An Apology for the Sentiment of the Modalists; and a Defence of the Scriptural Terms.  
TO defend the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation requires not many Arguments, when these matters are rightly taken, for in order to vindicate them, they need only be represented and put into a true light. As for the Doctrine of the Trinity, it has been sufficiently cleared, even in the Pamphlet entitled, The Consequences of the Modalists System, p. 8, etc. For there these Remarks are made concerning it The Divine Intellect, or Mind and Understanding, is the Cause o● 〈…〉 the Divine Wisdom; and from both the Divine Intellect and the 〈…〉 doth proceed the Divine Will or Power, which is the same thing in a perfect Being, for God doth whatsoever he pleases. These three Properties, Intellect, Wisdom, Power, comprehend the whole Divine Essence God may be particularly and distinctly considered with respect to each of these three Properties, and thus being thrice considered may be called three Persons, according to the original Signification of the word Person, which imports a Being considered with respect to a certain Capacity or Property. The first Property being the Cause of the second, and the third proceeding from the two former, the first Person is therefore called the Father, the second the Son, the third the Spirit that proceeds from the Father and Son. Thus the Orthodox Expressions are susceptible of a good Sense; and pertainly, meaning this Sense by these Terms, it cannot be denied but that the Sentiment of the Modalists is true: It is actually true, that there is in God on infinite Understanding, Wisdom, and Will, etc.  
And as for the Doctrine of the 〈◊〉, one would think there could be no great difficulty in it, intending thereby, as the Catholic Church doth, that the Divine Wisdom so dwelleth in Christ, as always to assist, illuminate-conduct and actuate him; Christ thus being, God, in respect of the Indwelling Divinity, which is in an content manner manifested both i● and by out Lord Jesus Christ, as also in respect of his representing God to us, and of his acting in the stead of God, at the Helm of the Universe  
Yet some weighty Objections are here made; as that this confounds Christ with God, and is the occasion that the Names of Christ are given to God, and Christ is taken to be literally the most High God; as if from a Being's dwelling in a Temple, it followed that the House or Temple is literally that Being which dwelleth in it.  
Now it is to be observed, in answer hereunto, that the Doctrine of the Incarnation doth not necessarily confound Christ with God; for all that can be understood thereby, agreeably to the System of the Modalists, who are generally esteemed to be the most Orthodox, is, that our Saviour is both God and the Man Christ Jesus, or that the Man Jesus Christ and God are most eminently united together in the work of Salvation, in that Christ is made the Head of the Church and placed at the Helm of the Universe, and God constantly assists and actuates him, to enable him to save those that come to God thro' him; and thus Christ is evidently distinguished from God, by Christ properly being meant the Man Jesus.  
Indeed it is very improper to give to God the Names of Christ, as it seem to be done in these Invocations, O Christ hear us, O Son of David have mercy upon us, etc. But the Orthodox do readily acknowledge the Inconveniency of these Expressons; Athanasius himself declares, that it is always God, and not the Creature, that is worshipped by the Orthodox, (3d Oration against the Arians) so that these Invocations are to be undersTood as implying this Sense, O thou who dwellest in Christ, or in the Son of David, hear us, and hve mercy upon us, etc. And undoubtedly it were well, if the said Pra●●● were thus expressed. Most properly the Gospel-Method is to pray 〈…〉 ther in the Name, or thro' the Mediation and Intercession of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; so that after having said in the beginning of the Litany, O God our Creator have mercy upon us, O God our Redeemer have mercy upon us, O God our Comfortere have mercy upon us, it would be most proper to address the rest of the Prayer particularly to the Father, who eminently sustains the Majesty and Character of the Deity. The ordinary Expressions that follow from taking another Method, seem often uncouth, and much must tacitly be supplied thereto, not to take them in a wrong Sense, as the Vulgar are very apt to do; men of ordinary Capacities not being accustomed to nice Distinctions, and not being able to make any deep Reflecttions of themselves. Besides, it is certain that when the Father is worshipped, the whole Deity is worshipped, and our Prayers than cannot be defective or imperfect.  
