Archbishop was so far a Calvinist, at last, as 
really to countenance the Lambeth Articles in their most rigid 
sense; yet this does not prove that he thought the same doc- 
trine to be taught in the Articles of our Church. For had that 
been the case, what occasion was there for drawing up nine new 
Articles? Might not the οἷά ones have served for quieting all 
differences ? It is plain from hence, that the old Articles were not 
thought sufficient to end the dispute, or to condemn the Ant-Cal- 
vinists ; but new ones were devised to supply that defect: which 
new ones might indeed be thought, by some, consistent with the 
old ones; and that is all. We see however, that the Lambeth 
Articles, in their strictest sense, appeared to others not very 
consistent with the doctrine of our Church. And it is well 
known that the Queen and Court disliked them*, that they 
thought them destructive of piety and government ; and the Arch- 
bishop, for countenancing them, narrowly escaped a premuntre. 

I have but just touched upon Baro’s prosecution, not thinking 
it necessary to relate that whole affair, which may be seen at 
large in our historians. He was an Anti-Calvinist, and had 
been so for many years in his sermons and lectures; was never 
called to account for it before the year 1595, then defended him- 
self handsomely, and had the favour and countenance of Lord 
Burghley, who reprimanded the warm proceedings of the Heads 
against him, and told them that ““ as good and as ancient were 
“ of another judgment,” and that “ they might punish him, but 
“it would be for well-doing!.” This discountenance from Court 
stopped the prosecution; and Baro enjoyed his professorship 
some time longer, till his resignation of it. 

Mr. Strype™ mentions four considerable men of that Univer- 
sity, that favoured Baro and his cause: Mr. Overal, Dr. Clayton, 

mete ΣΝ Append. p. 201. Vid. 131. and Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. 
etiam Hist. Attic. Lamb. 4 : 

i. Ῥ. 734+ 

i Strype’s Life of Whitg. p. 466. 1 Strype’s Life of Whitgift, p. 473. 
k See the Letter to the Duke of m Tha. Ῥ. 473- 

Buckingham in Heylin’s Life of Laud, ; 


Mr. Harsnet, and Dr. Andrews. Overal succeeded Whitaker in 
the Regius Professorship soon after: so that I think the wriver 
of the pamphlet had no occasion to boast of the Divinity Pro- 
Jessors of that time. Baro, an Antt-Calninist, was Margaret 
Professor before Whitaker was Regius: and the immediate suc- 
cessor to Whitaker was of the same sentiments, in the main, 
with Baro. Here I may take leave of Whitgift and the Uni- 
versity in Queen Elizabeth’s time. Nothing yet appears to make 
our Articles Calomistical. 

The next thing pretended is the Irish Convocations. The 
fact is this: Calomism had got footing in Ireland before the 
year 1615. In that year they drew up ἃ confession of their own, 
(not approving of the English Articles,) and they inserted the 
Lambeth Articles into their confession. Dr. Usher, then a pro- 
fessed Calvinist, drew up the confession. I see nothing in this 
matter to prove our Articles Calvinistical ; unless their being 
rejected by the Oalvinisie can amount to a proof of their being 
Caloinistical. In the year 1634, the Irish Convocation, with 
Usher, now Lord Primate, received the XX XIX Articles, 
without formally laying aside the Lambeth Articles. This 
shews that Archbishop Usher and the Convocation thought those 
two kinds of Articles consistent : which they might be, though 
there were not a syllable of Calowmsm in ours, if they were not 
plainly Anti-Calointstioal. So that here is nothing like a proof 
of the pretended Calvinism in our Articles, either in the judg- 
ment of Usher, or of the Irish Convocations. Usher, some 
years after, renounced his Calointan principles, as is well attested 
by three good hands: but I do not find that he therewith re- 
nounced our Artecles. 

Having thus answered every pretence of thie writer for his 
imaginary Calvinism ; I may now, ev abundanit, throw in a few 
brief remarks which seem to me to plead strongly on the op- 
posite side. 

It has been often pleaded by learned men, and 1 think well 
proved, that our Articles (in the year 1552) were not drawn up 
by Calvin’s scheme, but, next to Scripture and antiquity, upon 
the platform of the moderate Lutherans, the Augustan Confes- 
sion, Melancthon’s Doctrine, and the Necessary Doctrine and 
Erudition of a’Christian Man, compiled about nine years before 
the passing of our Articles, and by many of the same hands" 

n See Heylin’s Quinqu. part ii. chap. 13. sect. 3. 


that concurred with these in 1552. Our Articles therefore, in 
their original composition, were not Calvinistical: how they 
could come to be so afterwards, being still the same Articles, 1 
cannot devise. I do not find that the Calvinian rigours had 
obtained here in king Edward’s time, except among the Gospel- 
lers, (as they were then called,) “ who were a scandal to the 
‘doctrine they profeased,” as Bishop Burnet°® says of them ; 
and who were often smartly reflected on by Hooper, and other 
the most judicious Reformers. There were some disputes upon 
those heads, among the confessors in prison, in Queen Mary’s 
time p. But none of them yet appear to have run the lengths 
of Calvinism in all the 3396 points. The refugees from Geneva, 
in Queen Elizabeth’s days, began to propagate Calvinism pretty 
early ; but it does not appear that they then claimed any coup- 
tenance for it from our Articles ; which still continued the same 
in those points after the revisal in 1562, and again in 1571. In 
the year 1572, the Calvinists themselves complain of some of 
our Bishops as also of the Articles. The authors of the Second 
Admonttion, as Plaifere’ observes, do accuse some Bishops as 
. suspected of the heresy of Pelagius, and say, “ for free-will, not 
“ only they are suspected, but others also: and indeed the book 
““ of Articles of Christian religion speaketh very dangerously of 
““ falling from grace, which is to be reformed, because it too 
“6 much inclineth to their error.” We have the like complaint 
of theirs, not long after, taken notice of by Dean Bridges‘, in 
the year 1587, whereby it appears that the Calvinists then made 
no difference between the justified falling away finally, and the 
elected: though the doctrine of our Church is plain that the 
regenerate, or justified, may so fall. But as to the elect, if that 
be strictly understood, it is a contradiction to say, they shall 
Junally perish. The Calvinists, at that time, were very far from 
boasting of our Articles being clear on their side: they suspected 
the very contrary, being sensible how the doctrines of wniversal 
redemption, and of departing from grace, bore hard upon their 

In the years 1584 and 1585, we find Mr. Harsnet, and the 
judicious Hooker, both of them condemning the Calvinistical 

9 Burnet, Hist. of the Reform. vol. τ Plaifere, Appello Evang. part iii. 
ii. p. 107. ch, 10. 

P Heylin, Quinqu. Hist. part viii. τ Bridges, Defence of the Govern- 
ch. 14. ment established, &c. p. 1308. 


doctrine of trrespective reprobation ; and both of them received 
and countenanced by Archbishop Whitgift. 

