ill Xfi o /ioo/..- No,.. ':;cAN. JVATERLANT>, D. D, Maftcr of Magdalen College in Cambridge, and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty. CAMBRIDGE: Printed for Cohn. Crown fie ld, Printer to theUniverfity? and W. and J. Innys, at the Weft- End of St. Pm;i«*s, T O The Right Reverend Father in GOT) JOHN Lord Bishop of LONDON, AND Qne of the I ords of His MAjES TVs Mofl Hofwurable Pkivy-Council. My LORD, THE following Sermons, drawn up and PreaclVd under Your L o R D s H I p's Influence , in Detcnfc^ of Thac Ancient Faidi which You have * 2, fo The DEDICATION. fb Scafonably and Signally fupported, have a natural Claim and Title to Your L o R D s H 1 p's Patronage. Their Dciign is to Ihow, that we follow not mecr Hamdn Decifwnsy or Words of Meny as hath been f.^^.nderoajly report- ed, but the inEillible l^^ord of Gody to which \vc appeal from, the Sentence and Determination of any fillible Men wharioever. Neverthelefs, it is great Satisfaclion to us lo oblerve, that the Scripture-Evidences of our Dodrine have, in all Ages of the Church;, appear- ed Jfb full and clear, that the Generali- ty of Wife and Good Men could not fail of coming into them. V^e think it no Diicr.^dit^ but a great Advantage to our Dodnne, that it is Antienty and Catholich. If This be all that Some mean, by Objcclmg to us Human Deci- JioTiSy we do not only Ackno\^ledge it, but Glory m it. It has been the Me- thod of the Wifcft and Beft Men, fince thq D^ice of Chrillianity, to prefer Ex- frefs The DEDICATION. frefs S(nrij)turey or Certain Confequences from Scripiure, before meerly Human and Philofophical Conjedures. Hu- many but well-grounded, Decijions have ferved to beat down the Pride and Va- nity of Htmafiy and ill-grounded Con- ceits: And hence it is that the Faith of the ever BlelJed Trinity has conftant- ly, and will, 1 iruil, finally prevail over all Oppofition from Men, whofe Strength and Confidence isnotin5cT/p' t:irey but in Fain Philofophy-^ not in the If^ord of Gody but in 1 know not what dark ajad blind A4etaphyfcksy the Words of Men. I gladly Embrace this Opportunity of joining in the Publick Thanks to Your Lordship, for the lace Memora- ble Inftance of your truly Primitive and F.piicopal Zeal againft the Adverfaries of our Common Faith. The Attempt to introduce, by a private Authority, New Forms of Doxology, in oppofition to Thofe now in Ufe, which are of Ions * 5 fland- Ihe DEDICATION. landing and grc.ic Authority in the Church of Chrill, is juftly abhorred by all that have* the Honour of our Blefled Lord, and of our Common Chriitianity near at Heart. To afcribe All Glory to the Father, in Contempt of thofe other Forms which give Glory to all the Three Perfons, is too plainly declaring in Facfs, what is difown'd in If^ords 5 and is laying afide that Mode fly iaPracfic€y which is pretended in Prin- ciple. It was high time to give a Check to fiich Dangerous Innovations, and to warn your Faithful Clergy againft luch Scandalous Abufes. Prcient and Future Generations will be obliged to Your Lordship for your Pious Cares, and Wife Endeavors in this Behalf- and for fo Eminent an Example of an Un- iliakcn Firmnefs in Thofe Principles, Ni^hich alone can make our Church Glo- rious, or Kingdom Happy. From Ntfhich lliould we ever be (b Infatuatec^i^ and. Abandoned as to ftart, or fwerve ( which., 7he DEDICATION. { vhich God forbid ) we fliould, front being the Pureft.and moft juftly Celebra- ted Church in the Worlds become the Meaneft and the moll Contemptible of Any (if we could ftillbe called a Churchy) Ihould expofe our felvcs inevitably to the juil Wrath and Vengeance of Almigh- ty God, and to the Scorn and Deri- fion of all the Churches around us. That thefe, and the like Dangers and Mifchiefs, may be effedually prevented, or turn'd away from us, is the Hearty Prayer of My lord, Tour L o R D s H 1 p's Moji Oledieni afid Mojl Eumhle Sewant Daniel Waterland. T,iy^j.ju.Hff THE PREFACE' THE following Sermons may be looKd upon as a Supplement to my Vindi- cation of Chrift*^ Diximty-i before pub lijh'd. lint ended them as ftwh^, avoiding Repeti- tion of the fame things ^^ as much as 1 well coidd: Or where I could not avoid bring- ing up again the fame Arguments-, I have endeavoured to give them fome further Light or Strength ; for the moji parti in- larging upon what had beeri before but briefly hinted, I have intirely orriitted the Argument from Worfliip, becaufe 1 bad difinBly and fully treated of it', under Queries i6th. and i-jxS^, Some other Arguments I have pafs'd over ^ turelv becaufe I had not room for them. ' ~ J.. Thofe u The PREFACE. Thofe lijhich I have taken and conjiderd^ appear to me of as great weight as any i and more than fufficient to jujiify our Be- lief in Chrift jelbs as a Divine Terfon^ Co-equal and Co- eternal 'jDith God the father. In my Vindication &c. I was chie/Iy up- on r^^Offenfive, agam/i the Adverfaries of our common Fait hy demanding of them Jome clear and good proof of their Tretenfions in tfdis momentous Controverfy -, fince they had hitherto produced nothing conjiderable enough to move any Wije and Good Man to for fake that Faith^ which has fo long, and fo univerfally obtain' d-i and with fuch vifible marks of a Divine Tower accompa- nying it. They that undertake to alter the Fundamental and Univerfally received Ar- ticles of the Chrijiian Faiths which may he traced up to the very Infancy of Chrijii- anity -i or as high as any Records reach y ought to be well provided with Reafons and Arguments to make good fuch big pre- tences : Otherwife they do but render their Caufe ridiculous -i and expofe their own Va- nity. The Trefumption will always lie ( e- fpecially in a point of this moment^ in which it can hardly be fuppofed that God would ever have fuffered his Church to be fo longy fo univerfally i and fo lamentably deceived) on The PREFACE. ni 4in the fide ^j/* prefcription, and long PoC- feflion : And noth'ng lefs than clear and e- evident Demonftrationrj;? have weight ftif^ ficient to bear tip againfi it. This there- fore .is what I had reafon to infift upon-, and "jvhat 1 flill demand of our new Guides, if they hope to frevail any thing 'uuith confidering Men, I may farther demand of them to propofe fome other Scheme op- pofite to the Catholick, and to clear it at leaji of all confiderable Obje^ions. For if it appears that there are but three Schemes^ in the main^ Arian, Spcinian, and Catho- lick, 07ie of which mttfi be true 5 and that the two former are utterly repugnant to^ or €an Neither of them be fhown to be confifi* ent with^ the whole Scripture taken toge- ther -, it will follow that the third is the True one^nlefs Scripture be inconfiflent with it felf s which is not to be fuppofed. This way of proving our Toint, thd indirefl:, is notwithflanding juft and folid; provided we can make it appear that neither the Arian nor Socinian ( cr what is nearly the fame^ Sabellian ) Hypothefis can tolerably account for feveral Scripture-Texts. But I have^ in the following Sermons 5 chofe^ for the mojl part, to proceed more direftly, giving the direct Scripture-proofs of what has fo longt and fo umverfally prevailed s that it may be feen that we have a great a 2 deal IV The P R E F AC E. deal more than Prefcription, or PoiTcffion^ to plead for our 'Priyiciples. Tkey are found- ed in the infallible JVord ofGod^ fixd and rivetttd in the I'cry Frame and Confiituti- on of the Chriftian Religion, If mir 'Proofs of this-i meerly from Scripture •^ appear but probable, r^^y are yet more and better than can be produced, meerly from Scripture -^ for the contrary per fix: af Ion : And if "what ap- pears but probably to be taught in Scrip- tare it felf appears certainly to have been taught by the Primitive and Catholick Church s fuch probability /i? confirmed and firengtheridyCarries ^jiith it the force ofDc monftration. Not that I think our Scrip- ture proofs to be barely probable, tho^ our Caiife would not fuffer even by that fuppofition. I think them as clear , and a^ jirong as floould be expe^ed-^ or de fired in any cafe of this nature: And I know not vahether the Scripture-proofs of the Divinity, even of Cod the Father, his Eter- nal, Immutable, Necellary Exiftence, hts Omnifcienre, Oniniprefence and other Di- vine Attributes-i might not be ekided and fruH" rated by fuch Subtilties and Artifices as are nfed to elude the Scripture -proofs of the Divinity of God the Son, It mufi however be allowed^ that in all manner of Controverfy which depends upon Interpretation of dead JVritings^ he that under- The PREFACE. v undertakes to prove a Toint^ or to eftablifli a "DoEirine^ Ites under this dijadvatitage ,; that, as long as there appears any pofllbility of a different Interpret at ion-t an Adverfary may fiill demur-, and demand farther Evi- dence. No'jVi confider'mg the great latitude and ambiguity of Words and Phrafes, in all Languages , ( ^/ ^ Man would fearch into all the Senfes they are poffibly capa- hie of) and that even the mofl full and expr^fs words may be often eluded by hav^ mg recourfe to Tropes., and Figures-, or to fome other aytijicialTurn of JVit andCriti- cifm-y I fayy corifdering thiSy there may be always fome thing or other plauj%ly urged againfi any thing almofi whatever: But wore efpeciatly if the Toint to be proved be of a fublime myfterious Matures Theriy be^ fides the Advantage to be taken of Words % there's farther ground of fcruple^ or cavily from the thing it [elf. And here the Ob- jeftor has much the eafier party as it is al-^ ways eafier to puzzle^ than to clear any thing 'y to darken and perplex^ thart to fet things in a good Light *, to ask ^ueflions^ than to anfw^r Them-^ to flart '^Difficulties^ than to folve Them* In a Wordy it is eafi" er for the Objeftor to fhow 'his own Ig- norance) and perhaps the Qih^Ts tooy than it is for Esther of them to be perfeftly knowing, and able to extricate a Subjeit a 3 out vi The P R E F A C E. out of all perplexity and douhtfulnejs. Hence it is that both Anans and Socini- ans havey for the mofl part^ been content to Objed aga'mji the Cacholick Scheme^ having Talents very proper for it^ but they feldom undertake to defend and clear their own: Or if they do-, they foon fee reafon to repent it. When the Socinian is to prove that Lhrift is a Man only-, or an Arian that He is a Creature, and that Scripture can bear no other pollible Interpret at ion-^ They come offfo indifferent ly-, and with fuch ma- nifeft marks of difadvantage^ that they do hut expofe themfelves to the Pity^orT^eriJi- on of their Adverfaries. It was proper to obferve this^ in order to give the common Reader a juft Idea of the fate of the prefent Controterfy^ and of the method and management of the Controvert- ifts, on Either fide. The way to judge right-, ly ^either of it or them^is to compare Things carefully together^ and to^ obferve how they perform their fever al parts \ which are redu- cible to thefethree^ I. To prove and ejtablifh their own Tenets^ 2. To difprove thofe of the Adverfaries^ 3. To objeii to^ or weak- en^ the Adverjary's Proofs. For the Pzirpofe : What have the Ca- tholicks to produce from Scripture '^ in proof of their Principles? And what has either an Arian? or Socinian to pro- duce The PREFACE. vii duce in proof of his? Take their eviden- ces together -i Jet them fairly one againft another^ and then judge of them. What have the Catholicks to urge in order to difprove the Arian or Socinian Scheme? And what again has either Arian or So- cinian to plead in order to confute the Ca- tholick T^oBriize? Let thefe refpe lively be balanced one againft another^ and let the impartial Examiner judge which has the Advantage-t upon the Comparifon. Lafily^ let it be obferved what the C^LthoMcks have tofay^to weaken the ^Proofs brought either for the Arian or Socinian Hypot hefts*, and again what the Arian and Socinian has to pleady to invalidate t he T roofs brought for the Q^- tholick Terfwafion. Upon the whole ^ I may remark-^ that the mofl difficult Task of alU is to Eftablifh a Dodrine: the next hardefi is to difprove or confute any Tel- net > becaufe That, in fome cafes y {where one of the two mujt be true) is efiablifhmg the contrary : The loweft and eafieft part of all-, is to objcft againfi the Adverfarvs Proofs, or to puzzle a Caufe among weak Readers. Thefe things being premifed^ I may now proceed to take Notice of two late Pam- phlets 5 wrote by way of Anfwer to my Vindication of ChriftV Divinity. The frfi of them^i indeed-^ is very modeftly^ and properly called AN ANSWER TO a 4 Dr. viii The P R E F A C E. Dr. WATERLAND's Queries, r. Clarke'^ No^ tion of Self-exiftence, 1 fhall then obferve^ that th£'T>o6ior's. PropoCiUons (^particular- ly his fth, iithji+th, 19th, 23d,) ^r^ not fo innocent, as this Hotter would reprejent them^ xii The PREFACE. ikenty but are unfcripttiral, falfc, and d^n^ geroiis. If he means it of unbegotten? / pall leave him to prove-) at letfure^ what real perfection-, beyond a Relation of Order ^ or Mode of Exiflence-i is contained in it. In the mean while ^ what becomes of the Query, which demanded a clear and determinate Anfwery whether the Son be Finite or In- finite, whether his Exifience be Precarious, ar Independent on the Will of any ? A di- re^ anjwer to this would (oon have let our Readers into the main T>ebate^ to be tried hy Scripture ^ Reafon-, and Antiquity. I give this Infiance only, for a Specimen of the Author's manner of evading and Ihift- ing, whenever he comes to the pinch of the ^lueflion : The Reader will obferve muny more fuch, in the perufal of the whole Fzm- phlet. It is very plain tbeny that This Writer never means to give us an Oppor* timity of confuting his principles^ if they happen to be contrary to ours % becaufe he cares not to own them-, however invited &r provoked to it. The mo(l thai' he aims at, is the jafejU loweft-^ meaneji Part of a Difputant, who happens to have a Caufe wJvcb he dares nQt confide im and that isy to obje^, eaviU and find fault with fome thing which he likes not-, without e^ ver Jo much as offering any thing better i« its fie ai.,Qr fukmit ting what hi has tapw- The P R E F A C E. xiii f)ofe to the Examinatioy> a7id Jtidgfnent of the Learned. 3. // is ''ji'orth obferving what this Wri- ter fays to the two main Points in debate between the Catholicks and the ArianS) 'viz. The Confubliantiality , and Etcr- nicy of God the Son. He fpeaks indeed of'Dr.Chrke-, but 1 fuppofe he^at the fame time^ gives us to under ji and what his own Sentiments are. There is nothing in any of the Doftor's Aflertions, but what holds equally true upon all {the poflibic ) Hy- pothefes concerning either the Metaphy- iical Sfib/lancej or Eternity of the Son, />. 29. AH his propofitions are equally true and certain borh from Reafon and Scrip- cure, whatever the Sub fiance^ and \vo^ un- limited foever the T)uration of the Son be. p, 6j. See alfo p. 23, 24, 27, 285 It is fome Satis faEi ion to us^ that^ as this Gentleman pretends not to hold ^ny Scheme of his own^ fo neither does he attempt to Confute ours. All that we infift on , a7id contend for^ may be true /ind right y for any thing he has to jay to the contrary % which is very obliging', efpecially conftder- ing that he fpeaks both for "Dr. Clarke and Himfelf For tho' we have no reafon to apprehend anj thing from the T>oi1ors Ar- gumentSi yet his very Name and Charact- er xiv The PREFACE. er may do our Caufe harm^ among many-, if tt be thought that he has declared plainly againji us. This IVriter Charge^ me with palpable and direfl: Calumny f. 28. for faying that "Dr. Clarke ei;ery where denies the Confubftantiality. Soft- er Words might have done as well^ in One that profeffes noc to render Evil for Evil, nor Railing for Railing. / had certainly no intention to Calumniate the'Doclor i 1 gave my Reafons for what I (aid-y which have not been anfwer'd-, 1 did not lay any thing to his Charge more than ■ what the Countrey Clergy man, and Mr. ^mX'jn^andfeveral others, who are thought the 'Doctor's Friends , believed of him as well as /. / will not Jay what may be pleaded to make good the Charge-, from the 'Dolor's own Books ^ from the whole'Drtft andTenour of them^ bejides many particular Pajfages j and what from this very piece wrote in his T^efenfe-, nor how unaccount- able his whole ConduB 'i relating to this Controverfy 5 is, on any other Juppofition j 7ior how needlefs it is to prove what hardly Friend or Foe makes any doubt of. Let it be fo that theDoBorhas neither di- re^ly^ nor by neccjfary confequence denied either the Confubfrantialicyj or Eternity. I am more willing to have it thought that the Charge is falfe and groundlefs^ than this The P R E F A C E, xv Author imagines s and gladly take this Op^ portimity of acquainting the IVorld that the T)o[ior has lefs to fay againfl the Re- ceived T^o^irine than was once believed of Him, 1 am always very averfe to repre- fenting a7iy Man worfe than he really is-, efpecially fuch a Man as "Dr. Clarke, who may be a Credit to our Caufe ^ a? foon as it appears that he does not really differ from us. I am very unwilling that, any Alan of Senfe and Learning, Jhould be thought an Arian, ( Arians generally have been Men of a l^ifferent Chara5ier) And if it can be made appear either that the ^DoEior^ never was fuch^orhas ceafed to be fuch ^ upon far " ther views {his own good fenfe leading him at length out of it) IJhall very heartily re- joice at it, and acknowledge my mi [takes or mtfreprefefitations with infnitely greater [■Itafure than I could ever be fuppofed to make them. If the^Doclor has really denied 710 Confubftancialiry that either-the Ante- nicenc Fathers, or the Council d/' Nice in^ tended-^ {as this Author fays he has not r, p. 2 7, 2 8. )/ am very glad of it, anddefire no more ^han that theT)o5fordo Cincctt\j acknowledge ■he fame, and ^hidc by it : And, I hope ^ that hofe who pretend to have the "Doctors Au- thority to countenance them in their Oppofi- ^',m to the Received Doftrine {^t he fame which XYi The P R E F A C E. *iji;ljich the Ante-niccne Fathers and Couh" cil of Nice Taught^ will take fpecial no- tice of tt. What is it then that the Do- a or and JVe dtjfer about? This Author will tell us: The Doflors 300 Texts were brought to prove a Subordmation-i not in mere pofition or order of Words^ Sec. p. 40. The Son muft be Subordinate to the Father in real order of Nature and *T)ig- nity and not in mere pofition of IVords: p. 29. The Subordination bf the Son is not a Subordination meerly nominal confiding (according to Dr. Waterland^ in mere pofition or order of fVords—but it is a real Subordination of the Son to the Father in point of Authority and 'Do- ?mnio7i over the Univerfe. This is the main, the true and only point &c\ p. 57. 58. Let us fee then-, if r/j/V main , this true and only point can be any way adjujl- ed between us: For we are very dejirous to have the Learned "Doctor on our fidcj as nearly as pofflble ; or if He muft be a- gainfi us at. lajU the lefs the better 5 both for Him and Us. Perhaps the 'Dohor is with us in the main-, only has happened un- fortunately to nnfiake our principles ; which is a very ufual thing with T>ifputants in mofi Controverfies. If he has the fame No- tion which This Author has^ that ©r. Wa- tcrland makes the Subordination to confifi in The PREFACE. xvil in a mere Poficicn or Order of Words, it is a Miftake indeed s and I cannot out wonder at hi^ peculiar Fancy. I alwdys in- tended^ always /poke of a real Subordma- tion : But then I confidered the ftri6i Force and Propriety of the word SubordinatioHj implying a difference of Order only-t while the Nature is fuppofed Equal, l^l^e do 7iot fay that things of a lower kind are liibor- diiiare, but inferior, to Thofe of an higher. Brutes are 7iot (ubordinate, but inferior to Man^ /r/;/«^ Creatures are not {in flri6i pro* priety ) Subordinate, but inferior to God. I allow all that is really y truly -^ and flri^ly Subordination s excepting againji nothing but Inferiority, {^which ts more thayi Subordination)- and Divifion of Sub fiance^ fuch as is between two Human Terfons atiing fubordinately one to the other. But of this matter 1 had declared my Mind fully, and dijlin&ly^ in my Defenfe: &c p, 2905 and therefore wonder the more, hoi^ I came to be Jo Jtrangely mifunderjiood by t his. Wnitv. If the 'Dohor will be conten^ ted with a real Subordination {admitiing no Inferiority > no Inequality of Nature^ He and I need not differ. But if He car-- ries the point one tittle farther -, J defire to know what Senfe or meaning He can poffl-* bly have in it^ without making the Son of Qod a Creature; Which if He does-, I b hopt xviii The PREFACE. hopc^ Ifriall no longer be charged iz'ith Ca- lumny ^ and that the T)oclor will think Himfelf obliged, not to fay, or to infinuate it only, but to prove it ( // poffible) from Scripture, Reafon? or Antiquity. There ivtll be no occafion to ft and upon any nicety of ExpreJJion. IVe Jhall apprehend his meaning'^ if He pleafes only to fay plain- ly-^ that the Son is not neceffarily exirting-, which may be a fofter way of faying ^ that He is a precarious 5w/^; which is another Thrafefor Creature. The Modeft Pleader, indeed > has fpoke out ^ •, j^nd a certain Gentleman that calls Himfelf A Seeker after Truth, and pretends to be in 'Dr ClarkeV InterejU fays^ in the Name of the whole Tarty , that They are not backward to exprels tliGir denial ofChrift's neceffary-exiftence •, but that They avow- edly maintain, wirh the mod Ancient Fa- thers ( that is, fo far as He knows any thing of the Fathers) that the Son is not necelfarily-exiltingf . HadlDrChrke not been backward tn faying this-^ or had He avowedly and plainly maintained it ^ it would have fu'jed us fome Trouble : And I muft then have infifled upon it-^ from that i\n^\Q Confideratiouj that every Tittle of what I charged Him with was jufty and * Mod eji Plea, £cc. 17. 117. t Stconti Letter to Dr, Margey. p. 17. undeniable '3 The P R E F A C E. xix undeniable. He docs, indeed-, drop fomethmg very like it^ (Reply p. 230, 231.) But if That be really his meaning {which however I charge Him not with) And if his Propofiti- ons are to be interpreted accordingly ; this Author does very ill in pretending that I have not attempted to refute the 'Dotlofs principal Tropofitions^ when my whole Book is direBly levelled againfl That very Tenet j and is (Jf I do not too much flatter my felf) a full Confutation of the '^Do^fors prin- cipal TropofitionSf fuppofing He meant ne- ceflarily-exiftent by Self exiftent. 1 was once of Opinion (_ but let it pafs for con- jefture only) that the T>o5ior^ having a mind to introduce the Arian Herefy , thought to do it obliquely ; not by calling the Son a Creature, which is gr of s-, but by denying his neceflary-exiftence^, which comes to the fame Thing: And yet This was to be done covertly, under the Name ^/ Self-exiflence j a IVord with two Faces^ one to oblige Friends^ the other to keep off Adverfaries, But This may be my Fancy only. One Thing, however^ Imufl: cbferve^, *Thts very Artifice was made ufe of by the Antient Ariang, ipoho he'mg afjarned to call the Son a Creature, contrived to fay the ffime Thing, m other Words, by denying his nccefTary-cxiftence. Uac, « eliKivru^ tisruv if 'mXvKi(pxX'^ -nava^yLcc-^ oil tf^TK-i^vv- rev Gioa Aoy(^, 'ecX>,uc, tucMv K-na-y^ A£y»j7V uutvv ifyfcf, fiou- /jjOTv ejt^^(i>^^o,i/,H'oi, ^c, Athanaf, Orar. 5. p.^io. b 2 that XX The PREFACE. tkat^ if the T)o£ior has any defign a- g'Lind the Neceflary exiiience of the Son -, He has not fo much as one /mgle Text of Scripture to help Him in it. He miijl be obliged to the Fathers, {^jijhofe verdict, ne- verthelefs-i He will not ft and to) even for fo much as a C^olour to hi" pretences-, as appears by his ij^^Propofitionj which fiands only on the Authority of Fathers > tho ft is the mofl to his pttrpofe of any that Hehasr>and Jeemstocome the neareft to the Toint in Queftion. It will not be difficult to difahle Him from doing any thing with the Fathers: / have^ in a great mcafure, obvi- ated his pretences^ that way ^in my Defenfe ^/ Query theEi^^hzhHtwill be eafy to /how that none of the Fathers looked upon God the Son as a precarious Being, but afferted ^/.fneccflary-exilience. This is certain and manifeft even of thofe very Fathers who fpeak of a voluntary Generation. fVe are not indeed to expect the Word necefTarv- exificnce (a School-Term, and fione of the moji proper ) but the Thing we floall find, in other words ^ fully and clearly af- fetted. This V^ ntcv tells ?ne (/>. if.) that 1 have nor been able to fjroduce one fingle p^ff^^ge out of any one Ante-Nicene Father^ wherein the Son is affirmed to have ^m^wtd^ or been emitted by Neceflity of Nature. He might have f aid likewife^ that I could not The PREFACE. xxi not produce any one Poft-nicene Father affirming the Son to have emaned, or been emitted by Ndcelluy of Nature : That is^ They never exptefs it i?i thofe Terms. 