As for Christ's being or not being the most High God, that is in a great measure a Dispute of Words. The Deity that dwelleth in Christ, is certainly the most High God: If then by Christ be meant both the Man Jesus, and the Deity that dwelleth in or that constantly assisteth him; no dobut, in that sense, Christ is the most High God. But if Christ be taken as an Appellation peculiar to the Man Jesus, as it seems to be in Scripture; than it is most proper to say with the Scripture, that in Christ Jesus dwelleth the Fullness of the Godhead: to esteem otherwise, were to assert that an Appellation peculiar to the Manhood is peculiar to the Godhead. No body will say that a Man, as a Man, is literally the most high God; but our Salvation being wrought both by the Man Christ Jesus and God that dwelleth in him, it is certain that our Saviour is both God and Man, as sometime several Men make one Admiral, etc.  
Ideas may arbitrarily be joined to certain Terms, and then those Terms are understood according to those Ideas. Accordingly the Church has used the Name Christ, to denote both the Man Jesus Christ, and the Deity that manifesteth itself in and by him; and has used the Term Incarnation to signify the Union of God with Jesus Christ. In that sense the Church saith, that Christ is God, and that God is become Man. But she means to be sure, and aught to mean no more but what may be worded in the Expressions themselves of the Scripture; which Expressions, or the like, in Articles of Communion, are even to be left in that general Sense which they are susceptible of, that every man may be allowed the Judgement of discerning. These Considerations must be before our eyes, whenever we will give a rational account of the Orthodox System.  
It is objected by some, That, meaning what has been said by the Incarnation, and on that account giving to Christ the Honour and Name of God, the like might be done to other Creatures, which God likewise assists or enables to perform their several Officers, and in and by which God manifests his Wisdom, his Glory and Majesty. (Thus any one of the Prophets might have been said to be God, and God incarnate, for God was with them, and inspired them; the Temple of Jerusalem might also, on these Principles, have been said to be God, for God in an extraordinary manner dwelled therein; and the same, in fine, may be said of the Sun and Moon, and the whole World, for therein and thereby God manifests his Wisdom and Glory) Yet it would certainly be Idolatry, on these or the like accounts, to call any Parts of the World, or any Prophets, or even any Angels or glorified Saints, God; and undoubtedly it would be damnable Idolatry, and a Work of the Flesh, to take them for God, and honour them as God: Why then should it not also be reckoned Idolatry, on this account to call Christ God, and to take him for the most High God, because God dwells with him, assists him, and manifests his Wisdom in him?  
If this Difficulty be resolved, that is all that the Orthodox need to do, and indeed all they can do. For to pretend a more gross Incarnation than what has been owned and asserted, would not only be contrary to the Truth, to Reason and Scripture, but would also be a Petitio Principii, seeing that incontestably it is not cler and evident, to say no more of it. If any man would lay it down as certainly revealed in Scripture, that there are three infinite and divine Spirits (which indeed would be to assert three Gods) and that one of these infinite Spirits is incarnate in a human Body after the grossest manner imaginable, and would make the Belief of this an Article of Communion; he would herein do no better than beg his own Assertion, which is denied him, and so would set himself up for the Judge of Controversies, and deny to other Christians their Judgement of discerning. That cannot then and ought not to be our Refuge, in order to resolve the foregoing Difficulty.  
And if God is but one Spirit, as the Modalists with good reason assert, there can be no ground left to take the Incarnation in a gross Sense. For it cannot be said that this one Spirit is thus grossly incarnate, for then the whole Godhead were incarnate, which is contrary to the Notion of the Orthodox. The Orthodox hold that it is the Divine Wisdom only that is incarnate. The Incarnation therefore can reasonably be taken but to imply was has been said, namely, That the Divine Wisdom so dwelleth in Christ, as always to assist, illuminate, conduct and actuate him; and that the Divine Majesty is manifested, and is in an extraordinary manner present in Christ, our Lord Jesus Christ representing God to us, and acting in the stead of God at the Helm of the Universe.  