In the year 1603, was the famous Hampton-court Conference. 
The Calvinists then moved that the book of Articles might be 
“ explained in places obscure, and enlarged where some things 
“ were defective ;” that the Lambeth Articles might be taken 
in, and that in the sixteenth Article, after the words, “ depart 
‘from grace,” might be added, “ but not totally, nor finally ;” 
which would have defeated the whole intent and meaning of the 
Article®. It seems, the Calvinists were not yet confident of our 
Articles being plainly, or at all on their side; as indeed they had 
no reason. Yet nothing was done to satisfy their scruples, or to 
relieve their uneasiness on that account. 

In the year 1618, our diwines, at the Synod of Dort, had com- 
mission to insist upon the doctrine of wntversal redemption, as the 
doctrine of the Church of England, (though they were out-voted 
in it,) which one doctrine, pursued in its just consequences, is 
sufficient to overthrow the whole Calvinian system of the five 

In the year 1624, Mr. Mountague (then Prebendary of Wind- . 
sor) openly disclaimed the Calvinistical tenets, as being the 
positions of private doctors only, not of the Church in her pudlic 
forms. His ‘ Appello Ceesarem,” wrote in vindication thereof, was 
approved by King James; and Dr. White ordered to license it 
with this approbation ; ‘“ that there was nothing contained in it 
“ but what was agreeable to the public faith, doctrine, and dis- 
“ eipline established in the Church of England.” This is a very 
considerable testimony that our Articles are not Oalomistecal. 
And it is very observable, that when the Commons, the year 
after, drew up their charge against Mountaguet, they could find 
no Article of the Church to ground their complaint upon (so far 
as concerned the jive points) but the seventeenth : which yet they 
so understood as to make it, in sense, directly repugnant to 
Article the sixteenth. For they charge him with maintaining 
and affirming, in opposition to Article the seventeenth, “ that 
“men justified may fall away and depart from the state which 
“* once they had,” and that “ they may rise again, and become 
“ new men possibly, but not certainly, nor necessarily :” which 

5. See Plaifere, Appello Evang. part δ See it in Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. 
ill. chap. τό. ii. p. 736, ὅτα. 


is the plain and manifest doctrine of Article the sixteenth, 
which does not say shall, or must rise again, but may only ; 
intimating plainly enough, that it is neither certatn nor neces- 

Such as desire to see more of Mountague’s case may consult 
the historians of that time. I concern niyself no further than 
to relate such particulars as give light to the present question, 
about the sense of our Articles in the five pomis. And I would 
have it observed, that I am not inquiring whether Caloumism 
was the more prevailing doctrine of those times, but whether 
it was generally thought to be contained in and professed by 
our Articles, or other public authorized forms of our Church. 
Many ran in with Calvintsm, who did not pretend to find the 
whole of their doctrine in our public forms; nay, who suspected 
that our Articles were not only defective in those points, but 
even contradictory, in some measure, to them. This, I think, 
sufficiently appears from the complaints of the earlier Calvinists 
in Queen Elizabeth’s time; from Whitaker's confession to 
Whitgift ; from the conduct of the Heads, in Barret’s case; and 
from the story of Baro; from Whitgift’s procedure in the Lam- 
beth Articles, and his frank confessions in favour of Barret ; 
from Dr. Reynolds’ proceedings at the Hampton Conference, and 
the resolutions taken thereupon; and lastly, from the Irish 
Convocation of 1615, and from the case of Mountague. 

I shall proceed a little further into Charles the First’s reign, 
and then conclude this article. 

In the year 1626, the King put out a Proclamation to quiet 
the disputes on the jive points; forbidding new opinions, and all 
innovation in the doctrine or discipline of the Church; com- 
manding all to keep close to the doctrine and discipline established. 
This Proclamation seems to have been chiefly levelled against the 
Calvinists, who were then labouring to introduce tnnovations in 
doctrine and discipline. 

In the year 1628, the King prefixed his famous Declaration 
to a new edition of the Articles: which Declaration was designed 
chiefly to bridle the Calvinists, but indeed to silence the Predes- 
tinartan controversy on both sides. The Calvinists made loud 
complaints against it: the King had confined them to the general 
meaning of the Articles, the plain and full meaning; had pro- 
hibited any new sense, and the drawing the Article aside. This 
they interpreted to be laying a restraint upon them from preaching 


the saving doctrines of God’s free grace, in election and predestina- 
tion. (See Collier, p.747.) But why so, if Calvinism had been 
before incorporated into our Articles; or if it were not a new 
sense, and beside their plain and full meaning? This complaint, 
from that quarter, looks like a confession that our Articles were 
not, in themselves, Calvinistical; and that Calvinism could not 
be taught without introducing a new sense, and drawing the 
Articles aside; or however, not without being more particular 
than the Articles had been. 

Soon after the King’s Declaration, the Commons drew up a kind 
of Anti-declaration, “avowing” (as they say) “that sense of the 
« Articles——which by the public acts of the Church of England, 
“and the general and current exposition of the writers of our 
‘‘ Church, had been delivered to us; rejecting the sense of the 
“ Jesuits and Arminians.” 

For an answer to which, I refer the reader to Archbishop 
Laud’s short Notes, or Scholia, upon this Anti-declaration, 
recorded by Heylin in his Life. I may observe that the Com- 
mons laid no claim to the literal or grammatical meaning, in 
favour of Oalviniem; and that they appealed only to extrinsic 
evidence: first, to the public acts of the Church, when there 
were really none such, properly so called; next to the current 
exposition of writers, wherein they appear not to have dis- 
tinguished between the current doctrine of writers, and the 
current exposition of the Articles ; as if it were necessary that the 
whole body of the current divinity should have been contained im 
our Articles. Besides that even the current doctrine was not 
entirely on the side of Calvinism. Absolute reprobation had been 
generally condemned all along by our most judicious divines : 
and the doctrines of universal redemption, and of departing from 
grace, as generally approved: which doctrines, if pursued in their 
consequences, (though many might not be aware of it,) tend to 
overthrow the Calvintan doctrines in the five points. 