'Ava^yjij in the Greeks and NcceflTicaSj in the Latin, had not the fame Senfe which the Word Ncceflity bears^ when we fay that God exifls by Neceility of Nature. It Jhows but fmall acquaintance with Ecclefia- itical Language^ for 2)r. Clarke to under- Jiand by^ cLvdym Oua-ix.!?, and^ cpuai^$ ct(U7Joj> (^Script.T)o^r. p, 252, i^-^.^ the fame that we tinder ft and by Neceflicy of Nature. The Fathers under ftood by it outward Co^Qaony Force, or Compulfioiii And what we ex- prefs <&/ Neceility of Nature, r^^/ exprefs'd by the JVord Nature, e. e. God is by Na- ture Gaod-i He exifts, or is God, by Na- ture ((pu(7i( or ^cj^ To f^owthatT^r. Chrkt had miflak- 3, enpr mifinterp:reted k% or at lea fl^ the 5, Principal Texts of Scripture which he 55 has cited. Or ■ %. To The PREFACE. xxiii 2. 5) To examine the truth of AW^or the 5, Principal of his Propoficions. / have, in effeSf^ done thisy tho' in my o-jvn Method. Buty however^ the Gentle- man Jhould confider^ that many of the 'Do- ctor's Comments, and Propoficions are purely wide and foreign to the T)ifpttte\ excepting only that the more pernicious an Error />, fo much the more neceffary is it to mix a great deal of Truth with it ^ to make it go down with the Read- ers. Many more of the \Do£iors Com- ments and Propoficions ^;t general) ^r ^m- hi^uousy looking two ways\ having proper- ly no one meamngy becaufe no determinate meaning. Such being the cafcy 1 took the fhort and plain way^ which is always the befl when a Man has a Cattfe he can con- fide in : a?id That was^ to cut off Imperti- nencies y and come to the main Quefl:ion, laymg all the fire fs there. Whatever I met withy in the T^oEiof^ Books y that appeared to make the Son of God a Creature 5 or a Precarious Beings or not nccefiarily-ex- ifiimg (ForThefe are all the fame^ without any difference^ more than lies in the Sylla- bles^ 1 endeavour d to confute $ and I hope, I have done it. The learned T^oEior may now open Himfelfs or he may let it alone ^ if he pleafes : It matters mt what his TV- b + net xxiv The PREFACE. nets are', p-orided the true Catholick Te- nets be prejervcd and rnaintained. If he had any ill meaning in his Comments or Fropofitions, / have ufed my bejt endea- vors to prevent any ill etie^^ls /"/ might have among fome Readers: If he had not-, 1 am^ very glad of it ^ and have done ho more than explain d hisT)oBrine^for Him-^to an Orthodox Senfe-^ ^-juhich he ought Himfelf to have done long agce^ if he really had no- defign againft the Catholick? Received ^o^rine of the ever Bleffed Trinity. But enough of this. I mufi here take Notice of this Gentle^ man^^'^Docirlne^ about Worfliip; tho it ffe rather obfciirely intimated^ than plainly ex- prefsd: The hin\\endo>\^2Ly of fVriting y as I take it, is the Art of impofing upon the vulgar,/?/ the fame time preventing^ as much as poffible^ the examination of the Learned. All IVorflnp^ he fays', fhould be to the Glory of Gud the Father, p. fj. "isjho doubts It ? 1 hope the IVorfloip of the San-, is to the Glory of God the Fa- tl]er; ([y'hy then does this Writer find Fault ? Or vi'hat is it he has a ?mnd to fay-, and yet is afraid to fpeak out', to the Glory of God the Father? Has he^ fome ficrety and referved meaning ? So it feems^ or elfe it vjill be very hard to make out the The PREFACE. xxv the pertinency 'i or confiftency of his Obfer- nations. He directs us (/>. 6+.) to Wor- fliip uniformly the one God, the Father Almighty, even our Father which is in Heaven, thro* the Intercefllon of his on- ly Son our Lord Jefus Chrift, in the man- ner the Scripture diredls. 'Do not all Churches^ and our Own in particular^ do it \^miorm\y^and in the manner the Scrip- ture direEis? 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 diredt Wordiip is paid to the Son at all'y or that the Son is worjhip'd as God.? But:, fure the Author is not fo Rafli and inconjiderate-i as to advife us to any Juch dangerous innovation in IVorJhipy as either to lea'oe out the Son intirely^ or not to Worjhip him as God, What could a profefsd Eunomian , or the rankefi Soci- nian defire more? Can ^Z>r. Clarke {jor, 1 fuppofe , He /peaks for the T)o5lor and Himfelf too) can T)o£tor Clarke dejire this ? He that has not yet determined either a- gainfl the Confubftantiality or Eternity of God the Son : He that has only a few fcruples about Subordination , {owing to his miftake ^/Catholick principles^ and his not attending to /lri5i propriety of Lan^ guage) hardly in the main dtfermg from us% if this WntQr*s pretences be real aizd ^ncQxc % ^ Would xxvi The PREFACE. Would He have us ungod the Son^ in our Praftife, even before we fee reafon to alter our Principles.? Or miijt'-jue ft r ike Chris's Divi- irrty out of our public k Service^ before we do it out of our Articles of Faith ? It will be time enough for the "Uo^or to give this Advice'y after he has declared plainly a- gainfi the Eternity, and Conlubftantiah'ty of the Son \ after he has not only dec lard againfl them^ but difproved them^ which he can never do j after he has made it as clear as the Smh that //:?^Chrifl:ian World have been in an Error Joave been Idolaters, from the beginning downwards to this T^ay, It is poor'tretence to fay that we are not to build any pracHfes, wherein the worfliip of God is immediately concern'd, upon Metaphyfical fpeculations ^ not mentioned in Scripture/?. 64. The Divinity ^/Chrift is a Scripture-Truth, as much as the Di- vinity of the Father 5 ayid One is no more iZiMetaphyfical Speculation thantheOther, Befides that it is ftrangely improper ^^ and abfurd to call thefe principles pure Specu* la t ions, which are of fo great importance for the regulating our Woriliip, that we can neither omit to worjhip Chrifl-, if they are true-, without the great eft Impiety; nor perform ity if they are falfe^ without being guilty of Idolatry. In jhort-^ there is no Slenje in what this Writer here Jaysy but upon The P R E i A C h. xxvii upon the fuppofition that Chrift is really a Creature i and that the difpute only '-jiere 'ouh ether a Creature might j in any force d-^ im- proper Senfe^ be f aid to ^^ Eternal, or Con- fubftantial ; iL'hich indeed "-jnoiild be both a fruttlefs^ and an impertinent Speculati- on, after giving up the whole 1?oint in de- bate. But it IS farther pretended (/>. 6^.) that "vve fliould confine our felves to the clear and uncontroverted expreflions of Scripture, concerning Them {the Son and Holy Spirit ) and the Honour due unto Them, and this is undoubtedly, upon all pofiible Hypothefes, right and fufficient in pr3ai(e. But let this Writer tell us^ '-jvhether^irihis opinion^ every thing contro- verted is to be fet afide'^ or only what is juftly controverted. The former would come properly enough from a Dei ft, who will make Scripture it felf ^^ controverted Toint } and an Atheifl would jU II go farther. Let this Gentleman fhow that the Divinity, or di-? reft woriliip of Chrift is juftly contro- verted : Till he has done this^ he has [aid nothing. It is ridiculous to tell us {if That be his meaning) that to worfhip the Father on ly^^ leaving out the Son and Holy- Ghofl:^ is fufficient J upon all pofllble Hy- pothefesj when upon the Hypothefis that All the three Terfons are one God, {which is fomething more than an Hy pothclis) no one of xxviii The P Pv E F A C E. of theTer foils can be intirely omitted vjith out mantfefi Imqutty and Impiety. It is in vain to think of any Expedients in this affair ^ while our ^otlrine jtands unconftited. There's no Room left fo much as for a NeutraLry, in the prefent Cafe. For I iz;ill be bold to fay^ and bound to make it good:, that^ all circumjiances confideredy there caK be no Reafons fiijjicient to make a Man Neuter in this point f but what would be ff if ^ fie tent to deter mi7ie him on /^^ op polite fide. / fbull here take leave of this Wri- ter, having occafionally remarked upon fome pajfages of his-, by way of Note to my Sermons i and dejigning^ God willing^ to confider every thing material {^if 1 have here omitted any thing^ hereafter -, when I am favoured with a Large and Particular Anfwer to my Defenfe of Ibme Queries. There is another Writer who^ in a Six- penny Pamphlet, has drawn his Pen again ji me. It is Entituled; The Unity of God not inconiiftenc with the Divinity of Chrift: (^nominal Divinity he means^ being Re- marks on the Palfages in Dr. WaterlandV Vindication &c. relating to the Unity of God, and to the Objedt of Worfliip. The Author is agrave-^fober IVriter •, and ingenuoiifly fpeaks his Mmd, without any doublings or difguifes. It is a S at is fa^ ton to arty Man^ who has no concern for any thing The PREFACE. xxix i^ut Truth, to have fitch an Adverfary to deal i^jith ^ For thefi it is foon feen what we have to do. Much Time-, much Trouble^ much wrangling is Javed: We prefent* ly eyiter into the merits of the Catife^ for the Eafe and Benefit of the Reader, This Writer takes the Arian Hypothefis: For He fuppofes the Son to have been a di(lin£t Spine i [^p. J.) to have been GodV iiiftru- menc in the Creation j {p, 26) not to be True God j (p. '^^.) to have been IgnovTint of the day of Judgment, coyifiderd in his high- eft capacity, i. e. as the fecond Perfon of the Trinity, ip. 8) Having feen His drift and defign let tts next exa^mine his Terfor- mance. He does not undertake tojhow that the Received ^o£irine cannot be trues or that his own (i. e. the Arian) muft be true ', one of which Imight reafonably have expected of him-, [ince he pretends to have drawn up an Anlwcr to the main parts of my Vindication ^c. But He is content to fhow {fo far as He is able) that His T>o- Eirtne may be triie^ notwithfianding one or two Arguments which I have made ufe of againfi it. In a IVord^i He tindertakes to prove that fome of my Arguments againfi Arianifm are not conclufive. With what fuccefs^ 1 come now to fhow -y after taking notice to the Reader -^ that^ fi^ppofing He had really done what He intended^ it does not XXX The PRE F A C E. not follow thai the Arian DoEirine muft be true-i nor that there are not Argtiments enough to prove it cannot be true -^ but only that 1 have ufed an Argument or two ^ which alone are not Jufficient for my pur- pofe* One conpd^rable Objefiion againft the Arian Scheme ^^ is^ that tt fiands in oppofi- tton to theY'iK^ and great Commandment^ introductng two Gods, and two Objects of \Vor(hip; not only againjt Scripture, but alfo againft the unanimous Senfe of the Chriftian Church, from the Beginning-^ and of the Je\vi(h-Church before s which toge- ther are the fafefi and beji comment we can have upon Scripture, This is one confide- rable Objection, among many^ againjt Aria- nslm; arid is what this Writer has under- took to anfwer. He applies Himfelf par- ticularly to the Enghlli and unlearned Reader {p. 4. ) whom he hopes to fatisfy > the rather'^ I fuppofe-^ becaufe the Argument is learned, ^;^<^ muji lofe much of its force and Jirengtht on our fide^ when jlrippd of its ad- dit I on a I Advantages from H i (t o r y , and An- tiquity : Bejides that the W'c\\c:xrnQd Reader^ {efpec tally in ihis Controverfy) may be eafily impojed upon by littleTwxnSyand Fallacies i Jnch as have been tried^ and examined'^ and defpifed-s lon(^ agoe ^ by Thofe that have been thoroughly read and converfant in tbefe matters. But to proceed to what I defign. The P R E F A C E. xxxi depgn^ by way of Rermrk upon this Wri- ter, and his 'Ferformance: The Sum of what He pretends to^ is co7itaind in the following particulars. 1. That we have no fufficient grounds for charging the Arian TDotirine with the Belief or Worfhip of two Gods. 2. Nor for our own 'Doclrine that Fa* ther and Son are one God. 3. That we have no certain warrant for appropriating every kind^ and 'Degree of Re- ligious Worjhip to God alone, 4. That Mediatorial Worfhip may be due to Chrijii tho' not True God^ or Supreme God. f. That 2)r. Waterland has^ in ejfeSty given up the main of what the Arians contendfor. Thefe fever al particulars ( coritaining his fenfe^ tho\for brevity andperfpicuity^ ex- prefs'd in my own words) muji be examind in their Order. I. He pretends ^ firfl^ that we have no fufficient grounds for charging the Arian T)o5irine with the Belief or IVorfhip of two Gods, He has a particular Fancy of his owny that the Phrafe two Gods, fignifies two Supreme Independent Gods. p. 32. And that a Supreme God and a Subordi- nate God are not two Gods, p, 34. / fball^ frfty examine his Reafons for This 5 and xxxii The P R E F A C E. and-, next'i endeavor to convince Him that it IS neither true in it feif^ nor '-joould an^ fwer his purpofe^ if it really "were true. He ohjerves^ from Matt. 6. 24.. that two Mafters do not There meayi a Supreme and a Subordinate Majler ^ but two Coordi- nate, or Independent Maflers. p. 32. He could ?iot have pitched upon an Injfance lefs to his purpofe. It may appear fome- what harfh to put God and Mammon/^ much upon the levels as to fuppofe them fixjo Coordinate, or independent Maflers: Butt leaving. That, it is very plain that the Text is meant of two oppofite, or dif- agreeing Maflers^ whether Coordinate or Subordinate. If two Coordinate Majiers agreed perfectly together-^ tt would be as eafy. to ferve Both^ as One, If this Text be any rule for the common way of fpeakingy two Coordinate, or Independent Maflers^ {pro^ vided'They were but wife efioughy and good enough to agree conftantly in every Thing) could not bejuflly called two Mafters. The Trinitarian Tritheifts, if there be any fuch, wtll, I fuppofe^ be very thankful to our Author for this difcovery. Upon the hardefl Suppofition that can be made-^ the "Docirme of the Trinity^ upon thefe Trin- ciples, will [land per feci ly clear of Tvi* thcifm; So that If the Author has any way ferved his own Caufe^ He has at the fame The PREFACE. xxxiii Jutne time^ been extremely kind to his Ad- verfaries. But what hinders this Text from being at all Serviceable either to One or the Other^ is^ that the E^iprcflion here^ in St. Matthew, is J ome what particular andunufuals and can by no means be made a Rule of Speech^ againji the more gcne^ ral and current ufe of Language. This Writer endeavours^ next^ to find fome Inftances of a Soveraign and a Sub- ordinate King 5 which together were not^or are not-, two Kings. He inftances in David and Solomon ^ who were not^ that I know of Each of them a King at the fame time. He proceeds farther to the Inftance ^/Pha- raoh and Jofeph j that is, of a King and no King : And he inftances in a King of Great Britain and a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ; that ts, againj a King and no King : fo hard a matter is it any where to meet with two that are Kings> and yet are ?iot two Kings. He obfervesy next^ tlqft one SaviouYj one Mailer, one Potentate, one Father, one Lord, one Shepherd &c. ftgnify one Supreme Saviour-^ Totentate^ Mafier Sec. and /^, two Gods muft neceffarily fignify two Supreme Gods, p, 33. But^ for any thing he knows ^ one Saviour, one Mafter^, one Potentate &c, may as well fignify one Heavenly:, of one Adorable, or one Necef- ^ farily xxxiv The PRE F A C E. farily-e^iftent Saviour, Mailer, Potentate, e^r, One, in fome dijUn^nljiying^ emphatical Senfe^ ^ujhatever it be-, yet not excluding what effenttally belongs to That One, Our BleJJed Lord^ is ope Lord ( i Cor. 8. 6.) and jet Iharaly believe our Author 'ujill conjlnie it one Supreme Lord, or one Lord in the highefl: Senfe, He is alfo our Saviour, em- phatically and eminently fo /tiled j yet this IVriter will not from thence conclude that He is Supreme Saviour^ and all others ^ {Juppofe the P'acher ///w/^/f,) Subordinate to Him, This Author therefore has taken a very uncertain and fallible Rule for the interpreting of Emphatical Appellations. Be/ides that if one God fignifies one Su- preme God ', then^ Jin'ce all but the Su- preme Qod are excluded from being Gods, in any religious Senjej the Confequence isy that an inferior God is no God j not that a Supreme and an inferior God, (were they really Each of them ^ God) are not fwoGods. This Gentleman 4.hen, we fee, is very far from proving his To int. IVe may^ in the next place^ confider, whether it be not ca- pable of a clear Confutation. I had before argued that One God, and Another God make two Gods, ^r elfe one of them is no God, contrary to the fup- pofitton : which reafonivg is fo plain and flrongi that 1 thought it might be trufl- ed The P R E F A C E. , xxxv ed with the meaneft Reader. But this fe- rious Gentleman^ ( / know 7iot why^ ex- cept it be that he is not ujed to conjider this Controverfy ) fufpetls it all to be Banter. (/^. ?6.) / will offer one Argument more^ which perhaps may take with htm. The Pagms, thd they profeffed generally {as is well known to the Learned^ one only- Supreme God, looking upon all the reft as fubordinarc Minijlers of the one Supreme, yet Jland charged with Polytheifm by the JewS) by the Antient Chnitians, by the common Conjent of Mankind. Thus ]w^\- ter and Mercury {tho* one was fuppofed a lubordinace Minifter of the other^ were^ by thehyc2iOmznS:> fpoken of in the plural num^ berj as Gods ; that is^ Two Gods ; -Acfs i4i 1 13 12. And this has been the common way of [peaking^ in all V/r iters I have met with^ Sacred or "Trofane^ Antient or Modern, But what if the citftomary ufage of Lan- guage had been otherwife j does this Wri- ter imagine that the difpute is only about a Name? If the changing of ^Name would fet all rights I do not know any Man of Senfe that would contend about fuch a Tri- fle, To extricate this Matter-^ Polytheifm may be confiderd-^ either in a flriSier, or a larger Senfe : It may either fignify the Be- lief of more Gods than one^ in the proper Senfe of Neceflarily-exiftingj Supreme &Ci £ t {in XXXVl The PREFACE. (in iz'hich Senfe there have been few ^ verf few Polytheifts^ the Pagans themfelvesr generally were not Polytheills m this Senfe) Or it may fignify the receiving more Gods tha?i one-i in rejpc^ of Religious Wor- iliip, whatever opinion of thofe Gods they may otherwife have. It is this kind of Polytheifm which the firft Commandment has chiefly refpc^i to : And it is the fame that Pagvins, Arians, and Socinhns /land jiijily charged with. Should any Man al- ter the Name, the Thing would be the fame fill, For^ fipp^fi '^'^ /hould not call it Polytheifm, it would not appear at all the better -i tinder the name ^/^Idolatry ; which it really is, as well as Polytheifm. 1 mujl obferve farther^ that thd the Arians ^rSo- cinians, or other fuch Polytheifts, do not believe in two Supreme Gods^ and fo-^ in That refpeB^ are not Speculative Tntheifts, tfrDitheifts; yet by paying Worfliip, re- Ugioiis Worfoip, {the incommunicable Ho- nour due to the Supreme God only) to two Gods-, they do by Conftruilion and Impli- cation, tho' not in Intention^ 7nake two fu- preme Gods-, and confeqtiently are prafti- cal Ditheifts, at leajt^ even in the higheft and flri£iejl Senfe of Ditheifm. - Thus much may fuffice for the firft T articular. This Author has not cleared the Ariaii Dodriiie/ri^w the Charge of receiving two Gods:' The PREFACE. xxxvii Gods : Nor'i if he had^ would his Caufe be at all the better by changing the Name from Polytheifm, or Ditheiim, to That of Idolatry. Not to mention that-, upon his Trinciples-i it is the eafiejt thing in the World for the Catholicks, admitting a Sub- ordination of Order ^ to get perfectly clear of Tritheifm, which is the grand Objecti- on '^ : Befides that^ in his way of explain- ing the exclufive Term^y the Catholicks will eafily Anfwer every Text he can bring to prove the Father only to be the true God : For it is only faying that he is fa emphatically, or unonginately , and the Son may be true God, and necefFarily- exifting, notwith/landing: So that if this Writer has at all weakened One of our Ar- guments againfl the Arians, He has, at the fame time ^ very kindly cut the finews of All> or however of the mojl confiderable Argu- ments of the Arians againft Us ^ and fo has really differ ved his own Caufe '^ more than he has ferved it. 2.The fecond Particular which 1 propofe to Ex amine ^is his Tretence^that we have not * Jujl, and Wife is the RefteBion of a Juilicious Neither on this HeaJ, in the folloromg IVords^ M^i to t?^ T^iB-itcc<; sy- avnXi>ffzc^, K avr/i'7ropY)yzi(;j k jut^iv hocvoc'y^(rs fJtjiTot ta^v Xoyifr^u* ijj«^«5 flti7acj, mv ^ccfwvnv ^tMKoyrct,. Greg. Nazianx. Orat. 23. p. 4*2, c 3 fuf- Kxxviii Tjie PREFACE. fufEcient grounds to conclude that Father and Son are one God. He does not un- dertake to Examine or Confute J II iL'e have to urge upon that Head : But fo much only as iL'e urge by "jDay of Troof^ of Chrijfs Di- VimiyJFe are ufed to plead thus : The Fa- ther IS God, and the Son God, and yet God is one: Therefore Father and Son are one God. Thts is the Argument ^^ {tho' rather too briefly exprefsd) "which he labours to Confute for many pages together. We are no'uj to fee bow he has performed. He obferves that God is the only Savi- our, Othniel alfo ^ Saviour j and yet God ^2;;^^ Othniel /2r^ ;7^/- one Saviour. (/>. 17.) ylgain^ God only is Holy, a Bifhop miiji be Holy-, and yet God and a Bifliop are 7?^/- one Holy Being. (/^. 19.) God ov\\^ is Mader, fome men are Mafters , and yet God and an Earthly Mafler are not one Maftcr. Thefe things he delivers leriouf- ly, "without the leajt air of Banter-, and goes on-i in the fimpUcity of his Heart 't with the like Inflances to the number of Twenty-eight, as he obferves, {p. 30. j / am very willing to take his word without counting them-, nay^ and to add tw;o or * N. B. E'very Argument rphich prozes Chrijl to be God in the ftrift Senlc, proies Him to he the one God, fince God is one. Bttt in That way Chrift's Divinity is pre/uppo/edy and his being the one God inferred after-wards. The Argument from Worfhip proceeds differently, proving Chrifl to be God in the ftrid: Senfc, izcaufe He is the One true Adorable God. three The PREFACE. xxxix three more to the Number, For ^ God is one, and 'isloics was God; and yet God and Moles were not one God. God is one, and the Devil is God; {^iCor. 4 +.) and yet God and the Devil are not one Being. Angels are Gods^ and Magidrates Gods ; and yet God with hts Angels? or with Magiftrares,^^?^^ not make one Being. This is Jo plain'i that even the Trinitari- ans5 {blind as they are thought ) both fee^ and confefs it: which had the Author confidered^ he might have fanjed Himfelf Jome Trouble, arid as much wajle of Time, The Jhort of the Cafe is This : Thd there be Gods many, and Lords many, >'^f there is but one God and Lord to be honoured with Religious IVorfhip : Now^ Chrijl is God and Lord, in fuch a Senfe^ as to be Honoured with Religious fVorfhip ; there- fore Chrifi is the one God. The Premi^ fes I have proved in my Defenfe, Qu. 16, 17. The Conclufion makes it felf This is the Cathulick Argument^ which I leave the 'Gentleman once more to exercife his Thoughts upon \ defiring him, particularly ^ to anfwer my Reafons againft any inferior or Subor- dinate, but Adorable Gods, I eafily per- ceive nowy why he did not under ftand a plain §iueftion which 1 ask'd: Where did the Scripture give any Intimation of two true Gods? See what he [ays to it^ C4 f l^^ xl The E R E F A C E. (p. 34. J I know hit* one God that is to be Worfhip'di That one God is the true Godi wore adorable GWj than one, are^ by necejjary CGnflruEiton and Implication ^ wore true Gods. '3. The third'ParticuIar which thislVri* ter infifts upon ( in Senie, / mean-, not in Terms) /V, that we have no fufficient War- rant for appropriating all kinds and degrees ^Religious, or Divine Worfhip, to the true God only. Here indeed lies the "very Tinch of th€ Argument. For, if all Reli- gious IVorfhtp be not appropriate to the one true God, the Arians {Jo far as I apprehend^ are not juftly chargeable with Idolatry, or Polythcifm, for IVor [hipping a Creature y neither is our Argument from Worfliip, alone faff cient to prove that Fa- ther and Son are one God. / have^ (in my Defenfe ^/. 16.^ flwwn at large-, that all Afls of Kdxgious IVorfh/p are^mScnpturei appropriated to the one true God, in oppofiti- on to Crcature-Worfliip. / have to Scrip- ture added the concurring Sentiments of the primitive Chriftians. 