This last Particular, which is the very Essence of what is meant by the Incarnation rationally understood, is not in the least taken notice of in the foregoing Objection. The Objection supposes, that by the Incarnation is only meant a Manifestation of the Divine Wisdom in, and a Co-operation with Christ, or the like. And indeed if it was so, the Prophets, the Temple of Jerusalem, the Sun and Moon, and all other Creatures which God co-operates with, and in and by which he manifests his Wisdom, might be called God, as well as Christ, though not with altogether so great reason, seeing the Divine Co-operation and Manifestation is greater in Christ than in any other Creature, and may be said in him to be extraordinary. But that which altogether distinguisheth Christ from all other Creatures, which makes the Divine Wisdom and Majesty most extraordinarily present in him, and which may authorise the giving him the Name of the most High God, and the honouring and worshipping the most High God in him, is, That this Man Christ Jesus (in whom dwelleth the Divine Wisdom, or in whom the Divine Wisdom is manifested, and whom the Divine Wisdom always assists, illuminates, conducts and actuates) in a most eminent manner represents God to us, being the Heir of all things, and Lord of Lords, having a Supreme Authority over all Creatures, ruling and governing all things under God, and acting in the stead of God at the Helm of the Universe, all things being subjected unto him by God's Decree. It is God's own Authority and Majesty that he is invested with. He may therefore be said to be God in that respect, and this Divine Majesty and Authority may be adored in him.  
This Consideration was altogether overlooked in the Objection; and yet this Article (that all Power is committed to Christ, that he represents God to us, or is God's Vicegerent, and acts in the stead of God at the Helm of the Universe) is not and cannot be denied by any that receive the Holy Scripture as their Rule. Herein therefore we are not guilty of any Petitio Principii. We mean neither more nor less than all those must needs mean, and do actually mean, who own the Scripture. We do not therefore take away from any body the Judgement of discerning. We do not act as if we were to be, and as if we were actually magisterial Judges of Controversies. We insist only on what is clear and undeniable.  
It may perhaps be said, That though Christ be invested with Supreme Authority over all Creatures, yet his Authority is not absolutely supreme like that of God, seeing he is himself subject to God; and it is not plain and undeniable that ever the Scripture expressly calls Christ the most High God, or expressly orders that Christ should be looked upon as the most High God: the Modalists therefore cannot enjoin that Practice, or the use of such Expressions, without violating the Gospel-Terms of Communion, or without setting themselves up as magisterial Judges of Controversies, and without taking from others the Judgement of discerning, etc.  
Now, in answer to this, it cannot be denied but that we should all keep to the Expressions and general Sense of Scripture. It is the Sentiment itself of the Modalists which I vindicate, and not any thing else. I have shown, that the Modalists mean neither more nor less than all those do, who receive the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. If any do scruple the use of any unscriptural Expressions, God forbidden that I should appear as an Adversary against them. But this only I say with Athanasius, that we do not worship the Creature, but that it is God we worship in Christ.  
Thus to use a Comparison, though somewhat imperfect, the Queen's Majesty is honoured in her Viceroy in Ireland. As long as the Viceroy doth truly discharge his Office according to his Commission, he truly bears the Character of, and truly represents the Royal Authority. It would be impertinent to dispute, whether then the Viceroy's Authority be truly the Supreme Authority itself. Indeed the Man himself is subject to another, but so is not the Authority by which he acts: Certainly the Authority by which he acts is the Supreme Authority, and therefore the Supreme Authority ought to be respected in him. Here perhaps men may differ in the manner of expressing themselves; but yet all those who acknowledge the Queen's Authority, and who therefore obey her Viceroy's Commands, according to her Will expressed in the Commission, cannot but actually agree in the thing, and mean actually the same thing. This Comparison, how imperfect soever it be, doth in a sufficient measure illustrate the matter before us. We may say, that Christ is the most High God; but by this his Supreme Godhead meaning the Divine Authority thta appears in him, we say no more than what others mean, when they express themselves in other Terms, namely, that in him dwells the Fullness of the Godhead.  