I may further hint, that even the Article of Predestination has 
been vainly enough urged in favour of the Calvinestical tenets. 
For, not to mention the saving clause in the conelusion, or 
its saying nothing at all of reprobation, and nothing in favour of 
absolute predestination to life; there seems to be a plain distinc- 
tion (as Plaifere* has well observed) in the Article itself, of two 
kinds of predestination; one of which is recommended to us, the 

Ὁ Plaifere’s Analysis of the 17th Article, p. 387, alias 198. 


other condemned. See that part of the Article in the margin‘. 
Predestination rightly and piously considered, that is, considered 
(not trreapectively, not absolutely, but) with respect to faith wm 
Christ, faith working by love, and persevering ; such a predesti- 
nation 18 ἃ sweet and comfortable doctrine. But the sentence of 
God’s predestination, (it is not here said im Christ, as before,) 
that sentence, simply or absolutely considered, (as curious and 
carnal persons are apt to consider it,) is a most dangerous down- 
fall, leading either to security or desperation; as having no 
respect to foreseen fatth and a good life, nor depending upon it, but 
antecedent in order to it. The Article then seems to speak of 
two subjects; first, of predestination soberly understood with 
respect to faith in Christ, which is wholesome doctrine; se- 
condly, of predestination simply considered, which is a dangerous 
doctrine. And the latter part seems to be intended against 
those Gospellers whereof Bishop BurnetY speaks. Nor is it 
imaginable that any true and sound doctrine of the Gospel should, 
of itself, have any aptness to become a downfall even to carnal 
persons; but carnal persons are apt to corrupt a sound doctrine, 
and suit it to their own /usts and passtons, thereby falsifying the 
truth. This doctrine, so depraved and mistaken, our Church con- 

x As the godly consideration of 
predestination, and our election in 
Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and 
unspeakable comfort to godly persons, 
and such as feel in themselves the 
working of the Spirit of Christ, mor- 
tifying the works of the flesh, and 
their earthly members, and drawing 
up their mind to high and heavenly 
things ; as well because it doth greatly 
establish and confirm their faith of 
eternal salvation, to beenjoyed through 
Christ, as because it doth fervently 
kindle their love towards God. 

So, for curious and carnal persons, 
lacking the as of Christ, to have 
continually before their eyes the sen- 
tence of God's predestination, is a most 
dangerous downfall, whereby the devil 
doth thrust them either into despes 
ration, or into wretchlessness of most 
unclean living, (impurissime vite secu- 
ritatem,) no less perilous than despe- 

Υ The doctrine of predestination 
having been generally taught by the 

ers, many of thie sect (the 
Gospellers) began to make strange in- 

ferences from it; reckoning, that since 
every thing was decreed, and the de- 
crees of God could not be frustrated, 
therefore men were to leave themselves 
to be carried by these decrees. This 
drew some into great impiety of life, 
and others into ation. The 
Germans soon saw the ill effects of this 
doctrine. Luther changed his mind 
about it, and Melancthon openly writ 
against it. And since that time, the 
whole stream of the Lutheran churches 
has run the other way. But both 
Calvin and Bucer were still for main- 
taining the doctrine of these decrees; 
only they warned the people not to 
think much of them, since they were 
secrets which men could not penetrate 
into. But they did not so clearly 
shew how these consequences did not 
flow from such opinions. Hooper and 
many other writers did often 
dehort the people from entering into 
these curiosities ; and a caveat to the 
same purpose was put afterwards into 
the Article of the Church about Pre- 
destination. Burnet, Hist. of the Ref. 
vol. il. p. 107. 


demns: that is, she condemns absolute, irrespective predestination, 
not the other. This appears to be the most probable construc- 
tion of the seventeenth Article; for vindication whereof I shall 
refer to the margin’, and to Plaifere before cited; who accord- 
ingly, in the close of his Analysis, appeals to thes very Article of 
our Church, in favour of conditionate predestination. Neverthe- 
less, it is sufficient to my purpose, if neither absolute nor con- 
ditionate be affirmed or denied in the Article; as hath been the 
Opinion of many, and as I have been before (to prevent needless 
disputes) willing to allow. Let it be supposed that Calvinesm is 
not directly contrary to the Articles; which is civil enough in all 

Now, to return to our τοῦθ᾽, To justify Arminian subscrip- 
tion, 1 plead first, that the words themselves, of our public forms, 
do not determine on the side of Calvintem: nor secondly, any 
known intention of compilers or tmposers: nor thirdly, any 
authentic interpretation of our superiors. On the other hand, 
the presumption rather lies against Calvinism, from express 
words in some Articles, (a8 particularly the 16th and 31st, 
besides several other things in the Catechesm and Laturgy,) from 
the probable construction of other Articles, from the original 

z 1. De eterna preedestinatione rec- 
te erudiri ecclesiam summopere ne- 
cessarium est: nam ut nulla doctrina 
uberiorem consolationem piis consci- 
entiis afferre solet, quam doctrina pre- 
destinationis recte explicita, ita nihil 
periculosius est quam recta preedesti- 
nationis ratione aberrare. 

2. Nam quia vera deflectit, in pre- 
cipitium fertur, unde se recipere non 

3. Sunt quidam, qui cum audiunt 
nostram salutem in Dei electione et 
propose sitam esse, et modum verum 

aud observant, somnia stotca, et fa- 
bulas Parcarum fingunt. 

4. Modus autem predestinationis 
verissimus est, quem Paulus nobis 
commonstrat, cum ad Ephes. scribit, 
Elegit nos in Christo. In hoc modo, 
conditio fidei includitur, nam cum fide 
inserimur Christo, ejus membra efhi- 
cimur, et ideo electi quia Christi mem- 
bra sumus. Hemmingius apud Play. 

Judicamus haud dubie electos esse 
605, qui misericordiam propter Chris- 
tum promissam fide apprehendunt, nec 
abjiciunt eam fiduciam ad extremum. 

Melancth. loc. Theol. de Predest. 

Here you see how you shall avoid 
the scrupulous and most dangerous 
beara of the predestination of God : 
or, if thou wilt inquire into his coun- 
cils, thy wit will deceive thee——But 
if thou begin with Christ, &c. this 
simple question will not hurt thee—— 
Christ is the Book of Life, and all 
that believe in him are of the same 
Book, and so are chosen to everlastin 
life; for only those are ordain 
that belkkeve. Latimer, Sermon on 
Septuages. p. 214. 

“Bishop Bancroft, at the Hampton 
Conference, observes, that many grew 
libertines by relying too much on 

edestination; that this proposition, 
vel shall be saved, I shall be saved, is 
a desperate doctrine, a contradiction 
to orthodox belief; and that men 
ought not to rest their happiness on 
any absolute, irrespective decree; 
citing the latter part of the 17th Article 
relating to God’s general promises. 
All which shews that he thought that 
Article rather to condemn than favour 
absolute predestination. 


composition and design of the Articles, and from some con- 
siderable testimonies of our most judicious divines; besides the 
confessions of the more early Calvinists themselves. This ewriter 
has promised me to defend Arian subscription by the same argu- 
ments, p. 38. If it might not look too like insulting, [ would now 
call upon him to make his words good. 

The reader, I hope, will excuse the length of this part, which 
could not easily have been crowded into a shorter compass. 1 
have omitted a great deal purely for the sake of brevity; and be- 
cause I would not enter further into a distinct controversy, than 
the objection necessarily required. I may now pass on. 

Object. ** Would an Arminian have expressed himself in the 
“language of the Articles, about predestination and original 
“* sin?” 