1 might have added the Sentiments likewife of the Antient and Later ]Q^Sy to the fame purpofe-y which% however i the Reader may find collected in ©r. Cudworth'^. This Argument has been learnedly and accurately handled by many great Men^ [particularly by Bp. Stil- * Cud worth Intelleft. Syft. p. 465-. ^c. lin<^- The PREFACE. xli lingfleet) aga'mft the Papifts. As the Toint is of great concernment^ Jo the Evi- dence appears every way anjijuerable to it. Greater or jlronger Troofs cannot be ex- pe5iedy or reajonably dejired-, in a Thing of this Nature^ than exprels Scripture con- firrrid by the concurring Sentiments both of the jews before Chriftianity, and the Chri- Jiian Church from the beginning; not to mention what may be farther pleaded from the Nature and Reafon of the Thing it felf. This Writer, on the other Hand-, has little or 7iothing of weight to oppoje to Juch a Cloud of JVitneffes, He does indeed give ns his own Sentiments-, or rather Wiihes: For if you ask for Troof fie has none. He firft falls to Conjefture (p, 59.) how He thinks this Matter of Worfliip might ft and: That isy fuppofing He had had the T)ire^ion of an Affair^ which an all- wife God has took into his own Hands, He tells us how it might he reafonable {that is, fuppofing He is wife enough to dilate to God) to ask Pardon of (Z\\x'\^, or ariy other Blefilngs -i and to thank Him for Them-, upon his Hypothefis, /. e, fuppofing Chrift to be no more than a Creature. All this is only guefjing-, prefumptiiotts gueffmg. P. 52. He lays down his whole '^Doitriyie concerning Worfliip, in thefe three T arti- cular s: 1. That all our Worflup terminate upon xlii The PREFACE. upon the ene fuprcme God. 2. That it be not offer d to other Gods s any farther than our "ujorfiyipping of Them, is really a worjhip- ping of Him, as redounding to his Glory. 3. That it be not offer d to other Gods {That is his Senje) any farther than the fupreme God has commanded. I. As to the firfl Rule^ it is groundlefs, i^»df infignificant. Groundiels, becaufe He can produce no Scripture proof of it. We can eajUy jhow that God alone is to be worfhifd: Where is it faid that all Wor- fhipy .whether offered to God or Creatures, tniift terminate upon God ? He pleads (/'.f i ) that theTriefts lervc theTabernacle (Heb. 13. 10 J which Service of theirs terminated upon God. But let Him floow that Serving There bears fuch a Senfe^ as when we are Jaid to itrvtGod'^ or that iheTriefls wor- Ibip'd the Tabernacles and then the In- fiance may appear more to the purpofe. He pleads farther', that*, tho' we are to Jerve God only, yet we are allowed to ferve Others alfo^ (p.^i.) Therefore^ Ifuppo/ey tho' we are to worfhip God only, yet we may be allowed to wordiip Others alfo. But when we are order d to ferve God &nly \ religious Service^ not every kind of Service J is intended i which religious Ser- "Vice is not to be paid to Creatures, Rom. I.2f, The PREFACE. xliii 1.25. not to Thofe that by Nature are no Gods, G^/.4. 8. Having JJoo-wn then that this firjl Rule of out Author ^^ is ground- lefs; 1 muji next obfervejhat it is trifling and infignificant. The very Papifts and Pagans? in their grofjyildohtxY^ ^rlmage- Worfhip, keep up to this Rule. They ter- minate, /«r leafi inzcmlondWj J all their IVor- Jhip upon the one fupr erne God. 2. This Gentleman's fecond Rule for JForJhip-, is J that it muJl not be ojfered to other Godss any farther than our vi^orpip^ ping ofThcm-i is really vuorjhipping of the fupreme GW, as redounding to hijs Glory. BtU "ouho can affure us that any JVorJJoip of the Cvcd.VJrCi is really worjhipping of God -^ or that it does, or can redound to Gods Glory? Are isue better Judges of what is properly the worfliipping of God 5 or of Vokat is mofl for his Glory, than God Him- f elf is? If this Gentleman can prove that any Creacure worfliip is really the wor- iLipping of Gjd, or that it redounds to God's Glory, He za-ill then do fomethtng, 1 mention not^ that both Fopi(h and Pagan Idolaters prettnd^ that all their worfhip is really the woxfhipping of the one fupreme God, and redounds to his Glory. But ©/- vine JVifdom fe ems to have fix" d the Affair of Worfiiip upon quite another Foot, as it wertf on purpofe to cut off all fuch Tre- tences xliv Tiic P R E F A C E. tences of Men wife m their own Con- 3, The laji Rule laid do'jvn by This Wri^ l;er, iS', that IVorjhip be not offered to o- tilers, any farther than the fupreme God has commanded. This ts a fafe and a good Rule ', and 1 'ccifh that This Gentle- T^ian^ and fuch others-^ would abide by it. It is evident from the whale Tenour of Scripttirey that God has not only not com- Hianded, but abfclutely prohibited , all. Creature-worfliip > and laid it down as a fundamental Rale that God alone is to be worfnifd^ becaufe He is God, in oppofition. to All that do 7iot ft and pcfftfsd of thofe Excellencies and PerfeBions which belong to God. If therefore this Rule be goody as it certainly is^ ^// Creature-vvorflup is for ever precluded by it, I proceed tOy 4. A fourth Particular maintained by this Writer^ viz. That Mediatorial IVor- ^oip may belong to Chrift^ tha not true God^ 4r fupreme God. But He has not proved. that there is any fitch Thing as mediato- rial /^"(^r/S//^? diftinci from.div'nit. i/Chrift. o^r Mediator is worfhipd-i it is becaufe. He. ^y God ^;?.j/ Man, a divine Mediator^ This "SJ^nt^x cannot prove thaf Chrifi's media- tpnal Office is. the Ground <^;j:/ Founda- tion of the Worfhip which we. are com^ manded to pay Him: But it may^ an th^- con- The PRE F A C E. xlV contrary^ be proved that tt is not. As tk what He pretends from Joh. 5. 2 2, 25. / refer the Reader to my Delenfe of Qiiery \^th-i which this Gentleman jhguld have anfwerd'i inftead of repeating an old Ob- je£iion. As to Phil. 2. 9, 10, 1 1. / refer to. my Fifth Sermon-, and to my Defenfe of Query XVIIL (p. 275? &c.) where 1 fhow that thefe and the like Tretences are calctt' lated only for the Socinian Hypothefis ^^ and come very abfurdly from the Ten of ait Arian. As to Rev. i. f, 6. and Rev. 5. 12, 1 refer to my Defenfe, p. 2763 277. which this Gentleman has attempted to anfwer^ in part^ but has not done it. I had faid, «« that the Eflential 'Dignity of «5 Chrijfs T erf on is really the Ground and ^f Foundation of Honour and Efteem^ {and « confequently of Worfliip, the higheft «* Expreffion of Both ) which ought al- " ways to bear proportion to the intrinjick '^Excellency of the ObjeB^ (Defenfe; p. 277.) To this He replies-, " that if we. ^^ take Worfliip to figntfy Prayer and « Thankfgiving, then my AiTertion is «« plainly falfe : for the Ejjential Dignity <« of Chrift^s P erf on is not the grouud on €« which his Title to Prayer and Thankf- «f giving is founded. To which I rejoin; that Prayer ^??^' Thankfgiving^ confidered fnereh under the notion ^asking a Favor, xlvi The PREFACE. er giving Thanks for it (as this Gentle^ manfeems to under ft and them) do not flip- tofe any divine Excellency in the Terfon we ask oUor give Thanks to: For ^^we may ask a favor of a Man, or an Angel, prefent with us, and give Thanks to them for what They have done. But Prayer aiid Thankfgiving, in the religious Senfe^ con Jidered as Afts of Worfhip, fuppofe divine Excellency in the Object we addrefs to^ God having commanded all Worfhip, pro- perly fuchy to be paid to God alone ^ making it thereby incommunicable to any Crea- ture. In a word then. Prayer and Thankf- giving, under one Confider at ion, are founded in Kindnejfes to be received-^ or already re- ceived: but confidered as parts of Religi- ous Wor(hip3 they carry in Them the fame Significancy which Sacrifice or any other Inftance ^/religious Worfhip does-^ are out- ward Marks and ExpreJJions of that Ho- nour which belongs to God only^ and are therefore founded in the EfTential "Dignity of the Terfon to whom this Honour is paid. This IVriter obferves juftly enough (p, 43.) « that there would be no Obliga- <« tion either, to Prayer or Thankfgivmg, «« if God did not exercife a "^Providence «« over the World--, and from thence He cc infers (p.44.. ) that Gods Government which not only He (p. 6.) but the Modeft Pleader alfo (p. 48.) has been plea fed to charge me with •, as it is ufaal With many to think every thing con- tradiftory which Themfelves cannot readi- ly reconcile. My Words are f Defenfe &c, p. gfo.) ^^ Each \Divine 'I' erf on is an Individual " Intelligent Agent .^ but as fnbfifimg in one <^ undivided ^tibjta^ice-^ they are all toge- " ther^ in that refpecl, but one undivided ^^ intelligent Agent. This^ they tell me-, is to fay, that three Perfons are one Per- fon. But:, if they pleafe to think again ^ they will find it is no mpre than faying-, that Perfon, and undivided intelligent Agent, are not reciprocaJ. Undivided, or Individual , intelligent Agent 9 like the Phrafe Individual Being, may admit of a Jtri£ler and a larger Senfe, When d 2 this lii The PREFACE. this Writer is able to fix a certain Prin- ciple of Individuation > He may then^ perhaps J have fornething of Colour for the charge of con tradition. See this matter more diflin^ly and fully expUined in my Pefenfe as the bejl Com- ments upon it. The Reader will be the better fatisfied in having a view of Both together I and our Adverfaries may per- haps fee Caufe to abate of their unrea- fonable^ and tinac count able Boafls that way., when it appears from fo many plain and clear Proofs'^ that their Tretences to Antiquity are Groundlefsy and their Faith Novel, as it is Falfe. I cannot here forget to mention my Ob- ligations to the Reverend 'Dr. Knight of St. Sepulchres, London ; whofe great Learning and Judgment is equal to his lingular Modefly and Ingenuity-, and ta whofe judicious Obfervations it is owing., that the following Sermons appear more corre^i^ and may., I hope^ be more ufeful than They woula otherwife have been. THE THE CONTENTS. SERMON I. CHRIST God in the ft rift and p.ro- perSenfe: Or, Chnll's Divinity af- ferced from Job, 1. 1. John I. I. In the Beginning vjas the Word, a7ul the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Pag. i . S E R M O N S II, III. Chrift properly Creator: Or, Chrift's Pivinity proved from Creation, John I. 3 All Things were made by Him-) and with- ^ out Him was not any Thing made that was made, p. 41. 8f. SERMON IV. The Scripture-Unity not an Unity of Perfon : Or^, the Divine Unity Stated and Clear'd. Mark The CONTENTS. Mark XII. 29. K'J^IO^ 0CO5 nuoiv KugiOJ iis 891. Hear^ O Ifraely the Lord our God is one Lord. p. 1 14, SERMON V, Chrift's Divinity proved from his Co- equality with the Father: Or^ Equality of Chrift with the Father. Phil. II. f, 6, 7,859)105 II. Let this mind be in you, which was alfo in Chrift Jefus : who being in the Form of God^ thought it not Robbery to be equal with God'y but made Himfelf of no Re- ptitation^ and took upon Him the Form of a Servant^ and was made in the like- nefs of Men: And being found infafbion as a Man^ He humbled Himfelf ^ and became obedient u?ito ^eath^ even the Death of the Crofs. Wherefore God iilfo hath highly exalted Hinh and given Him a Name which is above every Name^ that at the Name of Jefus every Knee fhould bow^ of Things in Heaven^ and Things in Earthy and Thiitgs under the Earth 'y and that every Tongue (hould confefs^ that Jefas Chrift is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father. p. i f o. SEFL- The CONTENTS. SERMON VI, VII. Divine Titles and Attributes afcribed to Chrift in Holy Scripture : Or, Chrift's Divinity proved from his Titles and At- tributes. John XVI. I J. All Things that the Father hath^ are tnine: therefore [aid ly that He Jhall take of mine^ and fhall fhew it unto you, p. 186. 235-. SERMON VIII. Chrift's Divinity proved from the Form of Baptifm. • Matth. XXVIII. 19. Go ye therefore and teach ^11 Nations^ Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy-Ghofi. p, 286. Chrifi Chriji God in the fir i^ and proper Senfe. O R CHRIST'S DIVINITY ASSERTED From J OH. I. i. The fir ft Sermon preached Sept. 9. 1719. John I. i. In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God , and the Word was God. ST. John the beloved Difciple, the undoubted Author of this Gofpel which bears his Name, was the youngeft of the Apoftles, and fur- vived the Reft many Years. He faw fb much the more of the State of Chriftianity, and of the Progrefs it made under two Per- fecutions ; the firft by Nero, the fecond by "Domitian. Under the iatter, He Himfelf had inevitably Suffered, had 00c God mira- caloufly prderved Hira After this, He B was % Christ's Divinity Sertn.l. was banilli'd into Tatmos, a little liland ia the Archipelago ; and, during his Retire- ment There, was favoured, in a particular uidnner, 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 picafed God to call Him forth again to Efhefus, his ufiialSeatof Refldence; and There He pafs'd the fliort Remainder of his Days, beiqg then 90 j^ears Old, in the mod divine and comfortable Employment; taking upon Him the charge of the Churches of Chrift, thoie efpecially of the leiTer A/ia. As there muft be Hcrefies at all Times, (infinite Wii'dom permitting them for great Ends and Rea- fons) fo, were there not Vv'anting, even in the Times of the Apoftles, fome denying the 'Diviiiity, others the Humanity of our blelTed Lord ; and Both for the iame Rea- fon ; being ofTended at the great and un- fearchable My fiery of God Incarnate, The Tares had been Ibwn by Simon Magus ^ Cerintlms, and otl;ers; and w^ere grown up to a great Height before St. y was God. The fame was in the Beginning with God. All Things were made by Him , and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In thefe few Words, and rhofe that follow in that Chap- ter, the good Apoftle has not only con- futed moft of the Herefies then on Foot, but has obviated as many as fliould there- after rife up in Oppofition to the "Divinity, Ter finality y or Incarnation of the Son of God : Points of the greateft Concernment to all Chriftians, but which neverthclels (through the perverfencls of Men's Wits, and their proncnefs to take wrong Meafures of divine Things) have been a Stone oV Stumbling, and a Rock of Ojfenfe to the T)ifputers of this World, in former, and in latter Ages. This firfl: Chapter of* St. John, (as I faid) is alone fufficient, with reafonable Men, to end all Difputes upon thofe Heads. The Words are plain, and the Senfe clear when carefully look'd into ; and it is for thar very reafbn that They have been more taraper'd with, rhaii Any 4 Chris t's Divinity Serm.l. in the whole Scriptures. For, when the obvious and natural meaning of a Text hap- pens to ftand in the way of an Hyfothe/is, or preconceived Opinion, Pains muft be taken to darken the Evidence, and to per- plex the Proofs which make againll it. My defign is briefly to enumerate the feveral Interpretations which have been given of this Chapter, to remark upon Them as far as is needful, and to eftabliih the only true one. They are reducible to Four ; w^hich I may call Sabelliafi, Socinian, Avian, and Catholick. I iliall explain them in. their Order. To begin with the firft. I. Under the Sabellian Interpretation I include all that bclougs to Men of Sabel- lian Principles, whether before or after the Times of SabeUitts, who lived about the Middle of the Third Century. The Sabellians deny the Aoy©^, or Word, w^hereof St. John ipeaks, to be any real ox fiibJiantialThmg, diftind: from the Per- fon of God the Father. They underftand by the Word, either foiiie Attribute^ Tower ^ or Operation inherent and permanent in the Father ; or elie fome tranfient Voice, Sound, and the like. How They came in- to thefe and the like Fancies, I fliall ftow prefently, after I have premifed a few Things Serm. I. afferted from Joh. I. r. 5* Things about the Name of the Ao'y®-, or Word, which St. J^/:?;/ ufes. I do not de- fign any Hiftorical Account of the u(e of the Term among Jews^ or Gentiles ; being happily prevented, in that part, by a late excellent Sermon of a very worthy and learned Prelate *. But I raufl: oblerve that the Greek L\Lyo'-j, which we render Word, may fignify either inward Thought, or outward Speech. And it has with good reafon been fiippofed by the Catholick Writers, that the defign of this Name was to intimate that the Relation of Father and Son, bears fome Relemblance and Ana- logy to that of Thought, or of Speech to the Mind |. For example : As Thought is coeval with the Mind ; fo the Son is coeval with the Father :j:. As Thought is clolely united to, proceeds from, and yet remains in the Mind ; lo alfo may we underftand that the Son is in the Bofom of the Father, proceeding from Him, yet never divided or leparate, but remaining in Him and with Him. As to Speech, it is properly the * BiflxQp 0/ Lichfield and Coventry. Sermon before the King. , "^ . / ,«^ u <; V >/ 1 \ v\ / « > ~ ^ / « fAgVOV MA TV «7IZtS-|^ tIJ? yiVVV\yfi?^-nn.ov 'Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. p* yjo. Vid. etiam Balil. Hom. 15. Pctav. de Trin. p. 743. :fc Vid. Dionyf. Alex, apud Athanaf. p« 2f9« B 3 Inter- 6 Christ's Divinity Serm.I. Interfreter of the Mind ; and fo, in this reiped: alio, there is Tome Rdemblance and Analogy, the Sou being as it were Inter- preter , and Revealer of the unknown JFather to the World *. Some of the | AntienC * Gb Hoc Verbum nuncupatur, quia ex proprio divino Ore procelTit, 5: nihil Pater fine eo aut jufTit, aut fecit. Ffeudf Ambrof. de ¥td. Orth. c. 6. p. 5 fj. Ed. Bcned* A'jvccruj oiv^o Xoy^ 'i^oc, dvxi tizc^ to ccTruyyAX^v lu. xpy- ^icc Tov Tiutjiglq CAifiva, uvu^oyov TtS KxXnyjivci) 'ijco, Xoyu voZ yew o^ajjjivw^ ovTuq 6 y Qiou ?io'yo<; lyvuKOOc, T Trun^cc ^jw- %ciXu/l» ov iyvu zTocn^u,. Orig, Comm. in Joh. p. 41. Vid. 8c Juih Mart, Dial. p. ^j-S- Iren. 1. 2. c. 50, p. i6%* t Theophilus Bijloop of Antioch vphsre He /peaks oftheXoyoq ivhoc'^T^ and eciii ilvxj. Orig. in Joh. p. 4.5. Compare p. fp. After-wards Origen ufes an Argument to prove that the Xo- V'^ has a real Subfiftence, and adds in Conclnfion, 'O >Sycc, — ♦ — h up^y, r'y, (To^^U, rviv ■\jz7o^ gv^ci^fl©-. But when He afterwards came to create the World, and to reveal both Himfelf and his Father, then He might more properly be compared to outward Speech, or a Word fpoken forth, which the Greeks exprefs by Aoyo^ 7rgo(pogi;to^. And thus it is, that the iame Writers Ibmetimes fpeak of the A 09,05, or WotvD, being both Eternal, and in Time : Eternal in one Ca- pacity, not fo in the other. For as Thought muft be confjder*d previous to Speech, fo the Ao7o^, or Word, under one Confidera- tion might be conceived more Antient than vnder the other. Thus far the Catholicks , Sober Men , carried on the Parallel; and there was no Harm in it, while They kept clofe to the Rule of Faith, and within the Bounds of Sobriety. But the Sabellian Hereticks did not ftop there. They purfued the Parallel B 4 ftiU 8 Christ's Divinity Serm.I. ftill farther, till They left the Aoy©-, or Word, no diftindl Perlonahry. They ob- ferved that inward Thought was no real fubftantial Thing, diftind from the Mind it felf ; and that outward Speech was but a Voice or Sound, noihing fix'd, real, and permanent: And from hence They took occafion to mifinterpret the Apoflle very widely ; as if the Word, which He fpeaks of, were nothing really diftind: from the Father, not a lecond Perfon, any more than a Man's Thought, or JVord^ is another Per- fon from the Man. This kind of Conftru- dion was openly received and propagated by ^ Thotinus, about the middle of the fourth Century ; by ^aul of ^ Samofata , alraoft a Century before Him; by "^Sabel- litis and Noetus earHer than He ; and by ^ Traxeas ftill higher up, about the end of the fecond Century ; and ^ probably by fome other Hereticks before Him. What re- a Hilar, p. 7S9. 1048. 1179. Ambrof. dc Fid. 1. i. c 8- b Epiphan. H^rcf. 65. p. 608,609. c Epiphan. Haeref. 10. p. 60S. d Tertuliian. Contr. Prnx. c. 7,8, e V'\i\* Clem. Alexandr. Strom, p. 646. Iren. p. 130. 132- 157. ifS. N. B. The Notion of a >.oyo5 hoi«f)ii<^ and 7r^e? y^ uipdupTtq 0s Dial. p. 21- Jebb. t'Qui enim fuper ie habet Aliquem Superiorcm, Hie neque Dcus neque Rex magnus dici poteit. l. 4. c. 2. />. 229. Quaecunquc autem Initium SLimpferunt, & difTolutionem pofTuttt percipere, & fubjed:a funr, & indigent ejus qui fe fecit, nccelFe eft oranimodo uti differens Vocabulum habeant spud cos etiam, qui vel modicum i'enfum in difcernendo talia habent; ita ut is cjuidcm qui omnia fcccrit, cum VerSa ed, Scrm. I. . ajferted from Joh. 1. 1.' ^ t cd , or ever began to exift. The fame Irentcus has a whole * Chapter to prove that the Old Teftamcnt, or New, never gave the Title of God, ablblutely and de- finitively, to any one that is not truly God. TerttilUan (in the beginning of the third Century, or fooner, within a lOO Years, or very nearly, oiSz.JoIm) obferves, that the Word, f God, does not, like Lord^ {ignify "Ddminion or 'Tower only, but Sub- jlance ; that none but the eternal uncreat- ed Subjiance can juftly be called God', that an inferior God is a Contradi<3:ion in Terms. Thefe Teftimonies are fufEcient to fhow (without adding any more) how the Word God was taken, and generally underftood by the Chriftian Church, foon after the fuo jufte dicarur Deus & Dominus Solus j quae autem fa6la funt, non jam cjufdem Vocabuli participabilia efle, ncque iufte id vocabulum Sumcre deberc, c|uod eft Creatoris. Iren* '13. c. 8. p 18? * Lib. 5. c. 6. t Dens Subftantiae ipfius nomcn, id eft Divinitatisy Domi- nus vero non Subftantiae, fed Poteftatis (^c. TertulL Contr, Hermog. p. 234. Deus jam vocari obtinuit Subftantia cui afcribo. Hanc in- venies folam innatam, infe^tamj Solam eternam, & Univer- fitatis Conditricem — — — Nega Dcum quem dicis dete- liorem : Nega lummum magnum, quem credis minorem. Adv. Marc, 1. i.e. 6, 7. p. 368. C 3 Apo- ^'L C H R 1 s t's D I V I N 1 T Y Scrm. I. • Apoftles Time; and therefore very pro- bably, in the Apoftles Time alfo. Now let us proceed to confider. II. What Reafbns we have to believe that St.JoIm, in his firfl: Chapter, calls the Word God, in the fame Senle, in Confor- mity to that Idea which Scripture hath given us of One that is truly God; and which the primitive Writers alfo appear plainly to have embraced. I. This alone is a ftrong Prefiimption, in favour of our Interpretation, that the Scriptures before, and the Chriftian Church after, efpoule this Notion, Would St, John have called the Word, God, in the man- ner that He does, without Guard or Cau- tion, had He not intended it in the ftrid: Senfe, which Scripture it felf fo much fa- vours, and in which the generality, at leaft, would be moft apt to take it? Had He meant it in a lower Senfe, it might have been very proper to have iuferted a quali- fying Claule to prevent any Miflake, or Mifconftrudion j which yet He- is fb far from doing (as we fliall fee prefently) that He has put together with it many Circun> fiances, all tending to convince us that He ufed the Word in the ftriiS; Senfe, as Scri- pture Scrm. I. afftrted from Joh. 1. 1 . 23 pture had done before, and the Chriftian Church did after. For X. It is obfervable that the Apoftle does not fay, in the Beginning God created the Word, (as the ftyle runs in the firft Chapter of Genefis, and might have been properly ufed here, had He intended to fignify that the Word was God, in an in- ferior or improper Senfe. ) Bur inftead of That, He only fays that the Worp was * ; intimating that He exifted be- fore any thing was created, conlequently from all Eternity : For what;ever exifted before any thing was created, was no Creature, as is manifeft of it felf ; and if no Creature, Eternal. This is farther con- firmed from the Apoftle's repeating it in the next Verfe, The fame was in the Be- ginning with God. It is not improbable * TIolooj <^J TO kii avviXvM tzS recTfli, xi-wreM^ <^ i Xoy<^ «]> \ >•. X ■* > \ ■> / '^' ^^ /~C ^ ' ^ ^ \ V jT^o^ T t)soy. a ycta s^iviTv ttpoc, T 0£ev. x^ nuvrov ovitAjiti to mv, a Aoya lutriiyoPH'jrci, em C/» tcp^,^ «y, f(^ on TT^cq T ? i»f 70$ 1 or Creator , to be ieparate and eftranged from God *. Nothing can be more diredtly level'd againfl: That Doc-trine than this Afiertion of Sr. John's, that the Word, who was Creator of the World, \v2iS frora i\\Q Beginning, or always, with God, But to proceed : 3. Another Argument of St. John's in- tending the Word, God, in the ftrid:Senre, may be drawn from the Time whereof He is ipeaking. It was before the Creation-^ He was then God. It is not faid, that He was appointed God over the Things that fliould be afterwards created. No : He was God before the World was. Onr Adver- faries fometiraes tell us of a Throne, a Power of Judging, a Regal Authority be- longing to the Son : and that therefore He \sGod\ and They oMervej (as They think, ihrewdly, but in Truth very weakly) that the Holy Ghofi has therefore none of that Title, as having no Regal Dominion, ®f. And when in anfvver to this, we fay farther ♦ Irca. 1. 5. c. 1 1, p. 188. I: I. c. 26. p. loy. Tertull. de Fraricripr. Hseret. Append, pag. 221. Epiphan. Haerefl 28. pag. 110. t SeQ Script. DocJr. p. 2(54. 2d. Ed. that Serm. I. ajferted from Joh. I. i. aj^ that the Son was Jehovah, God, and Lord, under the Old Teftament; They reply, that He was then ci /^op^w 02^, ailing ia the Name and Perfon of God, and there- fore 7?