God will not indeed have his Glory be given to another; neither do we ascribe Divinity but to God himself: For still the Authority by which Christ acts, is God's own Authority; and we do not of our own accord, or without God's warrant, assert it to be in Christ. Now when God says he will not give his Glory to another, the meaning visibly is this, that he wills not that Men of themselves, and according to their own Fancies, should dispose of the Honour and Glory that is due to him. As for God himself, he may communicate of his own without doing any wrong; and his meaning was not that he never would thus communicate himself, he has not tied his own hands; the question was not what himself might do, but what his Creatures were not to presume of themselves to do. Thus the Queen of England may say she will not give her Glory to another, and yet she may order the same Honours to be paid to her Viceroy which are only due to her, which indeed terminate on her Majesty wherever they are paid according to her Order, but which could not lawfully be rendered to her in the Person of him who is her Viceroy, before her Declaration of her Will and Pleasure in this matter and the delivering of the Viceroy's Commission. Notwithstanding this saying of God, that he will not give his Glory to another, the Orthodox believe that he has given himself and so his Glory to the Man Christ Jesus. Howbeit, after all it is certain God has but so given his Glory to Jesus Christ, as that it still remains his own Glory, and the said Glory after all truly is ascribed to and terminates on God.  
Tho God's Lieutenant, inasmuch as he represents God to us, be termed God, because the Supreme Authority he appears invested with is God's own Authority; yet it cannot truly be said that we make a Creature God, or hold one for God that is only a Creature: for it is God or the Divine Majesty and Supreme Authority we consider and adore in Jesus Christ, for in Jesus Christ dwelleth the Fullness of the Godhead; and when we say that Jesus Christ is God, we mean it in respect of the Deity, or the Divine Wisdom, Majesty and Authority that dwell in him. If any think it not so proper upon that account to call Christ the most High God, it is true it would be most proper to content ourselves to say with the Scripture, that the Fullness of the Godhead dwelleth in the Man Christ Jesus. Howbeit, the Deity that dwelleth in the Man Christ Jesus, and is communicated to him as has been said, is truly and properly the most High God, or the Majesty, Wisdom and Supreme Authority of the most High God; and that is all we mean by the Orthodox Expressions, but we do not intent that it is the Creature that is the most High God.  
But (to prove that it is Idolatry to call Christ God, and to honour him as God, upon the account that God dwelleth in him by Manifestation of his Wisdom in and by him, and on the account that God constantly assisteth him in the discharge of his Office of representing God and acting in the stead of God at the Helm of the Universe) some urge, That it would be treasonable to give the Name of the Sovereign to the Viceroy, on any account whatsoever, whether upon the account of representing, or upon the account of being upheld by the Sovereign, or upon the account of the Sovereign's Majesty appearing and dwelling in him, etc.  
To this I shall reply thus much. In that case the fault would be only in the Expression, but not in the Sentiment itself; and so this would be only a Controversy of Words. And besides, there is this difference in the present Comparison, that in an earthly Sovereign, who is a finite and imperfect Being, the Sovereign's Wisdom, Majesty and Authority are different from the Sovereign's own Person; but it is an Axiom of Divines, That every thing in God is God, and it is upon this Axiom that it is said that Christ is God, upon the account that the Divine Wisdom and Majesty in a supreme degree appear and dwell in him; or else by Christ we mean both the Man Jesus Christ, and the Divine Wisdom and Majesty that dwell in him.  
Howbeit, as to the Practice of honouring Christ as God, that is countenanced by the Example of the Viceroy's being honoured like the Sovereign. In the Person of the Viceroy the Sovereign is honoured; and the Scripture likewise commands, that every Knee should bow to Christ to the Glory of God. The Viceroy in public Solemnities wherein he represents the Sovereign, might be ddressed unto, as being the Sovereign upon the account of the Sovereign's Authority by which he acts, and which is present in him or dwells in him, whilst he discharges his Office: If that were usual, it would not at all seem strange or unreasonable.  
There is yet this difference in the said Comparison, that an earthly Viceroy may prove a Rebel, but this cannot be said of Christ. We are sure that Christ's Laws are God's Laws, Christ's Kingdom is God's Kingdom, Christ's Majesty is God's Majesty.  
Christ doth not require of us any Services that are carnal or vicious, and that may be termed Works of the Flesh, as did the Pagan Gods. The Gods of the Heathens were worshipped by the Slaughter of human Sacrifices, by Prostitutions, and by other corrupt and immoral Practices. Christ commands us to worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth, and directs us to ask all things of God in his name, or as his Disciples, and for his sake. And the Orthodox declare, that this is all they intent to do, howsoever they express themselves. What Idolatry then, or what Work of the Flesh is here?  