Answer. Would a Calvinist have expressed himself in the 
language of the Articles, about the five points? Compare the 
Lambeth Articles, or the decrees of the Synod of Dort, or the 
Assembly's Confession ; and see whether they, or any of them, 
speak the moderate language of our Articles. As to original sin, 
I know not whether any of our considerable Divines go the 
lengths of the Arminians in that Article. As to predestination, 
Dr. Bennet® and Mr. Plaifere> have both appealed to Arminius 
himself, as teaching the very same doctrine with our 17th 
Article: which may well deserve this author’s special notice. 
But it is enough for me, if the Article has but been expressed 
in the middle or moderate way, in such general terms as come 
not up either to Oalviniam or Armintaniem: which is ἃ sup- 
position I have been willing to admit, for the waving of all 
needless controversy; though I am rather of opinion that the 
Article leans to the Anti-Calvimian persuasion. 

I have heard it objected to the supposition of the Article’s 
being general, and indifferent to either side, that it would make 
the Article useless, as deciding and determining nothing. But 
I beg leave to observe that the Article may be exceeding useful, 
notwithstanding such a supposttion. 

1. To prevent the suspicion of our Church's running in with 
the Gospellers on one hand, or the Pelagians on the other; and 
so the Article is a fence against slander and calumny. 

2. Supposing the Article to be general and tndefintte, in respect 

® Bennet’s Directions for studying, b Plaifere, Appello Evang. p. 38. 
&c. p. 95, ὅσ. alias p. 27. 



of the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians; it is yet 
special and determinate against the opinion of Samuel Huber, 
who taught an universal election, (which in reality is no electson,) 
and that all men by the death of Christ were brought into the 
state of grace and salvation. The Article confines the election 
to those that believe in Christ, and live up to that belief, perse- 
vering to the end. 

The Article is also epecial and determinate against the opinion 
fathered upon Origen, that all men, even wicked men, and devils, 
shall at last be received to mercy. The Article is further special 
and determinate against the Socinians, who deny God's presctence 
of future contingents, and admit no special predestination from 
all eternity. There may be other false opinions particularly 
condemned by this Article: but these now specified are enough 
to shew the use of the Article; though we should suppose the 
main points, between Calvinists and Arminians, to be left én 
medio, undetermined. 

Olyect. “11 know of no obligation upon any one to subscribe 
“ to this, that the tdeas- which the compilers of the 11th Article 
“ had of justification and fatth, &c. were consonant to the true 
“ ¢deas which were expressed by these words in Scripture,” 
p. 42. 

Ansier. The subscriber must assent to the propositions laid 
down by the compilers and tmposers; which propositions are made 
up of édeas: and therefore, in subscribing to their propostttons, 
we subscribe so far to their ideas. I do not say that we subscribe 
to any of their private sentimenta or ideas, such as they have 
not expressed, or intended not to express, in the public forms. 
But their declared pubic sentiments contained in our forms, 
those, so far as we are certain of them, we subscribe to. 

As to, the meaning of the 11th Article, our Church refers us 
ot to Scripture, (for such as disbelieve the Article might pre- 
tend Scripture,) but to the Homily delivering the Church’s sense 
of Scripture, in regard to that Article. 

Object. “There are a great many passages of Scripture inter- 
“ preted in the Homtlies ; but yet our Church no where supposes, 
‘that whoever differs from its explications offers violence to 
“ Scripture itself,” p. 44. 

Answer. Neither do I suppose it, however this writer may love 
to mistake or misrepresent plain things. But wherever our 
Church has tied us up to the profession of any doctrine, the 


subscriber, as such, must interpret Scripture conformably to that 
doctrine, and not in opposition thereto. He must not, for 
instance, interpret Scripture in favour of purgatory, infallibility, 
worship of saints, or the like; at the same time condemning 
those Popish tenets by his subscription: neither must he inter- 
pret Scripture in favour of the Son’s or Holy Ghost’s inferiority, 
inequality, ὅσο. while he subscribes to their coequaltty and coeter- 
iy. He is tied up to the Church’s sense of Scripture in all 
points determined by the Church, so far as to believe that her 
enplications are, in the general, just and true; that whatever she 
proposes as Scripture doctrine is Scripture doctrine; and that no 
sense of Scripture which runs counter to her dectsions is the true 
sense of Scripture, but a vtolence offered to Scripture. This is all 
I ever meant, or now mean, by our being bound up to the Church’s 

Object. ‘‘ No law requires any man to explain the Articles by 
“ the [sturgy, or to subscribe the Articles in the sense of the 
“« [nturgre expressions,” p. 45. 

Answer. The law of common sense obliges us to make the 
Articles and Liturgy consistent, at least, if we admit both; and 
to believe that doth, in reality, mean the same thing, being esta- 
bliahed by the same authority. 

Olject. ‘The Articles may be general——the Liturgy more 
“ special and determinate,” p. 45. 

Answer. This might have been the case; but in fact it is not ; 
for the Athanasian Creed, contained in Article the 8th, to say 
nothing of other Articles, is as special and deerminate as the 
Inturgy iteelf. The same evasions will not, it may be, indifferently 
serve for every expression to be met with in both: but a man 
that takes into that loose way, may, when his hand is in, find 
some evasion or other for any thing whatever. It seems to be 
purely accidental, that the Doctor appeared to be more con- 
founded and nonplused in the Liturgy, than in the Creeds and 
Articles : invention will sometimes flag, and even the keenest wit 
cannot bear to be always kept upon the stretch. 

Object. “ What advantage, real advantage, would it be to the 
“‘ Church of England to eject out of its communion such men as 
“ Dr. W. plainly points at?” p. 46. 

Answer. It 1s unfortunate for the men who are to new model 
our divintiy, and to reform our /atth, that they should betray, 
at every turn, a strange confusion of thought even in clear and 

Aa 2 



plain things. This writer cannot distinguish between ejecting 
and not admitting; nor between Church-communion and Church- 
trusts. I said not a word about gecting any man out of commu- 
nion: I pleaded only against admitting any into Church-truste, 
that must come in by intgusty, or not at all; and I am not sen- 
sible that I was either deceived in my reasoning, or out in my 
politics. However high an opinion this gentleman (or I) may 
have of the valuable abilities of the Arian subscribers ; whatever 
advantage or credit we might propose, by having so considerable 
men amongst us; yet our misfortune is, that we cannot have 
them but by sinful means, and at the expense of sincerity; and 
we dare not promise ourselves any real or lasting benefit from so 
notorious a breach of God’s commandments. On the other hand, 
since I am here publicly called upon to declare what advantage 
it may be to us, to have a stop put to this unrighteous practice 
of subscribing, I shall briefly hint it in a few particulars : 

1. It will be much for the Aonour of God, and of our most 
holy religion, to have no more such offences seen, or once named 
amongst us. 

2. It will be taking away one great reproach from our country, 
heretofore famed for its gravity and good sense ; and for breeding 
up divines and casuists, as judicious, solid, and accurate as any 
upon the face of the earth. 

3. It may be much for the advantage of the common people, 
not to be under such guides as are themselves remarkably 
deficient in the first principles of morality and Christian sim- 
plicity; and who may be presumed the less qualified to direct 
the consciences of others, while so manifestly faulty in the conduct 
of their own. 

4. It may be a further advantage, for Christian people, to be 
under the care and guidance of none but orthodow teachers; 
such as will instruct them in the fundamentals of Christianity, 
and lead them in the way everlasting. 