//^^ God. Admitting all this (which is moflly FicSion) yet what will They do with this Text of St. John? Here it is plain, that the Son was God before any dominion over the Creatures commenc'd; before He adied as Reprefentative of the Father, or was ci /t^op^w ©e5» in that low fid:itious Senle : How was He God before the Creation.? Here They have little left to fay, but that He was partaker of di- 'vine Tower and Glory ^ with and from, the Father *. From hence then, we fee, that ^Dominion alone is not fufficient to ac- count for the Son's being G(?^; not to men- tion, that the Holy Ghoji might have been called God in Scripture, as having been partaker of divine Tower and Glory ^ with and from the Father, as well as the Son ; ib that That pretence about the Holy Ghoji, and This Solution hang not well together. To fuch Straits and Inconfiften- cies are Men reduced by bringing their Hypothefes with them to interpret Scripture by, inflead of making the Scripture the • Script, Docir, p. 240. ad. Ed. Rule t6 Chris T*is Divinity Serin. I. Rule of their Faith. But to conclude this Article : Since then neither T^omimon (on account of which Princes and Magiftrates have been fbmetiraes called Gods) nor Vice- gerencyy nor any thing of like Kind, will account for the Word's being called Gody by St. John, in this place : And fince our Adveriaries themfclves appear to be very fenfible that their Principles, which ferve to help them out at other Times, fail them here ; and that They are forc'd rather to fay any Thing, however Slight or Trifling, than to be wholly Silent ; This alone is a ftrong Prefumption on our fide of the Que- ftion, where the Solution is fo eafy and natural, and intirely confident v/ith our other Principles. 4. Another Circumftance, confirming our Interpretation of this PafTage of St. John^ is, that all Things are there faid to have been made by Him ; and, to be more Em- phatical, that ^without Him was not any Thing made that was made. I ill all not here infill upon the Dignity of the Son, as Creator, (the diftinguifliing Character of the one true God) defigning That for a di- fimdi Head and Argument another Time : All the ufe I Ihall make of it, at preftnt, is to obferve ; that it is not faid, all other Things i Serm. I. averted from Joh. 1. 1. 27 Things were made by Him, but all Things abfolutely; wherefore He Himfelf cannot, according to the Letter, be iuppofed of the Number of the Things madey unlefs He made Himfelf, which is abiiird : And fmce nothing was made or created but by and through Him, it is but reafbnable to infer that every Creature whatever, is a Crea- ture of the SofCs as well as of the Father^ ; and therefore certainly the Son is not a Creature at all. 5". A farther Circumftance favouring our Scnfe, \s, that the Word is called God, in the very fame Verfe, wherein the Father is meation*d as God^ and undoubtedly in the ftrid and proper Senfe. And how lliall any the mod judicious Reader be ever able to underftand Language, if in the fame Verfe and fame Sentence, the fame Word fliould ftand for two 'deas, or bear two Senfes widely different, and fcarce akin to each other ? And that too, not only with- out any Guard or Caution, or any notice given of the Change of Ideas; but alio with fuch Circumftances as give no fuipicion of any Change, buc all rending to confirm us the more that the iame Idea is flill kept up, and applied equally to Father and Son. It has been objeded that the Father is Q>ioi% God i8 Christ's Divinity Serm. I. God with the Article, the Son only ®tUf God without the Article. But every body knows that the Addition or Omiflion of an Article is no certain proof of any Change at all in the Senle of a Word ; be- iides that the Word QcU, God-^ is ufed in the llrid: Senfe, tho' without the Article, ftveral Times in this Chapter. The Sacred Pen- Men were not 'io Critical about Ar- ticles ; neither can we imagine that a Point of this moment lliould have been left fo unguarded, with nothing to dired; us but I know nor what blind and dark Conje- ctures of the ufe of Articles ; concerning which we have no certain Rules either for Scripture, or for any other Writings. The Word 0ec?5 God, is frequently ufed with- out the Article to fignify the true God: And it is ufed with the Article (i Cor,^. 4.) where it is (uppofed by moft Interpreters to be meant of the T>evil: fb little Ac- count is there to be made of Articles : But enough of this. It is farther pretended, that 0gJ^, God , applied to the Father, may ftand for y^i6^^'^/?, which is the/rc^- j^er Name of a Terfon, and that therefore God and God, in the Text, cannot bear the iame Senfe, unlefs Both be one and the i^xs^^Vtx^on Jehovah. But in anfwer to this, it is fufficient to fay, that it can never be proved Sci-'m. L afferted from Joh. I. r . 29 proved that Jehovah is a frofer Name of any Pcrfbn, but as That PcWon is con- fidered as having independent or necejfary Exigence : and then the Name muft be com- mon to as many Pcrlbns as exift neceffarily^ or independently ; independently on the fFill, or free Choice of Any. Befides that it is certain that the Name belongs equally to. Father or Son (as I fliall ihow pre* fently ) and therefore St. John might in- tend that the Father is Jehovah, and the Son Jehovah too, and Both in the fame Senle ; while at the lame Time by his tell- ing us that One was with the Other, He has fufficiently fignified that They are not the fame ^erjon ; bat that Jehovah is a Name proper indeed to one Subftance, or one Godhead, but common to more Perfons than One. 1 proceed then, 6, To obferve, 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. 1 Ihall firft fliow the FacS, and next make good my Inference from it. The Fad may be proved firfl: from Chapter ix. verfe 41 of this very Gofpcl. The Words are: Thefe Things faid Efaias vuhen He faw his Glory (meaning Chrift's Glory) and 3« Christ's Divinity Serm. L and (pake of Him, Now the place of Efaias referred to, is Chapter the fixth, which begins thus. / faw alfo the Lord Jitting upon a Throne^ high and lifted up, and his Train filled the Temple. Above it food the Seraphims— — And one cried unto ano- ther and faid\ Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hofts, The whole Earth is full of his Glory. Here we are to oblerve that the Lord, which Efaias faw in his Vifion, was the Jehovah , and Lord of Hofls, which is of the fame Signification with Lord God Almighty. Him it was, and His Glcry^ which the Prophet faw. And that this was Chrift, and that Glory, Chrift's Glory, St. John has before teftified ; and therefore certain it is that God the Son is, in St. John's Account, the Jeho- vah, and Lord God Almighty. This rea- Ibning is in it felf, plain and ftrong; and is befides farther confirmed by the * con- curring Sentiments of many Catholick Wri- ters. * Eufebius in Loc. Athanafius, p. 877. 889, Hilar. Tiin. 1. f» c. 33. p. 873. Bafil. Contr. Eunom. 1. f. p. 1 i^*. Hieronymus in \.qc, Rpiphan. Ancorat. p. if. 15. Jobius apud Phot. p.6of. Cyrill. Hicrofol. Catech. 14. p. 102. Ambrof. de Fid. 1. i. c \x. p. 141. Ed. Bened. Greg. Nyfl. Contr. Eunom, 1. 2. p 488. A 4 Serm. I. ajjerted from Joh. 1. 1 . 31 A * late Writer endeavoring to elude the Force of this Text, devifes this Con- ftrudion, that the Prophet, in beholding the Glory of God the Father, revealing the coming of Chrift, He then faw (that is forefaw) the Glory of Chrift. But admitting that faWj may fignify forefaw^ (which however is a very needlels Suppo- sition, fmc'e it is certain that out BlefTed Lord had as much Glory, with the Father, before the World was, as ever He had after, Joh. 17. 5-.) yet what occafion is there to fiippofe the Father's Glory, to have been principally fpoken of, when St. John fays plainly, it was Chrijf*s Glory, and that the Prophet /pake of Him , viz. Chrift ? It is indeed faid , that Chrift fliall come in the Glory of his Father (Matt. 16.27.) But it is alfo faid, that He Jhall come in his own Glory ? (Matt, x^ 31. Luk. 9. 26.) and Jit in the Throne of his own Glory '^ (Matt. 19.28.) If then the Prophet faw indeed the Glory of the Father alfo, it is becaafe the Glory of Both is one ; and if the Father be the Lord of Hofts, whom the Prophet faw, it is becaufe the Father and Son are one Lord of Hofis: For, it is as certain, as Words can make it, from what St. John fays, that t 5fn>/. DoHr, p. 9}. 2d. Ed, the ^% Christ's Divinity Serm.I the Son's Glory was feen; and that He was the Jehovah of whom the Prophet ipake. If the Father was lb too, we have a full and ftrong proof, not only of the Son's being Jehovah, but of the Father and Son Both being comprehended under the fame one Jehovah: And fo indeed *fevera[ of the Antient Fathers have inter- preted it. But That is not what I infill: up- on now, my Argument not requiring it. It is liifBcient for me, that the Prophet faWy or forefaw (no great matter which) the Glory of Jehovah, or Lord of HoJis\ And it was x\\q Jehovah, or Lord ofHoJls, that the Prophet fpake of That '\^, as St. John interprets it, He faw the Glory of Chriji, and fpake of Him: Chrift there- fore is Jehovah and Lord of Hofts\ which was to be proved. There is a fecond Paflage, in this very Gofpel, which proves the iame Thing. It is Joh. 19. 37. Another Scripture faith, they jhall look on Him, whom they have pierced. The Scripture referred to is Zech. IX. 10. where the Lord {Jehovah) is intro- duced faying, They Jhall look upon me* whom they have pierced. The Perfbn • Athanafius, Bafil, Gregory Nyden, Atobrofe, Jerora, Epiphanius> before refer/ d tOt pierced Serm. I. ajjerted from Joh. I. i. 3 ? pierced is Jehovah, and the fame Perfbii '\% Chri/t : Wherefore, by nccclfary Con- flrudion and hnplicaiion, Chrifl: is Jehovah. The Fa^ being thus plain and clear, we are next to confidcr the Inference from it. The Import of the Name Jehovah (ac- cording to the beft Criticks, Antient and Modern) is eternal, immutable, Neceflary- Exiftence. The Greek a^u or to %^ taken from it , or anfwering to it , has been interpreted to the lame Sen(e^, by Jews, Gentiles, and Chrijiians "^ , It would be tedious here to enter any farther into the detail of that Matter. It fliall fuffice to obferve how the One true God infills upon his being Jehovah, in oppofition to all other Gods, Glorying, in a manner, and Triumphing in it, as the diflinguifliingCha- radrer 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, Ifa. 41. 8. Againfl all the Gods of Egypt / will execute Judgment, I am the Lord (Jehovah) Exod. i^. ix. IV ho * Vid Petav.- Dogm. Theolog. Vol. i. L i. c. 6.^ Appendix to thf Conriderations on Mr. Whifton'i HiJioy4 Tref, />. yoi, \ifiii Part id, ^2,3. &c. D hath 34 Christ's Divinity Sean. I. hath told it from Time to Time, Have not 1 the Lord ( Jehovah ? ) and there is 7io God elfe be fides me, a jiijt God, and a Saviour \ there is none bejides me, Ifa. 45'. 21. I am the Lord (Jehovah) the God of all Flefo : Is there a7iy thing too hard for me ? Jer. 3 x . x 7 . / am the Lord (Jehovah) I change not, Mai. 3. 6. I am the Lord (Jehovah) and there is none elfe: I form the Light and create T)ark' nefs-^ / the Lord (Jehovah) do all ihefe Things, If 45*. 6, 7. I forbear to add morcTexts. Thefe are enough for a Specimen. There's no giving a full and compleat Idea of this Matter, without tranfcribing a great part of the Old Teftament. Now fince the Title of Jehovah, is, in Scripture, a princi- pal Note of Diftindion by which the true God was pleafed to manifeft Himfelf, and to let forth his own Superior Excellency in oppofition to all pretended Deities: And fince St. John has given us to underftand, that Chrift is Jehovah, or Lord of Hojls, and confequently pofTefs'd of all thofe di- flinguiiliing Powers and Perfedlions which go along with that Title ; the Confequence is evident and undeniable, that when the fame St. John tells us that the Word was God, He intended no nominal^ or inferior Deity, but God in the true, ftrid-, and proper Serm. I. ajferted from Joh. I. i . 3 5* proper Senfe, eternal, and immutable, of the lame Power, Nature, and Perfections with God the Father. I fliall now briefly fum up the Particulars of the Argument, that we may the more eafily take into one view the whole Strength and Force of it. The Apoftle has here told us, in a very folemii Manner, \\\ the very Entrance upon his Gofpel, that the Aoy®^* or Word, was God\ the very mention whereof, accord- ing to the Scripture-Idea of God, and the prevailing Notions of Thofe who lived in, ftnd near St. Johfts Time, carries with it, in its firft and moft natural Conception, all that is Good, Great, or Excellent : And fb every unprejudic'd Man, upon the firft read- ing or hearing the Apoftle's Words, would be apt to underftand Him. He has infert- ed no Guard or Caution to prevent any fuch Conftru(3:ion ; But, on the contrary, has hardly omitted any thing that might tend to confirm and inforce it. The Word was God, before He had any dominion, before He had ad:ed as Reprefentative of the Father ; God, in the Beginning, before the World was, before there was any Crea- ture : God by whom tlie World was made, and to whom every Creature owed its D z Ex- 36 Christ's Divinity Serin. 1. Exiftence; who coming into the World, came unto his own^ who is Jehovah and Lord of Hofts , the lame as x^evta? Ta/JoK^Vajp, the Lord Almighty, 'Ar\(\ God over all: In fuch a Senfe, and with thcle Circumftances, the Word is called God, in the very iame Vcrfe where mention alio is made of the Father with whom He was, and who is There called God, in the ftridt and proper Senfe : All this put together amounts to a Demonftration, that the Apodie intended no nominal or inferior God, by the Word, but the true and living God, One with the Father, Co-effential and Co-eternal. Thus the firrt: Chriflians undcrdood it ; and thus the Catholick Church has beheved : And This is the Faith which we ouglit evermore earneftly to contend for, as being once de- livered to the Saints. lintteat your Patience but a little farther, juft to take notice of a late pretence of an Arian Writer *. The Jews, fays He, and Gentiles, be- I licved in one God^ undcrftanding it of one Terfon only: Our Saviour and his Apoftles taught that Chrift was the Son * Modeft plea Poftfcripr. p. ?iS> of Serm. I. aferted from Joh. I. %, 3 7 of that one God: When therefore Chrift is alio filled God, Thole aiiiongr whom He was firlT fo itilcd, would naturally un- derftand ir in the fiibordinate Scnfe, as the Word Eloh'im in the Hebrew, 05o$ \\\ the Greeks and God in the Englijh frequently fignifies. This is the Argnmenr, and in this, the Author fays, The (km of the whole Con- troverfy is briefiy comprifed. If this be really the Cafe, the Controverfy may be brought to a ihort and clear IfTue. By fub- ordiiiate Senfe of the Word, God, The Gentleman means fuch a Senfe '\w which Creatures may be Gods, and have been called Gods. 1 hope, I have fufficiently ihown that St. John could never intend any inch low Scnfe, nor be fo nnderftood by any Man of ordinary Attention, or com- mon Dilcernmcnt. As to the Qucflion, how it would be underftood by Thofe who firfl: heard it, it has been already derermin'd by plain Evidence of Fac5f. It appears certain- ly to have been underftood in the ftricl and proper Senle, as high as Tertuli'ian, Cle- ment of Alexandria, Irenceus, Athena- goras , chat is, wichio fixty or foventy Years of St. John's Writing: And I will D 3 vcn- 38 Chris t's Divinity Serm. 1. venture to add Ignafh^s*, which brings it up to the very Time: For IgJtatius had been well acquainted with St. John Him- lelf, having been once his ] Dilciple. As to Jews or Gentiles, whatever Jliort or imperf'c6t Notions They had of God (rho' it is a difputable Point, v/hetherThey did not Both admit of fome Plurahty in the Deity) They are to come to Chrijtians to be more fully inftrudled ; and we arc not to be taught by Them, how we are to underftand a clear and plain Gofpel. Hard muft be our Cafe indeed, if we are to be fent to Jews or Tagans to learn Chrifti- anity. However, Jews and Gentiles Both, (as many as came over to Chriftianity, and did not fide with Hereticks) Then at lead corrected (or rather fiU'd up what was wanting in) their Ideas of the divine Unity, by their Faith in, and ProfelTion of one Holy, undivided, and co-eternal Trinity. We have feen then , firft , how St. John ought to have been umderflood ; and next, how He adualJy was underftood by Sober * ' O5 23-^0 SiiavUV 'TTK^U TTCtTQ/i hy ^' Iv TTA^ l^OtVVi, Igfiat, ad Magn. c.6. p. 22. '^Qc, sqiv aurS P^oycc, ai;dio£o$» Ad Ephef. c. 7. p. 14. f Aft. Martyr, St. Igaat. c 3. p. 49. Men Serm. r afferted from Jon.Vi, 39 Men, and Thofe that were the mofl: competent Judges of his Meaning. What can be de- fired more to cut off all further Contro- verfy iu this Article ? To Conclude: The Sahellians at this day, as well as formerly, are a (landing Evidence of the Strength and Force of thofe two or three firft Verfes of Si, John's Gofpel. For as They rejed: the Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, only be- caufe They think it repugnant to Reafon ; fo They rejed: alfb the Avian Hyp ot he/is, becaufe They take it to be repugnant to Scripture, and particularly to the firft Chapter of St. John. They are fenfiblc how abfurd it is to fuppofe fo much to be faid of a Creature, and (aid in That Manner, and with Thofe Circumftances : And therefore They interpret the whole of God the Father Himfelf. Thus They get over one Difficulty, but unhappily fplit upon Another ; and the Arians have as plainly the Advantage in the point oiTer- fonality, as the Other have in Reiped of the Divinity of the Word. Happy might it be for Both, if, laying afide Prejudice, They would contentedly fubmit their Fan cies to God's written lVord\ interpreting it according to its moft obvious and natural D 4 McaH- 40 Christ's Divinity Serm. I. Meaning, without laboured Subtilties, and artificial GlofTes : Remembring always that, in Cafc of Doubt, there is no lafer Guide to rake with us, than the concurring Judg- ment of the Antients ; nor any more Dan- gerous than Waririth of Imagination, or a Love of Novelties. 4t Cbrijl prober [y Creator. O R CHRIST'S DIVINITY PROVED FROM CREATION. The fecond Sermon pleached . Odob. 7- 1719. John I. 3. All Things were made by Him^ and without Htm was not any Thing made that was made, I Have before rook notice of thefe Words of the Aportle, but lb far only as was neceflary to give Ibme Light to the Words going before, whereof 1 was then Difcourfing. My deflgn now is, to confider them diftin(3:ly, as containing a further Argument, independent of the former, to prove the real, eflential Divinity of our Bleffed Lord, by whom all Things were made^ ^z Christ's Divinity Serm.IL made, and without whom was not any Tubing made that was made. I have, in my former Difcourfe, intimated the various Interpretations given of this Chapter, under the islames of Socmian, Sabellian, Arian^ and Catholick, ibitably to their relpecStive Schemes. Accordingly, thele Words of the Apoftle, in pafiing through thofe fe- veral Hands, have been fliaped and fjlliion'd into fo many feveral Conftruitions ; tho' One only can be the true One. The So- cinian will tell us, that all Things belong- ing to the Gofpel-State were regulated and modelled by the Man Chrijl Jefus ; that* the moral World was reformed and red:i- fied by Him ; and that the Apoftle is not here I'peaking of Ql proper^ but a metapho- rical Creation. Next comes the SabelliaUy who thinks that the Text is meant of she Creation of the natural World, and ail Things in it; but then, not by the Man Chrift Jefus, nor by any Perfon really diftind from God the Father : All Things were made by Reafon or IVifdom, figura- tively put for God Himfelf; fo that the Apoftle intended not here any real Perfon befides God the Father : Thus far the Sa- bellian. After Him fucceeds the Arian^ who admits of a proper Creation, of the natural, not the moral World ^ and admits alfo Serm. II. proved from Creation. 43 alio of a diflind Perfon, viz. The Ao7@"> or Word, Himfelf 2^ Creature : And He does not deny Him any Hand or Concern at all in the Creation ; bur endeavors on- ly to detrad: from Him, more or left, with great uncertainty. For, as I have before obferved, That fort of Men are al- ways fludtuating, hovering, and doubtful, not knowing where to fix upon any cer- tain Set of Principles. Sometimes * youl find Them pretending that God the Son, properly fpeaking, did not make or create any Thing at all ; but that the Father on- ly was Creator, through Him. At other Times f They will not fcruple to allow that the Son, by his own inherent Power, created 2X\T\im%% out of Nothings which is carrying the Point as high as any the Soundell: Catholick can carry it : Only They add, by way of lefTening, that this was at the Command of the Father, who had ap- pointed Him Creator ; which however might bear a found and good Senfe. Be- kx>M 6i' eiuToii iyiViTv tu '^v'ofjuivoc. Epipli« Ancorat. p'33. f Antequam faceret Univerla, Omnium Futurorum Dcus & Dominus, Rex & Creator erat Conftitutus. Voluntate £c prxcepto {Dei ^ Tatris fut) Cceleftia & Terreftria, Vifibilia 8c Invifibilia, Corpora ik Spiritus, ex nullis exjlantibusy ut eflent, ftm virtute fecit. Ssrm* ArMnorum apud Aug. Toin. 5. p. 612. EJ. Bencd. twixt 44 C H R I s t's D I V I N I T Y SeriTj. II. rvvixt thefe Exrrcniiries of Hi2;h and Low (if I may lo call rhem) amoiigu: the jti'ians, there is a middle Way, and That alia with a Lacirude : Some think it enough for tht Son to have created ibme Things only (iuppole, what belongs to one Syftem) Others again, (underftanding by creating, modelling only) apprehend it fufficient, if He did but frame, model, or digeji , what was already created to his Hand : Others laflly, admitting Both, yet lay, it was not by his own Power, but the ^oiz^er of iht Father, always prefent with Him : Or that He had learn Vi the Art o^' Creating by being bred up under the Fa- ther; which was the protane and wanton Suggellion of Afterius, an Arum Sophift of the fourth Century *. There is no end of Fancies and Conjectures > when Men arc once got out of the plain and open way of Truth. 1 iliall not undertake particularly and feverally to confute the Three Hypo- tbefes, and the Interpretations built upon Them: But 1 fhall proceed to lay dowfi the Catholick Conflru6tion ; which if 1 can maintain and defend, the other drop of Courfe. The Catholick Dodrine is this: that the Son together, with the Father (al- ways including the Holy Ghoft) was the * AthsLnaf. Orat. i. p, 496. efficient Serin. II. proved from Creation. 45: efficient Caufe of all Things, the Creatoi and framcr of Men and Angels, of Prin- cipaliries and Powers, of the whole Uni- verfc. I ihall therefore, in my following DifcoLirfe, undertake thefe three Things. I. I fhall endeavour to fhow that God the Son, a diftind Perfbu from God the Father, is ftridly and properly efficient Caufe and Creator of all Things. X. I ill all confider the Force of the Ar- gument arifing from it, in favour of Chrift's Divinity. 3. I fliall draw fome fuitable Inferences from the Whole. I. I fliall endeavour to fliovv that God the Son, a di{tin(3: Perfon from God the Father, is ftricSly and properly efficient Caufe and Creator of all Things. And here I ihall diftinftly confider what Light we may have in this matter from the New Teftament, and what from the Old, and what additional Confirmation from the de- clared Sentiments of the Primitive and Ca- tholick Church. I. To 4^ Christ's Divinity Serm. 1L I. To begin with the New Teftamcnt ; and firft with the very Words of the Text : All Things.were made by Htm, and with- out Him was not any Thing made that was made. I have, in a former Difcourfe, aiTerted the dijiin6i ^Per/onality of the Aoy@") or Word; fliovving that the Sa- bellian Interpretation of this Chapter will by no means bear: I lliall occafionally take notice of the Sabellian Pretences, in rela- tion to other Texts, as I come to treat of them. For the clearer underftanding of the Text now under Confideration , we may obferve, that Cerinthus and other Hereticks (againft -whofe pernicious Principles St. j^er Ilium, Tertuil. Contr. Pnx. p. 5-04.. Vcrbum autem Moc illud eft quod in fua venit, 8c fui cum nou recepcrunt. Munius enim per eum fasf^us eft, 8c Mundus eum non cognovit. Si Homo tantummodo Chriftus, quomodo vcniens in hunc Mundum, in Sua vcnit cum Homo nullum F(?cer/V Mundum? Novat. c.15. p.7i4,7!j'. f See Petavius dc Trin. 1. 7. c. 17. p.43 «. I Serai. II. poved from Creation. 