There can be supposed, one would think, but an Impropriety of Speech, in saying that the Man Jesus Christ is truly and properly the most High God, meaning that the most High God, or the Divine Wisdom, Majesty and Supreme Authority do truly and properly appear in him. Howbeit, the Meaning and Sentiment of the Modalists is certainly good. And now the Result of all that has been said, seems to be as followeth.  

1. That some Persons may condescend to the use of unscriptural Terms.  
2. That others, who are no less sincere, may scruple the use of them.  
3. That those, on whom it is incumbent, should establish the Scriptural or Gospel Terms of Union.   
1. Some Persons may condescend to the Use of unscriptural Expressions. For this the Reader may be referred to the Half-sheet that is entitled, The Scripturalists Christian Condescension considered. The Reasons of this Condescension are, that it seems the Orthodox Expressions may in some measure be taken in a Latitudinarian Sense, and that whatsoever admits of a tolerable Construction, though otherwise uncouth and unscriptural, may be submitted to for Peace sake, till Men at least may have had the time and means to be better informed, and whilst the Gospel Terms of Communion are not yet sufficiently known. Those who are persuaded of the Validity of these Reasons, may use this Condescension, though on the other hand they believe, that the unscriptural Expressions are extremely improper, and subject to great Inconveniences. They may study to take these Expressions in a good sense, that they may use them with Devotion: But seeing it is Necessity in great part, in this case, that justifies their Compliance, they ought not to affect the use of them more than needs must; and surely they ought not so to plead for the unscriptural Terms, as to give them the preference before the Terms of Scripture, or as to condemn them that scruple the Use of unscriptural Expressions. They ought not to accommodate themselves to unscriptural Expressions out of worldly Interest, or that they may enjoy Ease and Pleasure in this World, (that were certainly to be in a state of Damnation) but that they may labour more usefully, and may be in a greater Capacity to promote the Truth. They ought therefore to embrace all occasions to do this, and they ought to do it zealously and strenuously, if they will save their Souls. 'Tis wonderful indeed how Men generally are wanting in what they might do for the Truth! But yet, all charitable Condescension notwithstanding, they ought not to be ashamed of or to deny the Truth, but must be ready, if occasion be, to sacrifice even themselves for the Truth's sake. A Man that writes Institutions concerning the Orthodox Doctrines, may profess that the Dissent and Controversy (on both sides) is only from a Misapprehension of one another's Sense and Meaning, etc. Thus some Persons may conscientiously condescend to the use of unscriptural Terms.  
2. Others, who are no less sincere, may scruple the Use of these Expressions. They may think them passable in Articles of Peace, but doubt whether they are reverend enough in public Acts of Religion. They may fear that it is too uncouth to say, O Son of David have Mercy on us, meaning, O God who dwellest in the Son of David have Mercy on us, etc. Especially seeing how those who stretch the Christian Condescension so far, are accused of Hypocrisy by some Writers, they are loath to appear obnoxious to so foul an Aspersion. Besides, they may reckon that Men have had sufficient time to consider and bethink themselves; and seeing that all this while they have not seriously applied themselves to the means of Information in a matter of this vast moment, or have slighted and have not at all regarded all that has been written, they may think that they ought to go out from among them, and look on them as Men that are resolved to shut up the Key of Knowledge.  
3. Those, on whom it is incumbent, should establish the Scriptural or Gospel Terms of Union. This is particularly made out in the Irenicum Magnum, in a Sheet concerning Subscriptions to Articles of Communion, and another entitled, The Consequences of the Modalists System. This Temperament of Scriptural Terms is used in our Liturgy, with respect to the Questions concerning Predestination. It would not be more difficult to content ourselves with the general Terms of Scripture in all other respects. If we do it not, we leave Stones of stumbling in the way, we needlessly cause Divisions and are guilty of Schism, and contradict the fundamental Principles of Protestants. We reproach the Scripture, as if it were not a perfect or sufficient Rule. We leave not to others the Liberty of discerning. We act as if we were infallible. We set up ourselves as magisterial Judges of Controversies. We exercise Dominion over other men's Faith. We oppress men's Consciences, and endanger their Salvation. In fine, we take away the Key of Knowledge, and run the hazar of crushing the Truth, and of being found violently to fight against God.  
FINIS.