These are some of the advantages we may reasonably propose, 
along with God’s blessing; which must be had in God’s own 
way, and in the doing of what is just, honest, and upright. 
If there be any greater advantages on the other aide, let this 
gentleman name them, and they shall be considered. 

Object. “They disclaim Arianism; yet notwithstanding that, 
‘ they are injuriously and unchristianly called Arians,” p. 46. 

Answer. God forbid that we should ever demean ourselves 


injuriously or unchristianly towards any man. Here is a mistake 
somewhere ; and it is no hard matter to perceive where it lies. 
This gentleman should have said, that they disclaim the name of 
Arianism: they do indeed disclaim the name, but not the ching. 
We think ourselves as proper and as competent judges of what 
Artanism is, as others may be: and we cannot help judging, as 
long as we can read. When we have found the ching, being 
plain and sincere men, we immediately give the name. For the 
purpose; if we meet with any man teaching the doctrines of 
purgatory, transubstantiation, and other distinguishing badges of 
Popery; we never stay for his leave; but we have, upon such 
evidence, a very clear and undoubted right to call such a man a 
Papid, till he has purged himself of those positions. By the 
very same rule, we pretend to give the name of Arians to as 
many as we find the Arian tenets upon: and their denial of it 
signifies nothing, being only protesting against fact; which, in all 
parallel cases, is highly ridiculous. If they are Arians, and do 
not know it, they are indeed the more pitiable: but as their 
ignorance is no rule to those that know better; so we hope 
there is nothing tnyurtous or unchristian in calling either men or 
things by their right names. ἡ 

Olyect. “ They are charged with fraud and prevarication, be- 
“ cause they subscribe: which is the severest reflection on their 
“ὁ characters possible,” p. 46. 

Answer. All the severity lies in the truth and evidence of the 
charge. If the charge cannot be fully proved, the man that 
makes it is in reality the suferer, by exposing himself. But I 
have took care to proceed upon none but the clearest and most 
evident grounds: and now I may lay claim to those gentlemen’s 
thanks, for kindly shewing them both their stn and their danger. 
Prineiples are valuable and precious, and must not be parted 
with, in compliment to any man’s character. Besides, it is to 
be hoped that men of their education and abilities do not want 
to be told, that there are some things which they ought to be 
infinitely more tender of than of a shortlived character, (built 
upon sélf_flattery and delusive shows,) and those are, the honour 
of God, the simplicity of the Gospel, and the salvation of men. 
One way still there is left, and indeed but one, whereby to re- 
trieve their characters; which is to repent, and amend. If they 
will accept of this plain and frank admonition, it may not perhaps 
be altogether unserviceable to them: if not, let it stand as a 


testimony against them, for the benefit of others, lest they also 
fall into the same condemnation. 

Object. ““ Men who have never wrote a word in the Trinitarian 
“ controversy, who have had no occasion, no design to write on 
“ that subject, yet are represented to the world under the same 
“invidious name. Is this the conduct of a Christian and a 
““ Dicine?—-What must every man conclude when he sees the 
“running title—The Case of Arian Subscription, &c. and Pleas 
“ for such Subscription examined ; and yet the very first of these 
“ pleas is partly taken out of the book of one who has never 
“ written any thing about Arian subscription! Is this becoming 
“a Protestant Divine?” p. 47. 

Answer. The reader, I hope, will excuse it, if for want of 
arguments to reply to, 1 am forced sometimes to condescend to 
take notice of mere declamation. This gentleman has before 
shewn his over offictousness in defending Dr. Clarke against a 
supposed injury done him; though I dare be confident, the Dr. 
himself knows that I have not injured him at all. Now he is 
offering a helping hand to a person of an higher character and 
station in the Church; who, I doubt not, is too wise a man to 
think that I have any where failed in point of strict justice, or 
even of decency and respect towards him. My business was to 
examine every the most plausible plea that had been brought 
for that subscription which I condemn, under the name of Arian 
subscription. I never represented that person under the in- 
vidious name of an Arian; nor was it ever in my thoughts to 
do it. But it was my professed design, not to dissemble any 
thing that might look favourable to the cause of Arian sub- 
scription; not to conceal either the strongest pleas or the greatest 
names that might appear to countenance it. And to me it seems 
that this zriter, had it been his manner ever to weigh things 
with candour or judgment, might have thanked me for so fatr 
and so wnexceptionable a conduct ; in allowing his cause all the 
advantage or credtt that could possibly be given it. But enough: 
this gentleman should be advised, the next time he is disposed 
to stand up an advocate for greater men than himeelf, either to 
do it more pertinently, or to stay for their commission: otherwise 
he may happen, by his officious zeal and indiscreet conduct, to do 
them a real injury, while he ia labouring to take off such as are 
purely smagimary. 

Object. “The principles which the ingenious Dr. Bennet 


“ contends for, are the same with those I have laid down,” 
Ρ. 49- 

Answer. I am very glad to hear so much from this gentleman. 
To complete the character of a careless writer, he shall now be 
condemned out of his own mouth. Dr. Bennet’s principle, re- 
lating to subscription, is to allow no liberty but where the words 
themselves do allow it, where they are fairly capable of such a 
sense as we take them in, “ without doing violence to the words, 
“ or contradicting what our Church has elsewhere taught.” I 
desire no more than this, in our present question. If this be 
our wrtéer’s principle, he has effectually condemned himself and 
every Arian subscriber. 

Let the reader only turn back, and review the passages pater 
cited from our public forms; and then try whether it be possible 
to reconcile them fairly, and without violence, or indeed at all, to 
the new scheme. Now, since this gentleman has here bound 
himself to stand or fall by the same rule of subscription which 
Dr. Bennet contends for; I leave him to apply it at leisure: 
and as he has thereby entangled bimeelf sufficiently and beyond 
all recovery; it would be unmerciful, and even cruel, to press 
him closer. 

It may not be here improper to cite Dr. Bennet’s application 
of his own rule, to this particular case; addressing himself to 
Dr. Clarke, in these words: 

“As I am firmly persuaded, you are a person of so great 
“ integrity, that you will not venture (notwithstanding your at- 
“ tempt for explaining) to repeat your subscription, &c. till you 
“have altered your sentiments touching these points, (which 
“Τ pray God may be speedily effected,) so I hope, none of those 
“ persons who esponse your present sentiments will be influenced 
“‘ by what you have written, to think your sense of those passages 
‘‘ tolerable. I really tremble at the apprehension of that guilt, 
“which such a collusion must pollute them with: and I cannot 
“ but earnestly entreat you to do what lies in your power, in the 
“ most public manner, for preventing such an interpretation of 
“ our Liturgy, as must (I fear) necessarily lay waste the conectences 
“ of the compliers, and pave the way for a man’s subscribing and 
“ using such formes of devotion as thwart the sense of his own 
“mind.” Bennet on the Trin. p. 265. 