49 Firft in Conception, whenever we think of the Deity. This is all that can be reafon- ably inferr'd from the Scripturc-ufage of the Tf^epo fit ions : elpecially if it be confidered that under the lame Latitude of ExpreflioD, as all Things are faid to be of the Father, \o hkewile all Things are faid to be by the Son ; confequently the Operation of one is of equal Extent with the Operation of the other ; and indeed is but one Work of Both. All Things then are made by the Son, but in Conjun(3:ion with the Father ; and the Father hath made nothing but in, and by the Son. This appears to be the true and full Senft of the Text, in Si.John, whereof I am bow treating ; and it is confirm'd by other Paflages of the New Teftament, which I lliall take in their Order. There is one occurring in the iame Chapter, a few Verfes lower. He was in the World, and the World was made by Him, and the World knew Him not : He came tinto his own, and his own received Him jiot^ V. 10, II. Some have thought that by his own, in this place, is meant only his own People, the Jews, as being of his kindred according to the Fleili. But this can never be the meaning of it. The Evangelift is here fpeaking of the Aiysy or Word, an- tecedently confider'd, and now coming to E Thofc JO Christ's Divinity Serm.ll. Thofe who were his oin'n before He came to Them, before He took Flcfli upon Him. The Words immediately preced- ing , viz. The World was made ■ by Him, and the IVorld knew Him not ^ make it probaWe that the Apoftle was not then thinking of the Jews only, but of Mankind in general. Befides this, it is worth the noting, that Ibme Here- ticks, in St. John's Time, probably, as well as after, had a conceit that the Creator of this lower World was feparate and di- ftant from the Supreme God, and that Chrift came not into a World of his own making , but into One that belonged to Another. Now in Oppofition to thele and the like Chimerical Fancies, the Apoftle informs us, that the fame Creator (that is Chrift in Conjundiion with the Father) made every Thing; and that therefore when He came into the World, He came unto his own, his own Houie, and Workman- iliip, this World being, by right of Creation, his. This Conftrudion is what Irenaits, a veryAntient Writer, gives of the Text*. The like ConftrucSion is given of it by \Cle- mens oi Alexandria, Hippolytus, andAV * Iren. p. 1 83. 515- 3 16. t Clem. Alex. p.SSz. Hippolyc. Contr,Noct. c 12. p. 14. Novat'un. Ct 13. vatian^ Serm. II. J^roved from Ckv.xtio's^. 5*1 vat'tan. Writers of the fecond and third Centuries. Some who interpret the Text of the Jcjvs, yet do not give this for the Reafon, that the Jews were his own, as being akin to Him according to the Fleflo ; butasThey were \\\% fectiUum^^ his chofen People, and as He was in a more eminent manner their God : And ib Cyril of Jeru- falem feems to underftand itf. Taking the Text either of thefe ways, it affords us an Argument of the Son's being properly Creator, For if it be underftood of the World in general, then it is manifeft from the Words immediately preceding, that the Tel 'lh,cL refers to his right of Creation, and that the World is called his own in That re- ipe(9:. Or if it be underftood of thej^^i^/x^ it will prove thus much, that They were his own, as They wcrcr his People, and He their God ; and it will appear from the Old Teftament, that the God of I/rael was the Maker of the World, the lame that created Jacob, znA formed I/rael (If43.i.) and none elfe. If it be laid, that the Jews rnay here be called his own, as He was their promifed Meffiah, their Saviour and Redeemer ; That Conftradion feems to be the leaft probable of any : Firft, becaufe * See Deut. -Ji. 9. f Cyril. Catcch. 1 2. p. i^Ji. ?i2= Cx. £.i. E 2 He 51 Chris t\s Divinity Serm. IL He was equally the Saviour of Mank'md^ and therefore there is no rcafon why the Jeis:s fliould be called his own in that relpcd-. And, lecondly, becaufe, admit- ing They might be called his own in thJt relpcdi yet' it could not have been fo pro- perly laid 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 con- clude therefore from this Paflage, that whe- ther it means the World, or the Jews, They were his own in ibme higher relped:; and That could be no other but as He was their Creator, The next Scripture I lliall cite, iliall be out of the Revelations, the Work of the Jame Apoftle, whofe Words I have been confidering. Our BIcfTed Lord is There call- ed the ' h^xy, 1 he Beginning (that is * Au- thor or efficient Caufe) of the Creation of God, Rev. 3.14. This I mention as the mod probable Conftrudion of the PlacQ, fiiitable to what I have before obferved Ardr. Casiai. :n loc, p. 20. Nan idco fe principium Cicaiurx dicir, quod ipl'e fit Crearura, icJ cjiiod ab ipib omnia iint crcata, iit puta Archi- ti^us fecit cunium. Heren^aiuU m loc, p. jrii. from Serm.II. proved from QKY.kXio^, 5-3 from St. John's, Gofpcl. Orherwifc, I think, nothing can, with any certainty, be proved from this PalTagc alone, the word 'h?x^y (which \vc xQuiQv Beginning) being a Word of great Latitude, and capable of many Senles. The Anticnts may afford us (bme Light in this Matcer ; not that I find this Text particularly explained or quoted by any of the earlier Writers: But ic is fre- quent with Them to apply the Name, *Ap;^w, to God the Son; and They give this Ac- count of it : * He exifted of and from the Father before all Things; He made all Things; and He governs all Things: And therefore is 4ie *Ap;^l^, the Head,, or Be- ginning of all Things, or of the whole Creation. This, I prefume, may ferve as the bell: Comment we can meet with, upon this Text in the Revelations. I fliali now proceed to other Texts of more clear and certain Meaning: i Cor. 8.6. To us there is hut One God, the Father of whom are all Things, and we in Him% and one Lord J ejus Chrift , by who?n are all Things, and we by Him. Before 1 come fjtjivcf.. Clem. Alex. Srrom. i. p. 669. OuT5? MyiTTCj 'Af^/i 'o-n up^^a, ($■ kvqm'Jh ttzIvti^v cf<\ uurcv h^.f/jnipyym.ivav. Thcopli, Antioch. La. Vid. CoIofT. I. 18. E 3 r« 5'4 Christ's Divinity Serm.II. to the Argument which 1 intend from this Text, I may juft take notice that Here we find Father and Son equally oppofed to the Gods many, and Lords many. There is but one Lord to us, viz. Jefus Chr'tji. Is then the Father (who alfo is the Lord by whom are all Things, Rom. ii. 34, 36.) excluded among the Lords manyl God forbid. But Father and Son are one Lord. So likewife, to us there is but one God, v\L the Father. Is then the Son excluded among the Gods manyl the Son, who, as the fame St. Taul teftifies, i^ over all God blejfed for everl (Rom. 9. 5'.) No certainly: But Father and Son are one God. Thus, and thus only, can St. haul's reafoning, in that Chapter, be made to hang together: or otherwife He Himfelf has infallibly fliown us that there are to us two Gods and two Lords, at the fame time that He intended to prove (fee V. 4.) that to us there is but one God, and one Lord. The Truth is ; St. Taul has not only hereby infinuated to us, that Father and Son are one God and one Lord, but He has likewiic intimated the Reafbn why, or on what account They are one. It is becaufe all Things whatfoever arife or flow from Both. There is nothing of the Father, but by the Son 5 nor any thing by thf Serm. II. proved from Creation. 5-5' the Son, bur what is alfo of the Father : So that the Original of all Creatures is re- ferr'd up to Both , as to one individual Fountain and Caufe of their Exiflcnce. 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 manifeft, that God the Son is Creator and Author of all Things, as well as the Father \ nor would the A- poftle have ufed the lame Latitude of Ex- preiHon in refped: of Both, (without any the leaft Guard, Caution, or Exception ) had He nor fb underllood it*. I find an Antienr Writer, under the Name of Igna- tius, tho' certainly later than Ignatius^ concluding from this very Text that the I Son of God created all Things. Who- ever the Author was, the Reafoning is true and jufl:, agreeable to other Scriptures, and "• Omni.i enim pprFiliumex nlhilo fubftiterunt: 8c ad Deum ex 0[H0 omnia, ad Fihum vero per quern omnia Apoftolus re- rulit. Et non invenio quid difFcrar, cum per.utrumque opus fir virtutis ejufiem. Si enim ad Uiiivcrfitatis Subftantiam pro- prium ac futficiens Creaturis eflct quod ex D?o. fuut ; quid habuit ncceiTitatis memorafTe, quod quae ex Deo funt per Chrijlum fmr, nifi quod unurn idL^n eft, per Chr'tjium cfle, & ex Deo eile? Hilar. Trin. l 8, c. 38. p. 970. ft^ 7mv(&i. Xiyq yxp 6 ocTri^Xce,. ilc, Oioq Tmry.p, l^ i ru -Tnivnc' ^ itc, vu^icq 'Ijjcra? Xf and fi* cti/r5, in Him, and mt rtfiXly not Explanatory but a manifeji pervertiy?g of the Senfe) drops the point n>hich tt concern d Him to fpeak to. The Objeciion from Subordination, long ago ilefpii'd out of the Month cf Eunomius. will not grow confiaerable mcerly by being repeat- tdt -without any thing new to inforce it, by Serm.II. proved from Ckv^axio^^, 5*9 by Him, were all Things created ; and alio lU auTci'5 for Him\ the fame Expreflion which we find uled of God the Father, probably, {Rom. ii. 36 ) and is There rcndred to Htm. So now we have found ^\^ ct,L»T:x Tol 'TTccv'^t, as before ^\ aurS tco 'TTcti'&j equally applied to Father and Son: Such Expreflions, fb indifferently applied to Either, have a meaning ; and did not drop by Chance from infpired Writers. But to confider the Paffage more diflinclly. In refpecfJ: of the Words, Firfi-horn of every Creature, our Tranflation comes not up to the Force, or Meaning, of the Ori- ginal *. It lliould have been, Firftborn X.XI atUTOTux.©-' KKi (iiva.ujtc,. Juftin. Mart. Ap. i. p. 46. UcarvTSKG^ TT^ oiy.vv^r6)€)2u) I'r,, Ibid. p. »oi. ' 0toc, 'cz^raip^i. Ibid. p. 123. Giovi ^, CM ^ ilVCU TSKVOV TitUTVTSXOV T OAUV KT,ferva6le tloAt Juftin never fays zr^o t ocXXav KTitrfi^- Tzy", ^lii, firf2ply and abfolutely, before all Creatures^ clearly ex- empt tng the Son from the Number (?/ Creatures. Ufurvv ymvti/ja, ilvou tJ TTurfi, iix> ^5 7Bvoy^ivov, &:c. Athenag. Ae'yoi' £7'!'>''}*^ ^(>o(po^iKcf^ zs-f,urcTz>x.ov Tnitnjq KT.i gcc. Theoph. Antioch. p. 1 29. trimogeniius conditionii » ut Sernio Creatoris per qucia before 6o Christ's Divinity Serm.II. before the whole Creation * ; as is manifeft from the Context, which gives the reafbn why He is laid to be Tr^aroroxos 'xiay]^ y.Ti Dialogue with Tirypho the Jew ; on- ly They interprecad the Text of God and his Angels, which the Chriflians under- flood of the Pcrfons of the Trinity. Jujlin Martyr and Others made very good ufe of it againft the Jews, obferving how abfiird it was to fuppofe that Angels could be join'd in that manner with God the Father, and be able to create Man, or any Thing. Thus far at lead we may infer from their manner of ufing this Text, and their Reafonings upon it, that the Chriftian Church, in general, believed Father, Son, and Holy-Ghofl to create, as it were, 'in concert, and every Perfon of the Trinity to be properly Creator. This will appear further from another Text of the Old Tcflament, which They cite very frequently, to the 'fame purpofe. It \s Pfal. 33.6. By the PVord of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Hojis of them by: the Breath of his Mouth : Scrm. ir. proved from Creation. 71 Mouth : Or, as it may be underftood, by his Word, and by his Spirit. This they interpreted of the Aoy®", or Word, which St. John (peaks of, and of the Holy-Ghoji, Which Tnterpreration * obtained very early in the fccond Century ; and was generally received afterwards. It mufl: indeed be prefumed that Thofe early Writers would not have intirely founded any Dod:rine of that Moment, on Texts fo very capable of another Conftrudtion. Bat having already imbibed the Principles ot Chriftianity from the New Teftament and Catholick Tradi- tion, They eafily believed that Thofe Texts intended fuch a Senfe, when They knew from other Evidences, that That Senfe was a Truth, whether taught there or no. Here again, I mufl: obferve, that whe- ther the Text of the Vfalms, proves any thing or nothing to the point in Hand, its being ufed formerly, in favor of fiich a Dodriue, fliows that That Dodrine was * Theoph. Antfoch. p. 21. O.v. Ed. Iren^eus, p. 98. 183. Ed. Bcned. Hippol/t. Contr. Noer. c 12. p. 14. Tertull. Contr. Prax. c, 7. p, ^o^. Origen. in Joh. p. 43. Eufeb. prxp. Evan. I 7. cli. 1 11. c. 14. in Pf. p. izf. Athanaf. p. 694. Bafil. Contr. Eunom. I. 3. p. 82. ilO. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 44. p, 714* Epiph. Ancorat. p. 29. Pfeudo- Juftin. Expof Fid. p. 296. Sylb- Ed. ^ Pfcud-Ambrof. de Symb. Apoft. 1. 6. p. 324. Ed. Bened. F 4 Then 7x Christ's Divinity Serm.ll. Then received ; and was the Faith of the Church. There are two Texts more out of !P/2r/;wj, which I may put together, being Both of the fame Import and Significancy, Pf 3x.9. He J^ake and it was done. He command- ed and it flood fafl. The other is Pfal. 148. 5. He commanded, and They were created. Thefe the * Antients underftood of the three Perfons. The Father being fuppoled to iflue out his Orders or Commands for the Creation, arid the Son and Holy-Ghoft to execute or fulfil Them. This Notion f obtained among the Ante - Nicene and Toft-Nicene Writers; and fecrus to have been grounded chiefly upon thofe two Paf iages out of the Tfalms, and fome Expref- fions in the firft Chapter of Genejis \. What led the Fathers to take the more * Irenxus, p. 118. 1S3. 169. 288. Epift. Synod. Antioch. Labb. Tom. i. p. 845-. Orig. in Joh. p. 18. 61. Conrr. Ceir. p. 63. 317. 79. Eufeb. Prsppar, Evang. 1. 7. c. 12. in Pfal. p. iiy. Athanaf. p. a 16. 499. Cyril. Catech. li. p. 143. 147. Hilar, de Trin. 1. 4. p. 837. f Irens:us, 1. 4. c. 38. p. aSf. Hippolytus Contr. Noer. p. 16. Bafil. de Sp. Sanft. c. 16, Cyril. Hierofol. p. I46. Ox. Ed. Hilar, p. 32^. 837. 840. Athanaf, p. ai6. 499. See othen cited in Petav. 1. z. c. 7. p, 141, :^ Vid. Tertull. Contr. Prax. c. 12. p,5o6, Hilar, dc Trin. 1.4. p. 836. Athanaf. Orat. 2« p. 499. notice Serm.II. proved from Q^Y.kT\o\A, 73 notice of thofe places, was the fingular ufe they might be of in their Difputes with Jews and Heretkks. The Jews denied the "Divinity, or rather, the diftind; Perfo- nahty of the Aoyo^, or Word. They were not to be confuted out of the New Tejla- ment, (which was of no Authority with the Jews) but out of the Old, which Both Sides equally admitted. Hence it became the more neceflary to learch the Old Tefta- ment for Proofs of the 'JDivinity or di- llind perfonality of Chrift. Now, it was thought that no Perfon would be introduced as giving oux. Orders or Commands to Him- felf, but that fuch Expreffions denoted a plurality of Perlbns. Who then could thefe other Perfons be that received the Commands? They could not be Angels -ex Archangels : Why ? becaufe the Orders were fuch as no Angels could execute *. They were Orders to create Man, and the * Oil yxp, cTTip ii TTixp* vifjTv Myof^ivi) ecl^imi ob7fi(^v(^iUV sroiTjf/^ inv to (mt/jot to 'Av- 9-p&i;r«ov, uX^^octStv to tZ ovti oiTro 5 TFtcT^oq zr^oXr^ti yiwv^^K.^ TTp^oTiy^iMT (fort. z-^mfj^i'M) Juft. Dial. p. 187. Jebb. Tantus Deus, & ipfe eft qui per fcmeripfum conftituit 8c elegit & ndornavit, &: continet omnia Non ergo Angeli feccrunt nos nee nos plafmaverunt, ncc Angeli potu- erunt Imagincm facere Dei j nee aliu* quis praeter verbam Domini, nqc Virtus longe abfiftens a Patre Univerforum, Kec envm indigebat Horum Dcus ad faciendum qua: Ipft whole 74 Christ*s Divinity Serm.II. whole Univerfe. None lefs than God's own Son and Holy Spirit could be equal to inch a Charge: There are therefore two divine Perlbns, or at leaft One, befides the Father, This was their Argument from the OldTeftamenc againfl: the Jews. They had, befides, alnioft the like occafion to make ufe of the very fame Argument a- gainfl: Hereticks% againfl; the Sabelllans eipecially, and fometimes Artans, For, as many as had a tnind to prove that the Per- ioD of the Father, and He only, was God, were wont to plead that Mofes and the Prophets knew of no other realVcxiow that was God befides Him ; quoting T)etit. 6.4. {Hear, O Ifrael, the Lord our God is one Lord:) and other Pafiages of the Old Teftament of hke Import. Had this pre- tence been true, it would nor haveweaken'd the Belief of a Trinity of Perfons, found- ed upon a fuller and clearer difcovery made prxdefinicrat fieri, quafi Ipfe fuas non haberet manus. Adeft c-niin ci Semper Ver'oum & Sa,pientia, Filius & Spiritus, per euos. & in auibus omnia libere Sc fuonte fecit, ad ouos & iNmu in locum iv»iauuiu6 iiivcniLui iceiiic» viuciiuci luui t\ Ipfe Creature fit Deij quemadmodum & reliqui AngelL Iren. p. 288. p.63. by Serm.II. J^roved from Cv^eatio^. 75: by the Gofpel. But They thought there were fufficient, (tho' in fome meallire ob- fcure) lucimations given of a pkirahty of real Perfons in the Old Teflament ; and ac- cordingly They alledged thofe Texts which I have mention'd, and Abundance more too tedious to recite ; infilling upon it, that Mofes and x\\zTropbets had aifcrted a plu- rahty oi divine Perlbns; and that notwith- fianding their Dodtrine of the Unity of God, They had adually apphed the Titles of God, Lord, Jehovah &c. to more Per- lbns than One ; and that it was not the Fa- ther fingly,but He, and his Son. and Holy- Spirit that created the World. The lafl: particular (as I have before obferved) They inferr'd from the Texts which I have here cited out of the Tfalms, and from otheri> of like Import. 1 have dwelt the longer upon this matter, becaufe fome Perfons, up- on their firfl reading of the Ante-Nkene Fathers, (meeting with thofe PaiTages where the Father is faid to have commanded, and the Son to have executed his Orders^ arc apt either to be offended at them, or to draw ftrauge Conclufions from them : not confidering that fuch Men as Athanajius^ BaJll,2iuA Cyril, m^dc no fcruple of Them, underftanding very well what fuch ExpreJ^ fions meant, at that Time, and with what view 76 Christ's Divinity Semi. 11. view They were intended *. The Patrons of Ariamfm will never be able to ferve their Caufe ac all by Them. They would indeed gladly infer, that fmce the Father is introduced as commanding^ and the Son as fulfilling, that therefore the Son was fiip- poled of an inferior Nature to the Father. But if they pleafe to take a view of the whole Argument, as it (lands in the pri- mitive Writers, they will find that the very Contrary is the Truth. For the Argument \% this: The Father is reprefented in Scri- pture as giving out commands for tht^Crea- tion of the Univcrle : No inferior Terfon^ 110 Angel or Archangel, no \ Creature whatever could be equal to the Office, or able to execute thofe Canmands : Therefore there muft be fome other Perfon or Perfons, diftin6t from the Father, and Superior to afl Creatures ; and Thofe are his Son, and his Holy-Spirit, Thus we fee, that the primitive Writers proceeded upon a Sup- pofitfon direcSly oppofite to what the Arians pretend : For had They fuppofed the Son or Holy-Ghoft to be Creatures ^ there had been no Force at all in their Ar- * S&e the weanwg of them clearly opend and explain' d fy Athanalius. Orai. 2. p. 499. •J See the ^eiatms from I.renseas efpecially. gument ; Scrm.II. proved from Creation. 77 giiinent; nor could They, in that way, have proved that there was any Son, or Holy-Ghoft at all. But admitting that the Work of Creation was too big for any Creature, and admitting at the fame time that there were other Perfons, befides the Father, who created the World ; the Con- fequence is very dear, that there are more divine uncreated Perfons than One; and thcis the Dodlrine of a Co-eternal Trinity is eftabhfli'd. I mufl: intreat you to obferve, that I do not take upon me to •maintain the whole Premifes, which thofe Antient Writers went cpon. I think the Argument from thofe Texts \s barely probable : I do not appre- hend that a plurality of Perfons can cer- tainly be inferred, meerly from fach Forms of Expreflion, where the Father is faid to have commanded, and Things were creat- ed. The Stile is not improper or unfuit- able (as I humbly conceive) tho' the Fa- ther were fuppoled the only Perfbn con- cerned in Creating. It is a handfome way of expre/Ting that, to Will, or to T>o, is with God one and the fame Thing. All that I intend is, that the Fathers who made ufe of that way of Reafbning, believed that God 78 Christ's Divinity Scrm. II. God the Son was properly Creator (other- wife there's neither force nor pertinency in their Argument) and properly divine. As to the Argument it ielf, They had no heed of it, but in occafional Difputes, where it might be of fome Service, ad Homines at lead; or where the New Teftament- Proofs, on which They chiefly grounded their Doctrine, could not be admitted at all. I ihall now jufl: give you a brief Sum- I mary 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 Ghoft were * diftind: Perfons, and all jointly concern'd in the Creation of the World ; not as many Creators, but as ^;^^ Creator; not dividing the Work into Parts, but as concurring in the Whole, and in every Part. Man, and every Man, was fuppoied the Creature of the whole Trinity; and fo alio the Uni- verJe, and every part of the Univerfe, was believed to be the Creature of All, there being no Creatures of the Father's but what were like wife Creatures of the Son^ and of the Holy-Ghoji. Yet They admit- ted fome DiflincSion in the manner of ^ Opera- Serm.II. proved from Creation. 79 Operation, rcferving to the Father, as jfirji Perfbn, Ibmc Ibrt of pre eminence in every Thing. He was primarily confider'd as Creator by the Operation of rheSGn,and of the Holy-Spirit; but without excluding Them from a proper Efficiency. So far from it, that They chofe rather to reprefent the Fa- ther as IVilling or T>ejigning, and the two other Perfbns, as ABing and Executing ; contributing, as it were, but in Subordina- tion to One* Head, to the Beginning, the Growth, and the Perfection of every Work: They ventured no farther, nor was it pro- per to indulge Imagination in a Matter fo lubhme, and above the Comprehenfion of Men, or Angels. It is fufficient to know, that the Creation was the EfJedi of three Perfons, whofe Operations were undivided, as their Nature and Eflerice is ; and whole Powers, Perfedions, and Glory are One. But I mud not Anticipate what more pro- perly belongs to my fecond Head of Difcouri'e. Having fliown from Scripture, that God the Son is ftrid:Iy and properly Creator^ of Men, of Angels, and of the whole Uni- verfe, I am next to confider the Force of the Argument deducibie from it, in favor of 8o Christ's Divinity Serin. 11. of Chrijfs divinity. But the firft Part having already taken up the full Time al- lowable in Difcourles of this Nature, I muft be content to defer the Remainder W Another Opportunity. Chriji I 8i dhrift froferly Creator. O R CHRIST'S DIVINITY PROVED FROM C R E A T 1 O R The third Sermon {reached Nov. 4. 1719. John I. 3 . All Things were made by Him , and without Him was not any Thing made that was made. I N dilcourfing on thefe Words, I pro- pofed Three Things : I. To fliow that God the Son, a diftincSt Perfbn from God the Father, is ftridly and properly Creator^ and efficient Caufe of all Things. G X. To 8i Christ's Divinity Serm.lll. a. To confider the Force of the Argu- mtint arifing from it, in favour of ChrilVs Divinity. 3. To make fome ReflccStions and Ob- fervations upon the Whole, for our farther Improvement. I had then no more Time than was ne- ceflary to be taken up in making good my firft Pofition : Which, 1 hope, I have clear- ly fliown to be founded in expreft Words of Scripture, and confirmed all along by the unanimous Suffrage of Catholick Antiquity. The two Remaining parts I referved for the Subjed Matter of our prefent Medita- tions. I proceed then to my fecond gene- ral Head of Difcourie. JI. To confider the Force of the Argu- ment, in refped: of Chrift's Divinity, con- tai; u in this; that He is properly Creator^ of Men, of Angels, of all Things. I ihail confider it under three Views, debating the Point diftindly From the Reafon of the Thing, From Scripture, and From j^nti- qtiity, I. From the Reafon of the Thing. I jQiall not here treat of the Subjed in the SchO' Serm.III. proved from Q?.^hT\o'^. 83 Scholaftkk way ; which would afford but dry Entertainment: Befides that, the Ar- gument would fuffer by it, and lofe much of its Force and Efficacy, There is fometimes in moral Probabilities an irrefiftiblc Strength^ little iliort of the ftrideft Demonftra- tion. There is fbmething fo affecting and fenfible under them, that They cannot fail of making their way into every well-difpo- fed and ingenuous Mind; and fo it often happens that They do as infaUibly-; (and more agreeably) win over our Aflent, as Demonftration can force it. To come to the Bufmefs in Hand: God the Son is Creator of all Things. On that Foundation I am to proceed : And when I fay Creator^ I include Sujlainer and Treferver, Let us then diftindly confider Him : 1. As Creator of Man. 2. As Creator of the Earth, and of all Things in xi, 3 . As Creator of the Heavens, with all their Hoft. 4. KsCreator of Angels and Archangels^ Thrones and Dominions, Principalities and Powers,, which live and move, and have G 2 their 84 Christ's DiviNitY Serm.Ilt. their Being from , and in the Son of God. I do not Heighten or Rhetoricate at all, in thefe Particulars. They are no more than ftridt and clofe Comment upon Colojf, 1.16. a'nd Hebr. i.io. only branching cut into Parts, what is there couched and com- prized in few Words. t. Firft then, let us confider our blefTed Lord as Creator of Man, of all Men living quire round the Globe; of All that have lived and died, from Adam down to this bay. I leave it to the Anatomtjis and "Phy/iologiJIs to defcribe the wonderful Me- chanifm, and exquifite Workmanlhip of the Human Body : The eredt Pofture, the Fi- gure and Shape, the Size and Stature, the StrucSture and Ufe of every Part, and the Symm^etry of the Whole ; which carry in them uuconteftable Proofs of the Skill, and the Contrivance, and the conlummare Wif- dom of Him that made us. How many Ledtures might be read upon the Fabrick of the Eye, the Texture of the Brain, the Configuration of the Mufcles, and Difpofi- tion of the Nerves, or Glands ; all bearing Teftimony to the Power and Greatnefs of the Son of God ; of whom wx may now fay. Serm. III. proved from Q9^^kTio\^. 