Thus far the ingenious Dr. Bennet, who, I suppose, well under- 
stands both his own principle and the application of it. Whether 


his rule and mine differ, is a question which concerns not our 
present debate: either of them effectually condemns Arian sub- 
scription. My rule appears to be rather the stricter of the 
two: it is this, that wherever we are certain of the smposer’s 
meaning, that meaning we are bound up to, by our subscription. 
Perhaps, Dr. Bennet may think that we are never certain but 
where the words themselves necessarily require such ἃ meaning. 
I think, there are some possible cases where we may be certain, 
though the words themselves might otherwise admit of two senses ; 
and that the imposers in such cases have sufficiently done their 
parts, though there may be some ambiguity remaining in the 
expressions, so long as there is but any certain way left for 
a reasonable man to come at their real and true meaning. But 
I shall not dwell longer on this nicety, since our present debate 
about Arian subscription is in a great measure unconcerned in 
it; and we need not go further than the words themselves to con- 
fute and condemn it. 

I shall conclude with the honest sentiments of Mr. Whiston, 
which are really and truly the same with my own: and his tes- 
timony, in this case, is the more considerable, because it comes 
from one, who lay under the same temptation with others, to pre- 
varicate in this sacred engagement. His words in the first 
Appendiz to his fifth volume are these : 

ἐς The great latitude Dr. Clarke allows, that every person may 
“4 reasonably agree to modern forms, under a Protestant settle- 
‘¢ ment, which owns the Scripture as the rule of faith, whenever 
“ he can in any sense at all reconcile them with Scripture, if it be 
“ with a declaration how he reconciles them; even though it be 
“ ἴῃ a sense which is owned to be plainly forced, and unnatural ; 
““ seems to me not justifiable, but contradictory to the direct mean- 
“ ing and design of those forms; and of the most pernicious con- 
“ sequence in all parallel cases. Nor do I see, at this rate, that 
«the same liberty can be wholly denied to a Protestant, as to the 
“ Popish doctrine and practices; since there also, it is supposed 
“that those forms are intended to oblige men to nothing but 
“ what is agreeable to Christiantty. 

“If to this observation the Doctor should reply, that com- 
“ plying with the Church of Rome, and joining with a Pro- 
‘¢ ¢estant Church, in the manner and with the declarations he 
“4 does, are quite different things on these two accounts, (1.) 
‘“‘ Because the Church of Rome will not permit any of her 


“members to make such declaration concerning her doctrines, 
“but positively insists upon every one’s émplicit submission to 
‘‘ them, in the sense that Church and her Councils receive them, 
“ without examining them by the rule of Scripture ; and (2.) 
‘“‘ Because many of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, such 
“ὁ as the invocation of the Virgin Mary, and of satnis, &c. with 
“ the worship of images, can in no sense be reconciled, but are 
“ directly contrary to it, as setting up other meditators instead 
“ of Christ, and teaching men to apply to such beings as have 
“no power or dominton over them; whereas the invocation of 
“ the Holy Ghost, and so of the whole Trinity, as used in the 
“ Church of England, (some of the most suspicious of all the 
“ things allowed by him,) may be understood, and declared, to 
“ be only a desiring him to bestow those gifts upon us, in sudor- 
‘“< dination to the Father and the Son, which we are sure from 
“ Scripture it is his proper office, and in hts power, to distribute : 
“if, I say, the Doctor shall make this reply, I must answer ; 

“1, That I doubt, our Church does not properly allow her 
“members to make any such declarations, as is here intimated, 
“but expects their submission 1 that sense she and her synods 
“‘ have tmposed her doctrines and devotions: and though it be 
“not under the notion of implicit fatth, and without examination, 
“ yet as acquiescing in ker judgment, interpreting the Scripture 
“ὁ according to the Articles and Creeds, and submitting to her 
“ authority in controversies of fatth. 

‘‘2. That there are even in the Church of Rome few or no 
“ὁ such doctrines or practices, but persons well disposed to tt can, 
“in some sense or other, reconcile them with Scripture; or at 
“ὁ least think they can, which is here almost the same case, with- 
“‘ out dreaming of setting up other medtators instead of Christ, or 
“‘ doubting of some degree of power and authority in the beings 
“so invocated. So that if we, without all sacred or primitive 
“ command or example, may follow our Church in the invoca- 
“tion of the Holy Spirit, and so of the whole Trinity, from 
‘“‘gome uncertain reasonings of our own, I do not see how we 
“ean condemn the Papists for following their own Church in 
“ the invocation of angels, nay, hardly in that of saints also, and 
“ of the Virgin Mary herself. 

“ΝΟΥ can any explications of forms directly against the known 
“ sense of words, and of the tmposers, be other than protestatio 
“ contra factum ; and so wholly unjustifiable. 


“ Nor indeed, if this were somewhat tolerable in some par- 
‘‘ ticular cases of small moment, can it be at all so in the most 
“< sacred Articles and Offices of religion. 

“Tf this way be allowable, then ἐδ the offence of the cross 
“ ceased ; then the martyrs have commonly lost their lives with- 
‘‘ out sufficient cause; and those Jews who would die rather 
“than eat swine’s flesh, and those Christians that would suffer 
“ the like punishment, rather than cast a little encense on the 
‘“ heathen altars, were very unfortunate, as having suffered wtth- 
“ out necessity. 

“ What will become of all oaths, promises, and securities among 
“men, if the plain real truth and meaning of words be no 
“longer the measure of what we are to profess, assert. or 
“ practise; but every one may, if he do but openly declare it, 
“ put his own strained interpretation, as he pleases, upon them ἢ 
‘« Especially if this be to be allowed in the most sacred matters of 
*‘ all, the signing Arftcles of faith, the making solemn confessions 
“of the same, and the offering up public prayers, praises, and 
“« dowologies to the great God, in the solemn assemblies of his 
‘‘ worship. This, I own, I dare not do, at the peril of my salva- 
“ tion: and if I can no way be permitted to enjoy the benefit 
“ οὗ Christ's holy ordinances in public, without what I own 
“ would be in myself gross insincerity and prevaricatton, I shall, 
“ΕἼ believe, think it my duty to aim to enjoy that benefit some 
‘‘ other way, whatever odium or sufferings I may bring upon 
“ myself thereby.” 

I have transcribed this whole paesage from Mr. Whiston, 
bemg full and clear to my purpose, unanswered, and unanswer- 
able: and it may appear from hence that the hardest names 
which I have given to Arian subscription are in reality no 
severer than had been before given, by a known friend to the 
Arian cause: so that this writer may, with equal justice, charge 
Mr. Whiston also with slander, calumny, and persecuting prin- 
ciples, for his declaring such subscription to be gross insincerity 
and prevarication. The pious and candid Mr. Nelson and the 
very judicious and learned Bishop of Oxford had both expressed 
their abhorrence of it, before I wrote; as the anonymous author 
of the Case of Addressing, &c. has also done since. And in- 
deed, who is there of any tolerable measure of good sense, or 
breathing any thing of the true spirit of piety, that does not 
utterly detest it? 