85- lay, that He hath fet the Members every one of them in the Body, as it hath f leaf- ed Him ; and hath fo tempered the Body together, as admirably to anlwcr all the wile Ends and Purpoics defign'd by Him. The lame Wiluom which is vifible in every fingie Individual ^ reaches at the fame Time to the whole Species round the Globe. All are iupportcd, iliftained, and aftuated by God the Son, in whom all Things confif. He is equally prefent to All, fupplying Motion, Nutriment, and Strength to every Individual, extending his providential care to the Ends of the Earth, and in one coraprehenfive View graiping the whole Syftem. For, 1. We are to confider 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, garnifli'd it vi^ith Plants, Trees, and Flowers, ftock'd it with living Creatures for the u(e of Man, and plentifully furnifli'd it with the moft grateful and unexprcffible Variety. Every Herb that Grows, every Spire of Grafs that Springs up, every creeping Thing that moveth upon the Face of the Earth, proclaims the Wifdom of its Maker, Sounds forth the Praifes of the Son of G 3 God. 86 Christ's Divinity Serm.III. God, I may here apply the Words of the ^falmijt, which whether meant of Father or Son, are certainly apphcable to Both. ^raije the Lord from the Earth, ye dragons and all T)eeps. Fire and Hail, Snow and Vapour, Jiormy Wind fulfill- ing his Word: Mountains afid all Hills ^ fruitful Trees and all Cedars, Beafts and all Cattle, 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 fraife the Name of the Lord, for his Name alone is ex- cellent, his Glory is above the Earth and Heaven^ Pfal. 148. It would lead me too far off from my purpofe, to confider, or to enumerate the many legible Characters of a Wifdom and Power nothing iliort of di- vine, which are every where dilcoverable within and without This Earth whereon we Jive. Thefe I leave to the Naturalifts to defcribe. No Man that confidcrs it's ftupcndous Size, or Bulk alone, but muft think it a Work too auguft and great for any Thing Icis than a T>ivine Archi- tedr. We have often triumphed over Atheifts upon this Head, alledging that no Tower or Wifdom leis than Infinite, could be equal to the Task. The very fame Topicks, I Scrm. III. f roved fro7n CKEkTios, 87 Topicks, to fuch as believe the Scriptures, may be as jurtly urged for the "Divinity of God the Son. It was His Hand that made all thefe Thiiigs; and by His Power they are fuftained and held together. And yet Thele are httle Things, and as nothing in Companion. For, 3. We are thirdly to confider, that the Heavens alio aie the Works of hix Hands, That huge and vaft Corapals, that iinmenfe Region of ALther, and therein the Sun, with its planetary Chorus dancing round it, the fixt Stars, (perhaps Suns too with their Planets rolling about ihem) whatever Mo- dern much Improved Aftronomy has dif- covered, or whatever yer farther Discoveries future Ages may bring to Light; all Things vi/ible and invifible have the Son of God for their Creator, Suflamer^ and Prefer- ver. If we ibrvey the Magnitude of the heavenly Bodies, fome fmaller, mod vaftly bigger than our own Globe, all of an amazing Size and Greatnefs ; if we confider the nice Proportion of their Diftances, the Regularity of their Situations, the Har- mony of their Courfes, and Uniformity of all their Motions ; They cannot but raile in us an Idea of the* Infinite, Power, Wil- dom, and Greatnefs of Him that made G 4 Them. 88 Christ's Divinity Serm.lII. Them. This is a Theme of very wide Extent, and has been often, and excellent- ly handled in Defenfe of our common Re- ligion, againft the Atheijis and Sceptic ks of our Age, or Nation. It is with plea- fure I obferve, that the fameTopicks (only taking in thofe Scriptures which They and We own) will almoft equally ferve againft Arians or Socinians, or sny that preiume to deny the T>iv'tnity of God the Son. It is clear from the Sacred Writ, that He created all Things, and that by Him all Things conjiji, and therefore it is evident, that all the Marks of Wifdom, Power, or Majefty, difcoverable in this Grand Palace, and Auguft Srrudlure of the Univerft, are fo 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 fpeaking of Sun, Moon, and Stars, prodigioufly great, but yet in- animate Bodies ; and Creatures lefs perfed: than we our felves are, who make a Part, tho' the loweft Part, of the rational Crea- tion. We are farther to confider, 4. That the very Angels themfelves, the Top, furely, of the Creation, thofe bright Intelligences, and glorious Mioifters of the Cour? Serm.III. proved from Qk^l\'x\o\^. 89 Court of Heaven, are the Creatures and Workmanlliip of the Son of God. Whe- ther They be Thrones or T>otnintons ^ Principalities or Towers, They were ^11 created, not only by Him, but for Him. Myriads of thofe Heavenly Spirits are continually ferving and praifing Him. To Him they owe their PerfeemonJirations, There are many Things noc capable of Arid: T>emonfiratton ; and yet fo evident and undoubted, that a Man would forfeit the very Character of Sobriety and com- mon Senfe, that iii ould Icrioufly make the leafl: Qiieftion of rhcm. I might mention, for Inltance, the Exijlence of the World about US; which good Philofophers have thought not capable of ftnd: ^emonfira- tion. Bur a Man would hardly be fuppofed well in his Wits, that fliould ferioufly en- tertain any the leafl: Doubt or Suipicion concerning it. His Eyes, his Ears, and all his Senles bear Teftimony to the Truth and Certainty of it : And if it be not ftridly demonfl:rable in the rational Way, yet this is demonfl:rabIe, that the Nature and Cir- cumftances of Man are fuch, that He both may, and mud believe it. The fame, in a great Meafure, \ am perfwaded, is the Cafe which I have been mentioning. For, allow- ing the firft Pofition, that the Son of God \s properly Creator of Men. of Angels, and of the Univerfe ; there is no Man that attends to it, and confiders it in it's full Latitude, but mufl: come to this Conciufion, that the Son of God is no Creature, nor any Thing lefs than the eternal and infinite God. So much for my firft Head of Argument, from the Scrm.III. j^roveti from Creation. 91 the Nature and Reafon of the Thing it ftlf. My fecond Head of Argument is from Scripture-Texts. z. The Author of the Epiftle to the He- brews, the iame who had cold us, in his firft Chapter, that the Son had laid the Foujidation of the Earth, and that the Heavens were the Works of his Hands, I fay, the iame Author obferves Ch,i, ^.4. that He that built all Things is God% thus eftablifliing the very Conclufion which we are feeking after, as He had before done the Premifes. This, confidered as a ge- neral Maxim, muft be apphcable to the par- ticular luftance of God the Son, if it was He that built all Things, as hath been proved : Nay it is reafonable to believe that the Apoftle intended it particularly of God the Son. This Con(tru6tion xs^ very fuitable to the Argument which the Author was upon, in that Chapter; and to the high Things fpoken of the Son-^ in Chapter the firft: There is nothing in the Context but what extremely favors and confirms it; ex- cept it be that, verfe the 6th, it is faid, Chrift as a Son over his own Houfe^ in- timating as if He was not that Perlon be- fore fpoken of, (who is called God, v. 4.) but Son of that Perfon. But to this it may be 9i Christ's DivtN ITY Serm.IlI. be replied, that the Author was here fet- ing forth the Preference of Chriji above Mofes : the Comparilbn was between thole two Perfons only. How the T.erfon of the Father came in here, is not eafy to ac- count. But underft:nding it of the Perfon of the Son, the Senfe is clear, the Argu- ment proper and pertinent. As to his be- ing called God in the fourth Ver(e, and Son^ in the fixth, it was very proper and figni- ficanr, becaufe He is fo Gdd, as withal to be Son of God, or God of God. I proceed now to another Text, Rom. i.xo. The invifible Things of Him, from the Creation of the World are clearly feen, being nnderflood by the Things that are made, even his eternal Tower and Godhead^ fo that They are without excttfe. If then, as the Apoftle here teftifics, the Work of Creation proclaims the Eternity and Divinity of its Creator, it will follow from thence, that God the Son as Creator mufl: be eternal, and ftricStly divine. 1 am fenfible that Sx.Taul's Argument may be taken under another View. For it may mean, not that the Magnificence or Great- nefs of the Work proves that t\ try Creator muft be Eternal, or God-, bat that there mufl be one eternal firftCaufc of allThingSi other- Serm. III. f roved from Creation. 93 otherwife there would be a Progrefs of Caufes, one higher than another, in infini- tum, which is abfurd. The firft Conftru-- d:iou I take to be the more probable, as it is more obvious to common Capacities^ and as the Argument, in that View, ftrikes the more fenfibly, being fiich as few could mifs of; and therefore the Gentiles were without excufe , for not attending to it. However this be, I lay no great Strefs up- on it, defigning a more general, and I think, more convincing Argument out of Scripture, than I have hitherto mentioned, which is this : That, the Work of Creation is every where reprelented as the certain Mark and Charaderiftick of the true God. It is the favourite Topick which God is pleas'd to infifl: mod upon, whenever He would either diftinguifli his own peculiar Majefty and Power, above and beyond all the Gods of the Nations, t)r when He would excite in his People the higheft Idea poflible, fiiit- able to his tranfcendent Excellency, and peerlefs Perfections. Numberlefs are the Texts of the Old Teftament, which might be cited to this Purpofe. I iliall fingie out as many as may ferve to give a due Light and Force to the prefent Argument. Heze- 94 Christ's Divinity Scrm. III. Hezekiah, in his Prayer to God, thus expreffes Himfelf. O Lord God of Ifracl, which dwelleft between the Cherubims , Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the Kingdoms of the Earth, Then fol- lows the rcaion why He is fo eminently diftinguifhed, and fo infinitely Superior to all others. Thou haft made Heaven and Earth, x Kings 19.15-. Job, defcribing the fupereminent Majefly of the one true God, thus elegantly fets it forth. He ftretcheth 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 JheTillars of Hea- ven tremble, and are aftonijh'd at his re- proof % He divideth the Sea with his "Power By his Spirit He hath gar- niftrfd the Heavens ; his Hand hath form- ed the crooked Serpent, Job 26. 7, &c. In the Tfalms^ we- meet with a great deal to the iame purpofe. The Heavens declare the Glory of God, and the Firma- ment jheweth his Handy -work, Plal. 19. i. All the Gods of the Nations are Idols, hut the Lord made the Heavens, Pf 96 5-. The Heavens are thine ^ the Earth alfo is thine : Serm. III. proved from Creation. 9 y thine : as for the IVorld and the Fulnefs thereof thou haft founded them : The North and the South, thou hajt created them, Pfal. 89. 11, ii. More to the fame effed occurs perpe- tually in the Trofhets, I lliali cite a few Examples only. Lift up your Eyes on high, and behold who hath created thefe Things, that bringeth out their Hofi by Number, ^c. Ifa. 40.26. Who hath mea- fured the Waters in the hollow of his Handl and meted out the Heaven with the Span, and comprehended the 'Duft of the Earth in a Meafure, and weighed the Mountains in Scales, and the Hills in a Balance ? Ifa. 40. ii. Thus faith God the Lord, He that created the Hea- vens, and ftretched them out. He that fpread forth the Earth, and that which Cometh out of it, &c. 1^.^%,^. Ihus faith the Lord that created Thee, O Jacob, and He that formed Thee, O liiacl, If! 43.1. fo again , / am the Lord, and there is none elfe. I form the Light, and create ^arknefs^ If 45-. 5, 6. / have made the Earth, and created Man upon it : /, even my Hands have flretched out the Heavens^ and all their Hofl have 1 commanded. If 45*. II. Thus jhall ye fay unto them, the Gods ^^- Christ's Divinity Serm.IIl. Gods that have not made the Heavens and the Earth, even they jhall ferijh from the Earth, and from under thefe Hea- *uens. He hath made the Earth by his Tower, He hath ejiablifh'd the World by his Wifdom, and hath ftretched out the Heavens by hisT>ifcretion, Jer. io.ii,iz. It would be tedious to add more Texts. Thefe are fufficient to fliovV what a parti- cular Screfe and Emphafis is laid upon God's being Creator of all Things. It is the di- ftinguiihing Charader of the one true God; and whenever Scripture intended to raile in Men's minds fuch Efteem and Veneration as they ought to have for the fupremeGod of Ifrael, nothing higher or greater could be faid than this, that He had created the Univerfe, had laid the Foundations of the Earthy and that the Heavens were the Works of his Hands. (See Vi\lQ^.^^,^6.) This is farther confirmed from the New Teftament, Rom.x.'h'y, where St. y^?// di- rects us to worfliip the Creator, in oppo- fition to all Creature-Worjhip. From w^hence it is plain that the Apoftle fup- pofes the Creator, or Perfon creating, to be no Creature, but God blejfed for ever : fi;pm whence alfo, by the way, we may remark, that Scripture knows no medium between God^ Serm. JII. proved from Creation. 97: God, and Creature, but includes all Things, and all Perfons whatever, ' under that Di- ftind:ion ; as does alio Antiquity unani- moufly, and all found Philolbpy, and the common Senfe and Realbn of Mankind; But to proceed. Seeing then that the Title of Creator i»thus magnificently and elegantly fet forth, in Holy Scripture , as the diftinguiihing Mark of Eminedcy , the Epitome of all Perfedion, and the fure and certain Cha- radter of true Divinity : If nothing higher or ftronger can be thought on, to raife in us the raoft fublime, awful and exalted Idea of the Supreme God oi Ifrael\ and if the Son of God be plainly and evidently fet forth to us under this fame high Charad:er: If He created all Things, vtfible and invifible^ if He laid the Fomtdations df the Earthy arid if the Heavens are the Works of hh Hands : If thefe be the Premifes, let any Man of common Abilities, that has not his Faculties fore-ciofed, or is riot Iteel'd ^gainft Convidion, be left to draw the Conclufiori. To fay of God the Son, that He is the Maker of the World, of the Kinds in it, as well as of the grand Palace it felf (as a late ingenious Author * exprefTes it) is to * Mr.'^'^^i BiiplUatioft of the divine i/rJty, p. 9I' H fay 9? Christ's Divinity Scrm.llL lay as much and as high of Him, as it is poflible to fay; or to conceive of any other Perlbn, however named: becaufc the whole that we can naturally know, or apprehend of God, his Powers or Per- fcdions, is only what w^e can infer from his Work of Creation. Hence it is, that Socinians , and Sabellians have join'd with the Catholicks, in condemning the Avians for making two or more Crea- tors^ the fame in efFcdt with two eternal Gods : And fmce there's no way of avoid- ing it, but either by faying that Father and Son are one Creator, or elle deny- ing the Son to be Creator at all ; Thole Gentlemen have chofe the latter, rather than part with their main Principle, that the 'Vnity of God is an ^nity of Ter- fon. But then They manifeftly run coun- ter to Scripture, which evidently makes the Son of God Creator^ as I have before fliown. 3. I proceed now, thirdly, to inquire into the Sentiments of the Antients^ 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 look'd upon as a Work properly divine^ belonging to God only Serm. III. proved from Creation. 99 only. It docs not appear that any, ex- cept Hereticks, ever dogmatically * afcribed the Work of Creation, or any part of it, to any Creature, Simon Magus, borrowing his Sentiments from the TLatonick Philolbphy, did not fcruple to afTert, even in the Times of the Apoflles, that this lower World was made by ^ Angeh, After Him. "^Mcnander, ^Sa- turniriusy ^Bajilides, ^Carpocrates, §C?- rinthtis, with the infamous Crew of Gno- Jticksy taught the iame, or very nearly the fame Dodtrine: and this within the firft Century. Cerdo, and Marcion of the fe- cond Century, haye been thought by fome to have aflerced the fame Principles in the Main, differing rather in Words, than in reality ^. The Valentinians alio were fb far in the Sentiments of the Gnofiicks, as to afcribe the Creation of the lower World, to a Creature of their own devifing, whom They called T>emiourgus, or Crea- tor. Thele wild, and vain Conceits were a Origcn mdtzi feems to have indulged fome fanclfrl Cort- jeciures that tvay , in fome of his ioofer Writings ^ if They ie his (fee Coram, in Joh. pag. 42J45.} B»t in his more Accurate and certainly genuine Works, nathmg appears of it^ but the Contrary. b lrcn3eus, 1. i. c. 23. p. 99. c Ibid. p. 100. d Ibid, e Ibid. p. 101. f Ibid. p. ic^. g Ibid. p. loj*. k Vid. DiirerN.PraEv. ad Iren. Ed. Bened. p. 70. H 2. utterly 100 Christ's Divinity Serm.IIL utterly detcftcd by the fobcr Catholkks\ who would liot Jo much as hear of any Angel, or Archangel's creating the World, or any part of it ; but afcribed it wholly to the Joint-Operation of Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft. It appears to have been a Rule and Maxim of the Church, in Ire- naus% Time *, and probably all along , that no Creature whatever, could have any Hand in creating:, but that creating was an indifputable Mark of a divine im- mutable Nature. Thefe Principles ieem to have obtained conftanriy in the Church, long before the Nicene Council. No fooner did the Arian Controveriy arife, bur the Catholicks , upon their old Principles, charged the Arians with great Inconfift- * Nihil enfm in torum Diabolus invenitur feci.Te, videlicef cum & Ipfe Creaiura lit Dei. c]uetnadniodum & reliqui An- geli. Omnia enim fecit Dcus, quemadmodum & David ^k: ^uoniam Ipfe dixit (^ faBa funt i ipfe pr^cepit ^ create funt. Plal. 148. f. Iren. i. 4. C; 4». P- 288. Et hoc Deus ab Hominc differr, quoniam Deus quidem facir. Homo autem fit: & quidem qui facit fcmper Idem eft. Iren* I.4. c. 12. p. 240. That this was likeivsfe the Senfe of all Antiquity, appears from hence^ that all the Fathers, rohere They declare againfl Crea- ture- Worfhip, do at the fame tWie declare for the i/Vorfhip of the Creator: confiantly oppofmg Creator and Creature to each cither^ in fuch a manner as fJjorps plainly that They thought there tv.is no Medium Betvoeen, and that Creation belong' d to God alone, not to any Creature. See Athenagoras, p. $(», Tertull. Apolog. c, 17. Clem* vAlex-. p ff. 59. Origen. Contr. Cdf. p. 1/8.37^. ency, Serm.lII. f roved from Ck^atio"^, ion- ency, as making a Creature of the Son of God, and yet admitting Him to be Creator. They icruplcd not to tell Tliem, that this was copying after Valenthms, and reviving^ the Principles of the Gnoft'tcks : That it- was confounding the Ideas of Creator and Creature, and was all over Contradidory, and Repugnant. No Argument bore harder upon the Arians than this, as appears by the Perplexity and Confafion they were in upon it; not being able to. come to any fix'd and certain Refolution in it. Scripture and Catholick Tradition appear'd clear,^ftill, and ftrong for the Son's being properly and ftridly Framer, and Maker of the World ; and there were but few in Comparifbn that durft go fuch lengths as openly to deny it: On the other Hand to make a Creature- Creator^ was in a manner unhear'd of^ ex- cept among Hereticks , and was, befides, harfh and lliocking even to common Senfe *. To fofcen this matter, x\\t Arians, many of them, would not own that They held the Son to be a Creature ; which was pre- tence only, and playing with Words: For- bad They not only verbally, bxxt really m^ * Quis Auftorem inter opera fua deputet, ut videatur id cfTe quod fecit? Ambrof. de FU. l.i. c.f. p. 450. H 3 tended lox Christ's Divinity Setm.lIL tended that the Son was no Creature, They and the Catholicks could have had no far- ther difpute. But this was a Contrivance to aiffemble an Abfurdity too grofs to be own'd, and to diiguile a DiiBculty which They could not anlwer. They had, befidcs, many Httle Arts and Subterfuges, to lefTen and undervalue the Son's Part, or Province in the Work of Creation, fiich as I have mention'd and confuted above; the fame that are made ufe of by their SuccelTors at this Day. But all would not do : Scripture was plain and clear, and Tradition full and ftrong ; and was not to be bore down by little Quirks and Subtilties. In fine, Truth prevailed, Arianifm daily loft ground ; and this very Argument, from the Son's concern in the Work of Creation, contributed as much as any other, to fink it. The Strength of it has been often tried fince. The Socinians, who at the beginning were moft of them Arians^ were Ibcn lenfible 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 underftood literally of z proper Creation: And this, very pro- bably, was one main Reafon of their giving the Arian Scheme up, and running in with the Thotinian Hypothefa , which look'd more Serna. MI. f roved from Creation. 103 nioredefenfible. They obfcrv'd that the Texts which fpeak of the Son's being Creator^ were few in Compariibn; and therefore thought, They might be able to deal with Them; being never at a lofs for fome fubtile and furprizing Meaning for any Text in the Scripture, which made againft Them. Their Device, at length, was to interpret every Text of a Metaphorical Creation: And (b They left the Arians to ihift as They could, refling Themfelves upon a new Bottom. Yet this could not hold long, tho' fupported and let off with all the Advantages of Wit and Critirifm. Several of the acurcfl: and ablcft of the Unitarians grew difTatisfied with it ; and began Them- felves to feel the force of, and to dole in with, the Arguments of the Trinitarians againft it. The Refult was, the preferring the old Sahellian before the late Socinian Conftrudtion : And yet That is as manifeft- ly unfcriptural, falle, and groundlefs, as either Socinian or Arian. But thus do Men rove and range about, after They have once forfaken the Truth, and have given themfelves up to the Conduft of their pri- vate Fancies, inftead of adhering to God's written Word, and to the moll faithful Guide, for the Interpretation of it, the Trimitiveziid CatholickChmch, I thought H 4 It 104 Christ's Divinity Serni III. it not improper to hint thus much of the Hiftory of the Argument whereof 1 have been dilcourfing. It has loft no Weight or Strength all the Time: For Truth is al- ways the lame. The variety of Methods thought on to elude ir, only confirm it lb much the more. I doubt not but the Uni- tarians, of every Denomination, are very ienfible, that our Interpretation of Scripture, fo far as concerns this Point, is the moft eafy, obvious, and natural, and moft agree- able to the Letter of the iufpired Writers : only They have fome Scruples about TT^r^^ [and One^ and know not how to digeft three Perfons that create, and yet but one .Creator, There's all the Difficulty: And lb They chufe to follow Thilojophtcal Con- jeBures (which They call Reafon) rather rhan the Didtates of triie and found Rea- fon which will tell us; that we ought not to be wile beyond what is written, nor put a violent Ccnftrudion on any PalTages, where there's no nece^ty for it ; nor leave a iafe and plain Rule, to follow our own Wandrings. But enough of This. I have now finilh'd, in a great Meafure, what I de- /ign'd, having explained and vindicated the Argument for C\\\'\^^T>ivinity drawn from the Confideration of his being Creator of the World. In a former Difcourfe, I en- deavoured Serm.III. proved from Creation. lof deavour'd to maintain the Prcmifes, and now in This, to make good the Conclufion. The Sum of it is this. God th.e Son is Creator of the Univerfe : the Creator of the Univerfe is ftridly and truly God : There- fore God the Son is ftridly and truly, or e[fentially God, which was to be proved. It remains now only, in the third and laft Place. III. To make fome Refled:ions and Ob- fervations upon the whole. I. Having before fh own tise Truth and Certainty of our Principles, give me leave, in ConcJufion, to recommend them farther from their Plainnefs, and Simplicity. The Arians were never more perplex'd 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 O- thcrs ? Why might He not rather have made all Creatures, as well as one, and re- fcrved the fole Glory of fo great and fo (lupendous a Work as That of Creating to his own felf ? Did He want the Al- fiftance of an Inferior Being? Or was not his own Will and Fiat fufficienc ra *_ Vid. Athan. Orat. a. p. 49(j[. giVQ xo6 Christ's Divinity Scrni. III. give Birth to all Things? Befides, did He ceafe to Work after He made the Schn, leaving it to a Creature of his ovvi> to have, in a manner, the Honour of doing of every Thing clfe , and to be the immediate Agent and Manager in all Things, both in Heaven and Earth ? Thefc were Tenets which appeared very harlh and ftrange, and were not naturally, fcarcc tolerably, accounted for on the Arian Hy- pothefis. Bur, upon the Catholick Scheme, all is eafy, expedite, and clear. The Son is of the fame Nature and Subftance with the Father ; fo nearly allied, fo clofely united, that nothing could be the Work of One, without being at the fame 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 no- thing without Him. It was not * pofliblc for Them either to a6t, or to exiji fe- parately; and therefore it. is, that the Work of Creation, is, in Scripture, attributed to Both. This is an eafy and natural Account ©f the whole Thing; and befides very agreeable to Scripture. My Father work- h TtS A»y«» tifi^au^ Tot xec9^, 8cc, Athan. Orat. a. p. 498. Comf. Cyril. Alex. Comm, in Joh. 1.3. p. 4/. eth Serm.III. f roved from Creation. 107 ^(h hitherto and I work, Joh. 5*. 17. ff'^hat Things Joever He doth, thefe alfo doth the Son likewife, Joh. f 19. ^. Another Thing which recommends our Principles, is, rheir great Confiftency with each other, and with the Principles of the Catholick Church, in this Article efpeci- ally, from the very Beginning. When the Arians firft broach'd their Herejy, They had Ibme plaufible Things to urge, parti- cularly in relped: of the Generation of the Son, which was their principal Topick, and which They moil: delighted to dwell upon. But then They took but a partial and fuper- ficial View of Things, and knew not how to work up a confiftent Scheme. The Church had all along (et forth God the Son as Framer, Creator^ Maker, nay and Su- ftainer too, of all Things, in Subordination to the Father. The Subordination look'd well on the Arian fide ; but Creator and 'Preferver, were flrange Attributes to be applied to a Creature. This alone was fufficientto fliow, that the G^/'A^/zV/^ Church had never gone upon Arian Principles? having fo unanimoufly, and fo exprefly afcribed creative Powers to the Son • of God ; and not only fo, but had fuppofed Hill) Inlpe<3;or and Governo^r pf the whole Uni- io8 Christ's Divinity Scrm.III. Univerfc *, extending his Power and Prc- ftnce through the whole Compals of Being. That the Fad: was really thus, befides many- other Evidences, one might reafbnably in- fer from the Works of Eitjebius alone; of whom I may venture to lay, that He ne- ver would have alcribed more Power, Dignity, or Perfection to the Son of God, than the plain force of Scripture and Ca- tholick Tradition obliaed Him to. This Man, tho' a Favourer of the Avians, (of the Men at leafl:, if not of their Catife) yet every where fays many high and great Things of the Son's Creating and Govern- ing the whole Univerfe, fuch as any Man of plain Senfe muft think can belong to no Creature, but to God only. In his Oration, before the Emperor Con- ftantine. He defcribes God the Son, under the mofl: endearing and magnificent Cha- raders imaginable. *' He is the omnipo- '* tent Lord and Governor of the whole *• Univerfe, the Framer and Difpofer of all ♦* Things, who is above all, and through *'- all, and in all ; pervading and pcrmeat- •* ing all Things both above and below, * Iren. p. 190. 3 if. Clem. Alex. p. i23' 173. 831. TcrtuU. adv. Prax. c. 23. p. 514. Origen. Contr. Celf. p. 63. 164. 139- in Johan. p. 121.128, Novat. c.14. Earthly Serm. III. f roved from Creation, io^ ** Earthly and Heavenly, Vifible and In- ** vifible. It is He that formed and brought ** into Regularity the confuied CA^^j, made •* it habitable and pleafurable, adorned it '* with Trees, Plants, and Flowers, ftored *' the Sea with Fillies, and the Land with ** Variety of Animals, fupporting, pre- «* ferving and fuftaining Them all. It is '• He that gave the Sun its Light, and who ** directs the Courles of the Stars; who is •' fuperintendent every where, and fleers *' the whole Univerfe. To Him the very *' Angels owe their Life, their Light, their " Knowledge, or w^harever Excellencies and •* Perfections they ftand pofTcfs'd of. In " a word, He is fet forth as Operator and " Manager, Director and Supervifer over ** all the Works of God, Ihedding bis rich ** BleiTings, and diftributing his Bounties *' through the whole Creation. This is Eufebius'% Account of God the Son, as it lies fcarter'd throueh That Oration * : A great deal too much for any Avian to fay, and more then can be tolerably accounted for, upon any other than Cat hoik k Principles. I Ihail not here pafs any pofitive Judgment upon Enfebitts, about whom the learned World has been fo much divided. I ihall * Vid. Eufch. de Laud. CoRftanfc, p. joi. 5i;'> fi6> yi;, 5iS, j-ap, ^3©, j5i,8Cc, only ixo Christ's Divinity Scrm.IlI. only fay, that if He was an Avian at the botcom, He was the mofl inconfiftent one that ever was. He ought either to have been much more of an Ar'tan than He ap- pears to have been, or no Artan at all. He afcribed fb much to God the Son, that He hardly left any Thing pecuhar to the Father, but a kind of nominal Greatnefs and Majefty, as it were to be above and beyond the World. In lliort, He delcribes Him, as it were, fitting in his Throne of State, and looking on, and God the Son as ad:ing and performing every Thing. Athanajius's Account of this Matter ap- pears much more rational and confident. For indeed it is by no means reconcileablc with good Senfe, and the Truth and Rea- Jon of Things, to allow fo much to God the Son as Eufebius did, and not to allow Him every Thing which Athanafius, with other Catholicks at that Time, (as the Ca- tholick Church had all along) alcribed to Him. It was a weak Thing to pretend to Honour the Son of God by Halves. A Creature, or no Creature, was the Que- ftion. The Arians innovated in making the Son a Creature, and yet were minded to keep up , in other relpedis, the fame Honours and Acknowledgments which had been paid Him before. This was trifling and Serm. III. proved from Creation, hi and inconfiftent. The Catholicks were wifer Men. They prefcrved the fame Ho- nour and Refpedt which had been formerly paid to God the Son, but withal, carefully look'd after the Foundation of it; that 16 they might be able not only to do thcit Duty, but to give a Reafbn alio for the do- ing it. This was ad:ing with Thought and Judgment; in w^hich they appear to have been as much fuperior to their Adverfaries, all along, as in true Piety, Probity, and Sincerity. But, 3dly and laftly, I would obfcrve to you, what I before hinted . that while we ac- knowledge the Sou of God to be Creator^ we acknowledge Him a Son alfo ; the fe- cond only, not i\\Q.firJi Perlon of the Tri- nity. The Father therefore is frima- rily Creator, as Father. He is firft in Conception, whenever we fpeak of the di- vine Nature. And hence it is that He is faid to create by the Son, and He is emi- nently and emphatically reprefented 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 antient Creeds) takes notice of the Worlds being made by the Son ; but yet fo that He did not make the tit Christ's Divinity Serm:lII. the Worlds iry the Father, but the Father by Him, This is the conftant Language of Antiquity, always keeping up fome pre- eminence of Order, as proper to the Jirji Perfon, along with the true eflential Divi- nity of the other Two. This Diftindlioa of Order, confiftent \vith a parity of Na- ture, They learn'd from Scripture, and in- violably maintained. For thus They thought, that by referring all Things to one Head and Fount ain. They Ihould preferve the Unity, along with the Diflindion; and confidently teach 'Si plurality of Perlbns in One Godhead, as we do at this Day. There can be no fuch Thing as Tritheifm, upoti the Principles of the Antient Church, lb long as a proper Sonlhip and Subordination is allowed ; For therein confifts the Rela- tion, the Alliance, the ftrid: Union of the Perfons, while They are confider'd (as I may fay) of the fame Stock, and included in each other. But rake away That Rela- tion and Alliance, either by fuppofing three independent feparate Principles, or by making two of the Perfons Creatures^ and confequently of a different Nature from the Other, and then immediately com- mences either Tritheifm, ftriibly lo called. or Gentile 'Tolytheifm : So that the Catholick Dodtrine is the only fecurity againft Serm. III. proved from Creation. 113 againft a plurality of Gods; unleft we rake our laft Refuge in SabtUianifm, which is utterly repugnant to the whole Tenour of Scripture, and to the Doctrine of the Univerlal Church. Now to God the Fa- ther^ Son, and Holy-Ghoft^ three Ter- fons and one God : Be all Honour and Glory, Tower and ''Dominion, henceforth and for evermore. Amen. 7he 114 The Scripture-Unity not an Unity ^/Person. O R T H E DIVINE UNITY Stated and Clear'd. The fourth Serm'on preached Dec. X. 1719. Mark XII. 29. Hear ^ O Ifrael^ the Lord our God is one Lord, MY defign, in taking this Text, is td inquire into the Scripture- Not ion of the 'Divine Unity: A Point very necefTary to be Stated and CJear'd, ia order to a Right Underftanding of the Do- d:rine of the Trinity. I was once inch'na- ble to defer the Treating of it fome time longer; thinking it ir.oft fuitable to the Rules Serm.lV. 77;^^ Divine Unity 5^r. 115- Rules of ftrid Method to throw it off* to the laji part of what I intend upon this Subject. But I confider*d that while I am AfTerting the Divinity of more Perfbns than one, the Thought will, in a manner, perpe- tually occur ; how it can be confiftent with the Scripture account of the Divine Unity : And many may be impatient to have That Point fettled before we go farther. Upon this Confideration, I thought it advilablc to poft-pone this Matter no longer, chufing rather to break in upon the rules of ftri(3: Method, than to fuffer a prejudice to lie upon the Minds of Any, which might fb eafily be remov'd. I fliall therefore now fall diredtly to the Bufincfs of the Unity. The Words which I have Chofen toDif- courfe on appear firfl: in "Deuteronomy ( Chap. 6. v. 4, ) from whence they are ci- ted by our Blefled Lord, and thereby made a Dodtrine of the Gofpel, as before of the Law. Hear, O I/rael, the Lord otir God is one Lord. I think it proper, in the En- trance , to take notice , that the original Word, in the Hebrew, for Lord, is Jeho- vah (according to our now Cuftomary way of reading and pronouncing it ) and if we put Jehovah , inftead of Lord, into the Englilh Text, it will then run thus. Jeho- I X vah ii6 The Divine Unity Serm. IV. vah, our God, is one Jehovah. The ufe which I intend of this, will appear pre- fcntly. There are three feveral Condrudtions of this one fliort Sentence. The differences be- twixt them ma/ appear flight, but are real- ly of Moment in this Conrroverfy, as will be feen in the Sequel. The Ant 1-1 rinit avi- ans^ of all Sorts, have here an Intereft to ferve in making the word Jehovah to be nothing more than the ^roj^er name of one Perlbn only. It is for this Realbn, chiefly, they contrive to change the obvious, natural or- der and conftrud:ion of the words: For otherwife indeed, upon their Hypothe/is , they would fcarce be fenfe. Suppole it were faid, "David, our King, is one 2)^- vid\ Q^x Abraham, our Father, is one Abra- ham:, what Senfe would there be in it? And yet this fentence, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, luppofing Jehovah to be mctrly a proper name, will be juft fuch another laying, and is too flat and infipid a Senfe to be fuffer'd to pals upon the Sa- cred Writings. This our Adverfaries arc lenfibJe of, and therefore., to lalve their Hy- pothe/is, They make bold with the Qtder and Confl:rud:ion of the Words, two ways; which I iliall here previoufly take notice of and Serm.lV. Stated and Cleared, 117 and examine, and then proceed to lay down the third Conftrudlion, which is the only true one. I . The Firfl way is, to turn the Sentence thus. Jehovah is onr God, Jehovah on- ly. Here you fee, in this Form, Jehovah may be a proper name, and the Words are good Senfe too : and ^o^ they tliink, Both Points are fccur'd. But the Objection againft it is, that the Words here in St. Mark (and indeed thofe in 'Deuteronomy) will not bear that Con(lru(3:ion. For then the Words fliould have been thus : Kuexo^ mt Q>m '^Aixco^)^ K(;fio? A^ovo^, which is very diffe- rent from what we find, and is quite ano- ther propofirion. a. ASecondway of Conftruing the Words is thus : Jehovah our God, even Jehovah^ is one Terfon. Here again, you'l obferve that Jehovah may be underftood as a pro- per name, which is thought a great Point gain'd ; and a greater than That is intended by interpreting one, one Pcrfon. So there are thought to be two Ends ferv'd at once. But it will be ealy to defeat them Both; which we Ihall fee prefently, as foon as we comie to affert and explain the true Con- ftruition of the Place. I fliall here only I 3 examine ii8 The Divine Unity Serm. IV. examine a pretence which is * made from Zechartahi^.^. in favorof this fanciful In- terpretation. The verfc runs thus, in our Tranflation : A^td the Lord jh all be King over all the Earth: In that day Jhall there be one Lord, and his 7iame o?ie. Here it is thought that the truer render- ing of the latter pare fhould be thus ; The Lord ( or Jehovah ) Jhall be one, and his name one. That is, fay They : The Lord ihall be oneTerfon. It is fomevvhat ftrange that they do not add likewife, that his name iliall be one Thing, to anfwer to the other. It requires no great Acumen to perceive that the Atrribute of 07te is applied to Je- hovah in the fame manner as it is to the Name ; and fo it is et^, or umis, m the Maf^ culine gender, when appHcd to Lord\ ev, or unum, in the Neuter gender, when applied to name. And it is evident that the mean- ing only is, that- as there fnall not be many NameSjbut one Name acknowledged in that day over all the Earth ; lb there lliall not be many Lords, but one Lord, or one Jeho- vah , one only received as fuch. This con- fideration alone is fufBcient to confute the Surmife, as if the Tro^het was here con- * See Clarke Script, Doar. />, 2. I-d, 1 Modeft pica. cornd Serm. IV. Stated and Cleared, 119 cern'd about Unity of Terfon, or intended any thing like it. He certainly meant no more than that ih^Jehovah, who has the fole right of Dominion over all, will then appear lb in Fad:, and be received, among his Subjcdls, as the only God and Lord, reigning with- out a Rival. He will be one, in oppofition to any different Gods or Lords, and ac- knowledged as one Head, uniting all under Him. This is the Senfe of the place, as is clear from the Context*. For the Text is not Ipeaking of what God is in Him- felf, being in that refped: always the fame ; but of what He ihould be in refped of h\s> Reception in the World, when he fliould be generally acknowledged, and have no Rival fet up in oppofition to Him. The other Conllrudion, which would force Uni- ty of Terjbn out of this Padage, take it which way we will , is Icarce Senfe. For is it thus ? Jehovah will in that day become one Perfon, which He was not be- fore ? This is, at firft fight, ridiculous. Or, is it that Jehovah will then be acknow- ledged to be one Terfon ? This is almoft as abfurd as the other. For, probably, Thofe that did not receive the God of 7/- rael as their God, yet might have thought Him to be one Terjon, all along. This * Vid. ctiam c. 13. v. 2, I 4 was 1X0 The Divine Unity Serm. IV. was not the Point ; but They were to ac- knowledge Him fo one, as not to prcfume to let up any Rival Power againft Him. The Prophet had foraerhing elfe at Heart than either Unity of Snbftance, or Terfon, \cpx\ Ktifio^ ^$; There Jhall be one Lord, (as ourVerfion rightly renders it) both for Jew and Gentile. The expreffion is much liich another as nyio^ eT$ g^zru {Numb. 9. 14.) there fljall be one Law, to him that is Home born, and to him that Sojourneth among you : You jfliall not be under dijfe- rent Rules or Laws, but one and the feme iliall be for all. In like manner, the Pro- phet predids that Jew and Gentile ilaali not have different Gods or Lords, but one and the fame God and Lord fliall rule over Both. Having fnown then that the fecond Interpretation is as groundlefs as the firft, 3. 1 proceed to lay down the Third, which is the true one. The Lord our God is the file Lord, or the only God: in oppofiticn to Gods many, and Lords many, whether Supreme or Inferior. Thus the Scribe^ to whom our Lord /pake, and whom He com- mends as anfwering fo far difcreetly, under- flood it. There is one God, and there is none other but He. This iliows that Jeho- vah was here Equivalent to ©go?, or God. Some Serra.lV. Stated and Cleared, iii Some of the ancient Verfions, inftead of one Lord, render it, oite God: As do alfo fome of the * primitive Fathers ; none of them (fo far as 1 have obferved) either con- fidering Jehovah in this place, as a proper Name of one Perfon only» or ever bring- ing this Text to prov€ that God is but one Terfon. This They underflood, and this only ; that there is but one God, one Lord, and one Jehovah \ not two Gods^ two Lords, or two Jehovahs. If it be ask'd, who, or what Perfon is in- tended by the Lord our God, in the Text, it feems moft realbnabie and natural to un- derftand it of God the Father ; not exclufive of, but abftrading from the Confideration of, the other Two Perfbns. The Scribe^ perhaps, underftood it in the exclufive Senfe; exclufive of all other Perfons. Our Lord commends Him as anfwering difcreetly, in acknowledging One God ; but intimates withal, that He was not yet come to Per- fcdiion ; He wanted fomething farther, He "was not far from the Kingdom of God, One thing that He wanted was to acknow- ledge the Son to be God and Lord, as * Ircnsus 1. f. c. 22. p. 319. Cyprian de Orat. Domin. p. 151. 17*. Ambrof. de Fid. 1. I. c» r> i p. 445". 448. Ed: 3cned. well iiz The Divine Unity Scrm. IV. well as the Father: And it is pretty remark- able that Both the Evangelifts, St. Matthew and St. Mark, after relating this Conference of our Saviour with the Scribe, immedi- ately fubjoin the Hillory of our Saviour*s putting a Queftion to the Tharifees, How the MeJJlah could be both "David's Son, and ^David's Lord, quoting that PaUage of "Pfal. no. I. The Lord faid unto my Lord, &c. It is no improbable conjecture of a "^judicious Father, that our blefled Saviour thereby intended to corred: the Jewijh Conftrudion of TDeuteron. 6 4. and to intimate, as far as was proper at that time, that the Father is not €?$ KvtJLo$y one Lordy in fuch a Senfe, as to exclude the Son, who is alfo Kugio^, or iLord, and tacitely included, as often as the Father is filled the only God, or Lord. But it is now time to confider more difl:in(flly and fully the Dodrine contained in the Text, which I iliall endeavor thus. I, By inquiring, under \^\\2X Salvors, and qualifying Confiderations, we may reafon- ably underftand the general Dodrine of * Dominus Ipfe praecipuum mandatum Legis in Un'tui Do- mini confcffione & dileftione docens eile, non fuo ad Scubamy fed Propheiae Teftimonio ufus eft, efle [e Dominum- — Dominum unum ita ex lege docens, ut fe quoque Domlnum, Pfopheta Tefte, confirmat. Hilar, p. iooi> God Serm.IV. Stated and Cleared. 113 God the Father's being the only true God, or Lord. ^, By confidering what we may juftly infer from it, and what ufe we are to make of it. I. I iliall inquire, under what Salvo's, or quahfying Confidcrations, we may reafon- ably underftand the general Dodrine 'of God the Father's being the only true God, or Lord. The Texts ftem, at firfl: View, to ex- clude all other Perfons whatever, from be- ing divine in the fame Senfe ; and alfo from having any Right or Title to religious Wor^ fliip, or any Degree of it. The Texts run in x.]\Q perfonal Charader ; / am the Lord thy God: and generally * in the Jingular Number ; /, not IVe ; or He, not They, And then the pradical DocStrine founded thereupon is to pay to that Terfon, not Jupreme Worfliip only, but <^// Worlliip; nor our highejl Religious Service, but our whole Religious Service ; rcferving no Part nor Degree of it to any other. If thcre- * 7 fay, generally, not altoiiyi : becaufe there arc [ome Injlmces of plftral ExpreJJionS' Gen. 1.1,26. — 5. 5*522. — 11.7. — 20.1 J. •^35-. 7. Deut.4.7. Eccl.i2.t. Jol^24. 19. Ifa. 6.8. fore 114 T16^ Divine Unit Y Serm.IV. fore theDo6i:rine is to be interpreted up to the utmoft rigour in Both its Parts, the Fa- ther only is God, in any ftrid: or proper Senfe ; and every part and degree of reli- gious Service is to he paid to Him folely. Biit how can we be Chriftians if we fay this ? Or now is it poflible to reconcile it with orher plain Scriptures ? There mud be iom^ Aoarcment, fome favourable Allow- ance of Conftrudion, in one part or other, to make Scripture confiflent ; and the dif- ficulty is to know where we are to fettle this neceflary Latitude of Interpretation, fb as neither to do violence to the Letter^ nor defeat the intent of the infpired Writers. There have been two ways thought on, to compromife this Matter. I lliall mention That, firft, which is the leaft likely to do us any Service, that I may come with the greater Advantage to the other, which will appear to be not on- ly the beft, but the only way of recon- ciling the Difficulty, after we have feen that the firft will not bear. I. The firfl: way is to fuppofe that the Words, Lord ^n^ God, admit of a higher and a lower Senle ; fo that the Texts which <3eclare the Father the one God, are to be underftood to mean; one dnly fufretr^ Godi Serm.lV. Stated and Cleared. iiy God, leaving Room for inferior and fub-- ordinate Gods befides Him : And lb alfo Worihip muft be underftood to be of two Kinds, Soveraign and Inferior; and that the fupreme God elaims only Soveraign, not all religious Worihip to Himfelf. Bat againft this way of reconciling, there appear to be many inluperable Objedtions. It- is not only againft the Letter, but the very intent and defign of the Sacred Writ- ings. For not to mention, that Scripture no where tells us of two true, i. e. two ador- able, Gods, or of two religious Worihips Soveraign and Inferior ; the very end and defign of all the Texts, relating to the Unity, feems to have been to preclude in- ferior Gods, and Them efpecially ; there being lefs danger of Men's running into the Notion of many Sufremes. Befides the general drift and purport of thofe Texts, there are fome particular Texts ftill more exprefs and decifive. The7'e is no God be^ fore me, fays the one God, neither Jhall there be any after me : And yet every in- ferior God muft be after the Supreme *. * Quis ergo Hoc dicit, Pater an Filius ? Si Filiusj ante me^ inquit, non fuit alius Deus: Si Pater, poft me, inquit, non erit: Hic priorcm, llle pofteriorem non habet. Ambrof, de Tid. 1. I. c. 8. p- 4f4. The iz6 The Divine Unity Serm.lV. The Gods that have not made the Hea- vens and the Earth, even They jhall ferijh from the Earth, Jerem. lo. ii. And yet it is never to be fuppoled that any in- ferior God can be Creator, which is the 'diftinguiihing Charadler of the ont fupreme God: conlequcncly every inferior God ^d\\-perijh and come to nothing. *Berttles, every tJiferior God muft, of Courfe, be fiippofed a Creature of the great God: But St. Tatil has exprefly caution'd us againft ferving the Creature more than (or befides) the Creator, and againft ferving thofe that by Nature are no Gods. Farther than this, it is as clear as Words can make it, that x\\(t great God has claim'd to Himfelf all Sacrifice, without Diftinition of Sove- raign and Inferior, our ivhole religious Service, and whole Confidence \. To fup- pofe the contrary, would have been to leave room for the greaceft Confufion in Worfliip imaginable, and would not have been the way to root out, but to eftablifii Idolatry. Add to this, that the Diftindtion of a twofold Senfe in the Word God, will not help us our of the Difficulty : becaufe » Aoy(^ 1/jUfTu^nu.i.. — F> tj? iv fJtjtTK T 0£ov l?7, >c72OT5 tStt, >^ ii ©£05, ;2!^:/, T ii^niMiv»}v £yg/.