T have now done with this writer, and, I hope, with this cause 
too: it is high time for those gentlemen, at length, to see their 
error, and correct it. They may succeed tolerably, for a while, 
in the 7rinttarian controversy, which few, in comparison, under- 
stand thoroughly ; and they may go on, for @ season, in per- 
verting Scripture and Fathers, without rebuke from the generality, 
who will not readily observe it, or be at the pains to search into 
it. But if they think to practise in like manner with our 
Articles and Liturgy, where every English reader-can judge ; or 
if they pretend to put off their sophtstry in a plain point of 
morality, where every man, of any common discernment, can 
both detect and confute them; they will disoblige and disserve 
their own characters extremely ; and will, at length, make but a 
very mean, not to say contemptible figure, in so wise and knowing 
an age. We did not indeed expect that any greater gentuses 
should rise up in the Arian cause, than had embarked in the 
same cause many ages upwards: but it was a reasonable pre- 
sumption, that none would undertake the reforming of our faith, 
and the new stamping our whole system of theology, but such as 
would not (especially after notice given) betray a weakness and 
slowness of apprehension, even in the platn and self-evident prin- 
ciples of common honesty. 

Digitized by Google 





OR, A 



Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition 

of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him 

dwelleth all the falness of the Godhead bodily. Coloss. ii, 8, 9. 
Quid tibi visum est, homo Ariane, tam multa dicere, et pro causa que inter nos 
agitur nihil dicere: quasi hoc sit respondere posse, quod est tacere non posse? 
Augustin. contr. Maxim. p. 677. ed. Bened. 

Digitized by Google 


- ---Ὁ»-- “-- 

It is now about three years and a half since 1 offered to the world a 
Vindication of Christ’s Divinity, or, A Defence of some Queries, in 
answer to a Country Clergyman. Within a few months after the 
publication, some notice was taken of it in an anonymous pamphlet, 
entitled, Modest Plea, &c. Continued; or, A Brief Answer (not to my 
Defence, but) to my Queries. To which I replied, soon after, as 
much as I thought needful, in a Preface to my Eight Sermons. I was 
promised, in an Advertisement at the end of Modest Plea, &c. a 
large and particular answer to my Defence: and this, I presume, is 
what has now lately appeared, entitled, A Reply to Dr. W.’s Defence, 
&c. under the name of A Clergyman in the Country. To this the 
following sheets are intended for a full and distinct answer: how far 
they are really so, or how far they come short, is submitted to the 
judicious reader. 

The book, which I here profess to examine, may be allowed to 
contain, in a manner, the whole strength of the Arian cause, real or 
artificial ; all that can be of any force either to convince or to deceive a 
reader. And if there appears to be a great deal more of the artificial 
than there is of the real, there is certainly a fault in the men; but, 
at the same time, some great defect in the cause too, which wanted to 
be thus supplied. For whether we consider the hands supposed to 
have been employed in drawing up the Reply, or the time and pains 
spent in revising and polishing, we may be confident, that had it been 
possible to find out any real and firm foundation for Arianism to rest 
upon, it would never have been left to stand upon artificial props, or 
to subsist by subtilty and management. 

This is not the place to give the reader a full list of all the artificial 
advantages made use of by those gentlemen in support of Arianism: a 
few hints may here suffice. Their disclaiming the name all the while 
they are inculcating the thing; to keep their readers in ignorance, and 
to steal upon them by surprise: their wrapping up their doctrine in 
general and confuse terms; to prevent its being narrowly locked into, 


or pursued in its remote, or even immediate consequences: their 
elaborate and studied prolixity in proving such points as nobody calls 
in question, and then slipping upon the reader, in their stead, some- 
thing very different from them, without any proof at all: their avoiding 
as much as possible the defensive part, where the main stress lies, and 
keeping themselves chiefly to the offensive ; perpetually objecting to the 
Catholic scheme, instead of clearing up the difficulties which clog their 
own: their bending their main force against our consequential doctrine, 
of three Persons being one God, instead of directly attacking our 
premises, that the Divine titles and attributes belong equally to every 
one; as to which the Scripture is very full and express: these and 
other the like artifices will be easily seen to run through their whole 
performance. But their masterpiece of subtilty lies in contriving a set 
of ambiguous and equivocal terms, to put the main question into; such 
as may be capable of a Catholic sense, or at least look very like it, in 
order to claim some countenance from Catholic antiquity ; but such as 
may also be drawn to an Arian meaning, that so they may secure the 
point which they intend. Thus, betwixt the two senses or faces of the 
same words, chosen for the purpose, they shall never want pretence or 
colour from antiquity, even while endeavouring to prove things the 
most opposite and repugnant thereto in real sense and significancy. 
Such is the convenient use of equivocal words or phrases, when inge- 
niously made choice of, and managed by rules of art. 

In the following papers, I have particularly endeavoured to clear the 
sense of the Ante-Nicene Church ; and to vindicate the same from mis- 
representation. All that remains to be done in this Preface is to 
obviate two objections, of very different kinds, which have been lately 
made by men of very opposite principles. One® pretends that we are 
very singular, in claiming the suffrage of the Ante-Nicene Church in 
favour of the Athanasian doctrines: the other is for entirely waving 
all searches into antiquity, in relation to this controversy, as being 
either needless or fruitless. 

1. As to the first, we are confidently told, ‘‘ that few of the truly 
‘“‘ learned and impartial Athanasians themselves, from the very days of 
“‘ their founder, till our late writers of controversy, Bp. Bull, Dr. Grabe, 
‘« Dr. Waterland, have denied the truth of this fact; that the Ante- 
“ Nicene Fathers were generally against the Athanasian, and for the 
“‘ Eusebian doctrinesc.” To countenance this pretence, a long and 
pompous detail of Athanasian Confessions (as they are called) are 
packed together, and laid before the English reader. 

δ Mr. Whiston in his Reply to Lord Whiston. 

Nottingham. ς Mr. Whiston’s Reply to the Earl of 

b The author of Two Letters, one to Nottingham, p. 3. 
Lord Nottingham, the other to Mr. 


It will be proper bere, in the entrance, to examine what truth or 
justice there is in this strange report; that so, prejudices being 
removed, the reader may come with the greater freedom to the exami- 
nation of what is offered, in the following papers, on the head of 

We must trace this matter down from the first beginnings of the 
Arian heresy, about the year 319. It may be known from Alexander, 
Bishop of Alexandria, what opinion the Catholics in general then had 
of the novelty of the Arian or Eusebian4d doctrines. 

In the year 321, he with his Clergy, in their circular letter®, re- 
presents the Arians or Eusebians as fallen into a great apostasy, and as 
forerunners of Antichrist. They exclaim against the Arian doctrines 
in this manner and in these words; ‘‘ Who ever heard such things as 
‘* these? or who, that now hears them, is not astonished at them, does 
“4 not stop his ears for fear of polluting his ears with such impurity of 
‘«‘ doctrine ? Who that hears St. John declaring that ἐπ the beginning 
** was the Word, does not condemn those that say that he once wag 
“ not ?” &c. In conclusion of the Epistle, they compare them with 
Hymenzeus and Philetus, and the traitor Judas: and they anathematize 
them as enemies to God, and subverters of souls. Now can we well 
suppose that Alexander, a very pious and good man, with great numbers 
of his Bishops and Clergy, would have gone these lengths in their 
censure, had they had the least suspicion that the Arian doctrines were 
at all agreeable to the faith of the Ante-Nicene churches ? 

Two years after thie, in the year 323, the same Alexander, in his 
letterf to Alexander of Constantinople, persists in the same warmth of 
zeal against the Arian doctrines. The abettors and favourers of them 
he ranks with the Ebionites, Artemonites, and Samosatenians&, (conz 
demned heretics,) brands them as novellists of late appearing), as men 
that thought none of the ancients worthy to be compared with them, 
pretending to be the only wise men themselves, and to be inventors of 
doctrines which never before entered into man’s headi. This was what 
Alexander thought of the Arians at that time. Little did he suspect 
that the Ante-Nicene Church had been at all favourable to their 

In the year 325, as is well known, the Arian doctrines were pro- 
scribed and anathematized in the famous Council of Nice, consisting of 
three hundred and eighteen Bishops, very unanimous in their reso- 
lutions, excepting a few reclaimants. In their Synodical Epistle*, 

4 Note, They were called Eusebians f Extat Theodorit. E. Hist, lib. i. 
from Eusebius of Nicomedia, one of the cap. 4. 
chief promoters of the Arian capse. ε Theodoret, E. H, p.15. ed, Cant. 

e Extat apnd Athanas. Ὁ. 397. ed. h Ibid. p. 16. _! Ibid. p.17, 
Bened. ap. Socrat. Eccl. Histor. lib. i. | * Apud Sacrat. E. Hist, lib.i. cap. 9. 
cap. 3. Compare Athanas. vol. i. p. 283. 



they declare that they had condemned the Arian doctrines of the Son's 
being from nothing, and that he once was not, as full of blasphemy and 
madness, and such as they had not patience to hear. So far were they 
from apy apprehension that the Arian or Eusebian doctrines had been 
held by the ancient Church. This was the year before Athanasius (our 
founder, as Mr. Wh. calls him) was Bishop of the Church, and about 
fifteen years before he drew his pen in defence of the doctrines esta- 
blished in that Council. 

Much about the same time, the good Emperor Constantine, after a 
fair and full hearing of the cause in the Nicene Council, bears his 
testimony against Arius, as being the first broacker of that doctrine, by 
the instigation of the Devil!. And he makes an order to have the 
Arians branded with the name of Porphyrians™, as being followers of 
the Pagan Porphyrius, either in their avowed opposition to Christ, (as 
some think,) or in their adopting the Platonic gradations into the 
Christian Trinity, as others conjecture. 

In the year 335, Marcellus and Eusebius engaged on opposite sides : 
from which time Mr. Whiston begins the date of the Athanasian Con- 
fessions. What he produces from Eusebius himeelf is not to the 
purpose, since he reckons not him with the Athanasians, about whom 
our present question is. However, it is of no great moment, if Eu- 
sebius could ever so justly appeal to the ancient Doctors against 
Marcellus’s particular tenets ; many of which (as Eusebius was pleased 
to understand them) were undoubtedly novelties. As to Marcellus, he 
charges the Eusebian or Arian heresy, as a thing then newly invented 9. 
He gives up nothing in respect of the Ante-Nicene Fathers in general, 
but in respect of Origen only : whom he supposes to have been, in 
some points, not very consistent®. Neither does he confess that 
Origen was entirely in the sentiments of the Eusebians; but only that 
he agreed with them in making the Son a second Hypostasis?: which 
Marcellus scrupled to allow, not considering that Origen’s sense of a 
second Hypostasis (intended only in opposition to the Noétian heresy) 
was a quite different thing from what the Eusebians or Arians were 
contending for. It is to be noted, that Marcellus and the other Eu- 
stathians were, for some time, too nice and scrupulous about admitting 
three Hypostases ; differing therein from the wiser and more judicious 

About the year 352, Athanasius wrote his Epistle concerning the 
decrees of the Nicene Council. What he thought of the doctrine of 

the Ante-Nicene Church may appear uncanny from one passage, 
ranning thus : 

1 Socrat. E. H. lib. i. cap. 9. p. 30. © Euseb. contr. Marcell. lib. i. cap. 4. 
m Ibid. p.31. 

p. 22. 
**m Euseb. contr. Marcell. ]. 1, c. 4. p. 20. P Id. ibid. 


“ γε give you demonstration that our doctrine has been handed 
‘‘ down to us from Fathers to Fathers. But you, ye revivers of 
“* Judaism, and disciples of Caiaphas, what writers can you bring to 
“* father your tenets ? Not a man can you name of any repute for sense 
“ or judgment: all abhor you, excepting only the Devil, who has alone 
‘* been the Father of such an apostasy4,” &c. 

Many other passages’ of the like import may be produced from 
Athanasius, who every where appeals to constant tradition, along with 
Scripture, for the truth of his doctrine, against the Arian novelties. 
Neither are the pretended Confessions, which Mr. Whiston alleges out 
of him, of any the least moment; amounting to no more than his 
proposing of some Arian objections ; which he abundantly confutes in 
the very places, shewing them to be nothing else but misrepresentation 
and calumny. 

In the year 355, Hilary, one of the greatest Bishops of the west, 
and who may be justly called the Western Athanasius, wrote his first 
letter to Constantius the Emperor; in which we have the following 
testimony relating to our preeent purpose. 

“ After four hundred years almost, since the only begotten Son of 
** God vouchsafed to take pity on lost mankind, as if there had been πὸ 
‘‘ Apostles before, or as if after their martyrdoms and deaths there had 
“‘ been no Christians, now at length is come abroad the Arian pestilence, 
“ novel and direful, not a plague of infected air, but of execrable blas- 
“‘ phemies. Have they then, who believed before, entertained false 
“hopes of immortality? It is but late, we know, that these imagi-— 
** nations have been inverted by the two Eusebiuses and Narcissus, and 
“ Theodorus, and Stephanus, and Acacius, and Menophantus ; and the 
** two ignorant and immoral youths, Ursatius and Valens, whose letters 
“‘ are published, and who are further convicted by credible witnesses, 
‘* such as have heard them, not so much disputing, as barking against 
‘‘ uss,” In another treatise, published three years after, the same 
Hilary, having shewn how he had received his faith from the Prophets, 
Evangelists, and Apostles, goes on thus: “ΒΥ these have I been 
** taught to believe as I do: in this faith am I imbued beyond recovery. 
“ Pardon me, O God Almighty, that I cannot be moved from this 
“ belief; but I can die for it. This age is tardy, I conceive, in bringing 
‘‘ me these most impious teachers: these masters are too date for my 
«« faith, a