^£7T5tf. Gfcg. Ny IT. Contr. Eunom- 4. p. j-yf. * 5pe Cudworth'i Comment en this Text. p. $45' t Sec my Vindication of Chri/t's Divinity, Qu. 16. wc Serm . IV . Stated and Clear' d. \tj we have all the Reafon in the World to be- lieve that Another Perfon, befides the Fa- ther, is called God, in the lame Senfe, in the fame Scriptures ; and therefore this So- Imion of the Difficulty will not bear ; but we muft, of Courfe, look out for Atia- ther. 1. The other way then, is, to fuppoft that the exclufiue Terms of One, Only, or the hkt, may admit of fome Latitude of Conflru(9:ion j and that,, lb long as the full intent and meaning of the Declarations of the Unity is in this way anfwer'd, all is Safe and Secure. That this is the very Truth of the Cafe, I fliall now proceed to fliow at large. God the Father may be, and is, very rca- fonably and juftly filled the one or only God, without excluding every other Per- fon ; particularly, without excluding the Son from the one true Codhead. It is a Rule and Maxim, and may be proved by many Inflances iu iacred, and profane Writings, that excltijive Terms are not to be inter- preted with the utmoft Rigour, fo as to leave no Room for tacite Exceptions, fuch as Reafon and good Senfe will f:afily fijp- ply. It may be fometimes neediefs or im- pertinent ii8 77j^ Divine Un IT Y Sertn.IV. pertinent to mention every Exception ; and often wifer, or better, net to do it, but to leave them to the intelligent Reader. Thus, for inftance, it is laid: No one hioweth the Father but the Son, and no one knoweth the Son but the Father , {^Matt,\\. zj.) If we fliould here interpret | the exclujive Terms with the utmoft flrid:- nefs, it muft follow that the Father docs not know Himfelf, nor the Son Himfelf But lio Man of common Senfe can think fo of Either ; and therefore there was no occafion for any further guard or exception. So again, it is (aid, that the Things of God knoweth no one but the Spirit of God. (i Cor. z, II.) as before Cm Matt. ii. 27.) No one knoweth the Father but the Son. Now, if we underftand the exclujive Terms with the utmoft ftridnefs, it muft follow from one paftage, that the //(^/yG/:?^^? knows more of the Father than the Son does; and from the other, that the Son knows more of the Father than the Holy-Ghoft does; which are propofitions direcStly re- pugnant. But the Truth is ; here was no oppofition intended to Son, or Holy-Ghoft, in either place; but ro Creatures only. In Serm. IV. Stated and Clear' d. 119 In like manner it is ftid, in the Reve- lations, of the Son of God, chat He had a Name written that no one (bJ^!?) knew but He Himfelf\ (Revel. 19. ix.) which, if the exclufive Term is to be ffriftly un- derftood, makes the Father Himielf igno- rant of what was known to the Son. St. Taul jays, I determined not to know any thing among jou.fave Jefiis Chrift and Him crucified, iCor.x.x. If thisberigoroufly interpreted up to the Letter, St. Taul mud have been contented to be ignorant of God the Father, and of many the moft impor- tant Articles of the Chriftian Religion. But Vi is obvious to common Senfe, that fiich ExprefTions are to be qualified both from the Reafon of the Thing, and from other Scriptures. Thefe Inftances are fufficient to fhow that exchifive Terms miy , and in fcveral Cafes muft, admit of a favourable Conftrudtion. Now to come to the Point in Hand. I iliall flrft iliow diredly and plainly, that God the Son vvas not intended to be excluded at all, by the Texts which proclaim the Father the one God'^ and, next, give fome Reafbns why there was no Occafion to make a[ny particular Exception, or Salvo , on that Account; or why it was better not K t© 130 The Divine Unity Serni.lV. to do it. Firft, let us compare Texts with Texts. Ifa. 44. 24. we read thus.. / am the Lord that maketh allThings, that jiretch- eth forth the Heavens alone, and f^read- €th abroad the Earth, by my felf. Now here, according to the Rigour of Conftru- d:ion, one fliould fuppoie the Father (if it is indeed to be underftood of the Father^j to have been by Him felf, when He made the World ; and that no other Perfon had any Hand in Creating, or was fo much as with Him, when He did ir. And yet cer- tain it is from other Scriptures, as 1 have fliown formerly , that God the Son was not only with Him, but afTi fled alio in the Work of Creation. But it was needleis for the Prophet to take any notice of the Son's concern in it, while He was only confider- ing the trtte God in Oppofiiion to other Gods ; befides that the Time was not yet come for the diftincSt and clear Revelation oi God the Son. So again, we find it faid, probably in refpedt of the Father, Thou only knowefl the Hearts of all the Chil- dren of Men, ( I Kings 8. 39.) and it is not faid. Thou only knowefl originally, or in the moft perfect manner, but Thou only knoweft, /imply and abiolutely. And yet evident Serm. IV. Stated and Cleared. 131 evident it is, from other Places of Scripture, that not the Father only, but the Son ahb mull: Then have known the ftearts of all the Children of Men *; and it may be cer- tainly inferred from his being Creator of all Men from the Beginning. We read (Pf 83. 18.) Thou, whofe Name alone is Jehovah, fuppofed to be meant of God the Father. If the exclufive Term is There to be rigoroufly underftood, no other Perfon but the Father has the Title or Name of Jehovah. And yet certain it is, from other Scriptures, that the Son is Another Perfon, and that the Name Jehovah is alfb his Name. But it was necdiels, or would have been foreign, to have inferted any particular Caution or Exception, while the Tfalmift was confideringonly the true God, in Oppoficion to other Gods, or to the Gods of the Nations. God the Father (probably) fays, (ira.43.11O !•> ^'^^^^ I am the Lord, and befides me there is no Saviour : And yet no Man of Senfe that reads the Bible can believe that the intent was to exclude cur Blejfcd Saviour, from being properly fuch, as well as the Father. It is faid alfo, (If. 2. 11, 17.) that the Lord iXont Jhall b<: exalted in that Day. Sup- * Joh. 2. 24.. Joh. 16. 30. Ads 1. 14. Hcbr. 4. i «• /:k'd w^hy there might not have been added, ex- cept my Son and Holy- Spirit, or fome o- rher favu3g Ciaufe of like Kind ? To this it may be anfwer'd. I. That it was needlefs. a. That it might have been hurtful. I. It was needleis. None of thofe De- clarations concerning the ^nitj of God^ and the Worfliip due to God alone, were made at the Beginning, or before Idolatry was grown into Pradxice. Their Intent and Defign was to be a remedy againfl: it, and to root it out of the World. Thofe Declarations were then jp underftood, as it was intended They lliould be, in oppofi- tion to all Other Gods, all that were plain- ly oppofite to, or different from the one ^od of Ifrael, Thus the End of them tvas fully anJvver'd; and there was no Oc- cafioa Serin. IV. Stated and Cleared, 135- cafion explicircly to mention the Perfon of the SoUy before the proper Time came to reveal his diftind: Perlbn and Charader, fully and clearly to the World. After He was come, it was dill as needkfs to infert any fiich laving Claufes; becaufe the re- vcaiiug his Nature, and Charadler, and per- Ibnal Perfections, was equivalent thereto, and were ineerpretatively fo many qualify- ing Claufes or Exctprions ; The reafon of the Thing fliowing that He muft be fup- pofed, as included always, without zny Jpe- cial Provilb for it. Thus, for Inftance, If the Father claims all Worfliip, Homage, and Adoration, to Hirafelf, becaufe Je- hovah, becaufe Creator, Sitjiainer, and Treferver of all Things; and if it ap- pears afterwards, that the Son alfo is Je- hovah , Creator , Siiftainer , and Tre- ferver of all Things, it is manifeft that the Worfliip of the Son comes within the Reafon, Intent, and Letter of the Law about Worjbip"^ and therefore it cannot, by any Man of Senie, be luppofed to ex- clude Him from it. There is no need of any Jpecial Salvo to include a Perfon, whom Parity of Reafon Ihows to be included of Courfe. So if it is faid, that the Father is the only God, or Lord, with- out any cxprefs Caution 01 Salvo ^ we might K 4 be 1^6 T/:?*? Divine Unit Y Serm.IV. be apt ro think it fomewhat ftrange to hear of any other Perlon who is God and Lord alio: But when we find that this other Perfon is fo nearly related, as a Son to a Father ; that He and his Father are one ; that He who Xiqls feen one, has therein /^^» the other alfo ; that He is in the Bofom 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 foever the Father doth, Thofe alfo doth the Son hkewife : When we find Them reprefenred as one Temple, (Rev.2i.22.)and as having but oneThrone, (Rev.2x.i.) and making one Lights (Rev. 2:^.x3.) and that He is in the Father, and the Father in Him : When we obferve the fame Titles, the fame Operations, the lame Attributes, the fame Glory, ^c. afcrib'd to Both in Holy^Scripture : When thefc and the like Confiderations have been duly Weigh'd, muft it not look ftrangely imper- tinent to demand any Exception, or /fecial Salvo, as often as the Father is ftiled the only God? The Scriptures ftppofe Men to have the ufe of their Realon, and that therefore there was no need to make ex- prefs mention of the Son, whenever the Father is declared to be the only God-^ Fa- ther apd Son being fo much one, that affert- Serm.IV. Stated and Cleared. 137 aflcrring it of Either, is implicitely afiert- ing the lame of Both *. And hciice it may appear. 2. That particular Exceptions and Cau- tions in this Cafe, were not only needlcfs, but might have been hurtful. Had the frji Comm'andment run thus; Thou flialr have no other Gods bcfides me, except my Son, it had been plainly making the Son Another God f, which was not the intent of Scripture, nor fuitable to the Truth and Realbn of the Thing. The Union and Intimacy between Father and Son is fuch, that They are not two Gods, bur 07te God, This was the Idea which Scripture was to infinuate along with the Diftindion of Per- Ibns, and which it has every where care- fully kept up. What may be thought an OmiJJion in the Cafe, is really an Advan- tage \ and the want of an Exception in re- fped: of God the 45"^?;/, or Holy- Ghojt, is an Argument to us that their Unity is too ftridt and intimate to admit of it, TTort T TTUTtecC, "OWTT ^ S X(567Z^ ^tViV i| XuTCV TTpQ^iOf/jiVfi TTVl'J- fjbui<^ , yc/jt I'^v i'jiov ecCroZ, ucTTn^ ^ci o uTrav ccv^ctii'Trov , W, Ci TTPCTTnOVKOTU fJ-iiV UnB-fUTTDV OCTniTlMT, iv. CVOVJU Jf, ^KiTl' xic-ni rov T(nv, g:c. Cyril. Alex- Contr. Julian, 1.8. p. 2(14. f Atquin fi nominadet ilium, Scpjraflet, ita dicenSj, Alius prxtcr me non eft, nifi Filius meus- Alium enini etiam Fi- lium fecifiTet, quern de aliis cxcepiiTct. Ten. Vrax. c. 18. 138 7'^(? Divine Unity Serm. IV. A late * Writer, upon thefe Words, in Deuteronomy , /, even /, am He\ and there is no God izith me : (Deut. 31. 39.) obferves that it is not fa id, except it be in the fame EfciK^c, buc abjolutely, there is no God, He might have obfcrved alio, that it is not laid, except it be in Sub^ ordination to me , or , except fuch in- ferior Gods as are by my Appointment ^ hut abfolutely, there is no God. To an- fwer more diredly; It is very true that Scripture has not mention'd any fuch Ex- ception, becaufe it would have been im- proper, not to fay abfurd, to do it. The defign was to teach us that there is no 0- ther God, befides the God of Ifrael. Had He faid there is no other God, except it be in the fame Ejfence, it had been the iame as to fay, there is no other God, ex- cept 07ie, who is not another God. But the Objedor here luppofes that two divine Per- fons, in the fame EfTence, are two Gods, which is fiippofing the Thing in Queftion. The contrary appears from this very Text. For let us admit that it was laid, in the Perfon of the Father, /, even /, am He ; and there is no Gtrd with me : it is certain that God the Son was Then with Hitn, and that He was God before the * M$de^ PUa, &c p. 1 3 J. Founda- Serin. IV. Stated and Cleared. 139 Foundation of the World, J oh. 1.1, And yet there was 710 God, that is, no other God with Him, as appears from this Text : conlcquently the Son is not another God, but the fame God ; and 'therefore two divine Perfons having the fame Effence, (as we are able to prove thofe Two to have) are not two Gods, but one God. I have hitherro been obferving the Scripture-manner of Ipeaking, in this Ar- ticle of the 'Vnity, aiid have fliown how cafy it is to account for it, upon Catholick Principles. 1 ihall juft take notice farther, that the primitive Writers of the Church follow the fame Stile exadtly. We ihall frequently find Them giving the Title of one, or only God, to the Father, in fuch a manner, that if we look'd no farther, we n:kighr be apt to imagine that They thought of no other Perfon's being God bur the Fa^ ther. And yet perhaps, within a few Pages, or Lines, we fliall meet with as full and ftrong Exprellions of the T)ivmity of the Son, as any are, or can be ; that He is God, true God, God of the Jews, and the like. Theie feeming Contrarieties they fometiraes leave without any Guard or Ex- phcation, preluming that no Chriftian, who had been but tolerably inftruded, could midake 140 The Divine Unity Serm. IV. miftake the meaning. At other Times, up- on occafion. They are more particular and cxplicite, lliowing how reconcileable and perfectly confiftent with each other, thele Things are. They give us to underftand that the exelufive Terms affed' not the Son at all ; that they are often meant in oppofition to Idols only ; that at the moft they exclude only other Gods, and not the Son, who is the fame and * not another God, nor indeed another Perfbn in fuch a Senfe as feparate divided Perfons are other Perfons. They are diflin^ only, not feparate \ and therefore, in a qualified Senfe, the Son is very felfoi the Father, as Ire- nans exprefTes it, and as later Fathers, 2aao5 ecLVToSy alter Idem, or, alius Idem, another Self, another Same; diftind: and yet not different, one with the Father, and undivided from Him. From thefe and the like Hints and Illuftrations, we eafily un- derfland what either the antient Creeds, or primitive Church - Writers mean by ftiling * Igitur.unus Deus Pater, & ^//«f nbfque eo noneft: quod jpfe info ens, non Filium negat, fed Alium Deum. Cseterum jitius a Patre FiliUs non efl. Tert. Contr. trax. c. 18. p. 5-10. Non ergo Alius erat qui cognofcebatur. & Alms qui dicebat vpw cognefcit Patrem, kd unus 6c Idem, omnia fubjiijiente ei Patre, & ab omnibus accipicns Teftimoniuni quoniana vere HQaio> &v vere Dcus. Iven* p. 234. 155, the Serm. IV. Stated and Cleared. 14T. the Father, the one, or on/y God ^ ; a Title which they lometiraes apply to the Sou alio, but feldom, and iparingly. The Rea- fbn is this: The Father is, as it were, the Top of Unity, the Head and Fountain of all : He is Firil: in our Conception of God, and therefore whether we (peak of the Al- mighty God, or the Eternal God, or the All- knowing God ( and the Reafon is the fame for the only God, %)nitj being an At- tribute of the Godhead hke Omnipotence, Eternity, &c. ) we primarily and princi- pally mean the Father, tacitely including the other two Perfons. * It is Tvoyth obfervingi ho-a> little Strefs the Antlents la'ti upon the exclusive Terms. Clemens Alex, calls the Son the only Judge, p. 99. and only God^ p. 84. Origen calls the Son the only Lord* Contr. Celf. p. 589. Cynil o/Jerufaleoi calls Him the only Krag, p. 125. Eufebius underftands^ Pf. 86« 10, God alone, 0-c. and If, 44.. 24. Tohere it is [aid, that He ftrctcheth forth the Heavens ALOKE, of God the Son. Bartuh 2 3f- This is our God, and there fhall none other be accounted of in Comparison of Him, is by Cyprian {Te(i. 1.2. c.C') and by Laftantius (£/>//• />• 116.^ underjiood of God the Son : as it is alfo by the later Fathers in g.eneral. Micah 7. 18. Who is a God like unto Thee, ©(2. is alfo by eariy Writers, under flood of God the Son. So alfo Ifa. 44.6. and Ifa. 45-. 14, 15-. See my Defenfe, ^s, Nojp, had the Antients acknowledged any fuch Force of the cxclufjve Terms, as is infijied on by fome Moderns, the Father Himjelf mtifl have been ' thereby excluded from being Judge* Lord, King, or God. This x^z The Divine Unity Serm. IV. This is more decent, proper, and (uit- able than to have fix'd thefe Names, Titles, or Attributes princi'pally upon either of the other two Perfons, tacitely including the Father. The Nature of Language and Cu- ftoraary way of fpeaking required that They Ihould be thus gaierally fix'd upon one of the Perfons, and we are dircded to which by the very Name of Father, denoting fbme kind of Priority of Order, {\\z\\ as we cannot perfed:ly underftand ; but a confufc, general Perception of it, is fufficient to all the purpofes of Faith, or Worfhip. la ftricftnefs, the one God x'^ the whole 7V/>/i()/; But we muft be content to fpeak as the Cu- ftomary ufe of Language will bear. Our Ideas of Perfon are plainly taken from our Conceptions o^t Humane Perfons, and from them transferred to ocher Subjeds, tho' they do not ftridly anfwer in every Cir- cumftance. Properly fpeaking, He, and Him, are no more applicable to a divine Perfon, then She, or Her: but we have no third way of denoting a Perfon ; and fb of the two, we chufe the Beft, and Cuftom familiarizes it to us. In like manner, when we would ipeak of God, we have but three ways of exprcffing our Thoughts, and none of them without fome Inconvenience. To fay, It^ or That, meaning That Thing, or Serm. IV. Stated and Cleared. 145 or Subftancc, would ibund low and fl;ar ; and it is the way of ipeaking wloich wc have, in a manner, appropriated to in- animate or irrational Beings : To fay He-i or Him, ordinarily * carries in it the Idea of one ^Perfon only, and is there- fore inconvenient on that account, as not taking in all that we apprehend of the one true God : To fay, 77?^, or Them, would appear as if the Perfons were divided and /ej?arate , like other Perlbns, and might lound as if the three Perfons were three Gods. Of thofe three Ways, the beft and leaft OfFenfive is That which has been gene- rally taken, as well in Scripture, as in Ec- clefiaftical Writings : which is to fay, He^ * I fay ordinarily, not conftantly : And therefore the Argu- ment drawn from the perfonal CharaBen, I, Thou, Thee, He. Him, applied to God, is very weak, a?td inconclufive againfl n. plurality of Verfom. We often find, in Scripture, the perfonal Characters of Thou, Thee, He, Him, applied to a whole Fa- mily, Tribe, or People colleclively confidered, (See Exod. 15. 5,7,9,11,15. Numb, 22. ^, 6. — !?• 9' Deut. i. 21, 3 i. —4.9, 10.— II. 15. — 18. 2. Jofh, 17.15. 1 Sam. 15. 3.) Andi at other Times, we find fome Things applied to the Head of a 'Family, which belong not JlriBly to Him alctie, hut to Him and his whole Seed, (See Gen. 11.2, 3 — i 5. 17.— 18. 1 8. — 48. 1 9, 20, — 49. 4, 8, ^c.) Why then may not the liks Exprejfions le ufed of God the lather, the Head and Fountain of the other two divine Ferfons, which yet flricHy ar^ not to be underjlcod of Him alone, but of Him confidcred witlj-his Son and Holy-Spirit, who are infinitely more united to ffifii'^ than any earthly Progeny is, or can be, to their Heed ? . This Argument is a Fortiori, and there is more -^an Parity of Reafon to be pleaded in favour of this manner of fpeaking, with Relation to the Ferfons of the undivided Trinity. or 144 7"^^ Divine Unit Y Serm.IV. or Him, fpeaking of God, and meaning ic of one Terfon, principally, yet not ex- cluding^ buc tacitely comprehending the other Two, as partakers of the fame God- head. And fioce it was thus neceflary to fix upon one Terjon, who Ihould be primarily confidery as God , it mud of Courfc be the Father, who revealed his own 'Perfon firft to the World, and was known under that Charader before either the Son or Holy-Ghojt were diftindly and fully revealed ; who has ftill the Chara(3:er of Father^ as Head and Fountain of all, and is generally firft in our Conception , when w^e fpeak of God ablblutely, without particularly fpecifying any Perlbn of the Godhead. Yet 1 muft obfcrve to you , that it is far from being certain that the Father\ or any particular Pcrfon , is al- ways meant, whenever the Word God is ufed abfolurely in Scripture. For, as I be- fore hinted, no good Reafon can be given why the Word God, may not be uled in a large indefinite Senfe, not denoting any particular Perfbn, juft as the Wov(\,Man is often uled in Scripture, not denoting any particular Man, buc Man in general, or Man indefinitely. {Gen. 6. 37. —8. 21. —9.6. ^eut.S.S' 1 Sam. 16. J. Job ^, 17. -5. 7* Tfal.$6, II. -78.25:. -90. 3. -118. Serm. IV. Stated and Clear" d. 14$- 16. 8. Hof. II. 9. Matt, 4 4. Z/2^y&. 4. 4. Zf/^ 18.4. \Thef.^%. iTiTn.-L.s. Tit.^.^) As rhe Word iV/^/;/ iomerimcs ftands for the whole Species ; foaiennies indefinitely for any individual oi iht Species, without de- termining which ; and fornerimes for this or that particular Man ; So, by way of Ana- logy, or imperfed: Relemblance, the Word God may Ibmetimes fignify all the divine Perfonsj Ibmcrimesany Perfon of the Three indefinitely , without determining which ; and fomctimes one particular Perfon, either Father, Son, or Holy-Ghoft. From what hath been faid, 1 am willing to hope, we may now fufficiently underftand, in what Senfe, and under what Reftricftions , the Father is fet forth in Scripture or Anti- quity, as the One or Only God. I pro- ceed now. II. To confider, v/hatwe may realbnably and fairly infer from the Scripture-Declara- tions of the ^nity. Of this very briefly $ that 1 may not trefpafs (as I fear I already have) too long upon your Patience. I. We may certainly infer from Them, that They abfolutely exclude all Rival, or Anti - Gods , fee up in oppofition to God the Father ; confequently all L Idols, 146 The Divine UNitY Scrm.lV. Idols, and all the Gods of the Heathen* Nations. X. We may farther infer, that They do as certainly exclude all liich Gods as the MarcioniteSy or Others, pretended to be befides, or Superior to, the Creator and God of IfraeL 3. We may alfo reafonably infer, that They exclude all Things, or Perlbns what* foever, that are fe^arate from, or al'tene to ; that are not neceflarily included in, and comprehended with , God the Father : Briefly, They exclude all other Gods; Confequently , They exclude all Crea- tures : For fmce all Creatures 2xt fojlerior in Time, and different in Nature, They are adventitious,^ and extraneous -^ They are not neceffarily included in God the Father ; He was without them, and may be again, if He pleafes ; If they are Gods, in any Senfe, they are other Gods, not the fame God with God the Father ; and fo (land ex- cluded from having the Name or Title of God, in any proper or religious Senfe ; and from receiving any kind, part, or degree of our religious Homage, Worfliip, or Adoration. Socinians and Arians have fplit upon this Absurdity, fuppofing the Son to Scrm. IV. Stated a7td Cleared. 147 to be a Creature only, and yet receiving Him as God, Another God befides the Father; which is Tolytheifm and Gen- t'tlifm, condemned by Scripture, and all Catholick Antiquity: The vfri^;^j, Antient and Modern, have appeared fo fenfible of it, that they never durft bpenly profefs it ; being reduced to this hard, and truly piti- able Cafe, to receive, in reality, into their Creed, what They are alhamed to exprcfs in Terms *. They are ufed to infift much upon the Force of the exclujive Terms, when they have a mind to exclude the Terfon of the Son from being one God with the Father. But they intirely forget that the exclujive Terms have any force at all, when they imagine that they do not fo much as ex- clude Creatures from being Gods, but leave * Confequens eft, inquam, ut aut non colatis Chriftum, aut non unum Deum colatis fed duos. Ad hoc Tu refponder* conatus, multum quidem locutus es, afferens quod 8c Chriftum 'Deum colatis : ^z^ dnoi Deoi a vobis coli, quamvis non nega- vcris, tamcn non aufus es coiifiteri. Senfifti enim, duos Deos ejfe colendoi, Chriftianas auies ferre non pofle. O quara de proximo Te corrigercs, fi timeres credere quod dicere timu- ifti ! cum cnim clamec Apoftolus, corde creditur ad jujiitiatny ore confejjio fiat ad Salutem : Si ad jujlitiam pules pcrtinere quod credis, cur Hoc ad Salutem etiam ore non confiteris"^ Si au* tcm duos Deos colendos ad Salutem non pertinet confiteri, fine dubio ncc ad jujl'ttiam pertinet credere, Vid, Auguftin, Contr. Maxim. /. i. />» 677, 678. L 2 room 148 The Divine Unity Serin. IV. room for other Gods, for t^ujo Cods, or three Gods, and as many Objeds of Wor- ship. Thus they appear 10 Jirain at a Gnat while they C3in fwallow a Camel 1, and ufe Arguments againft the Catholicks , which recoil more ftrongly upon Themfelves. They are forc'd, in their Turn *, to plead that the exclnfive Terms are intended chiefly m oppofition to Idols and Falfe- Gods ; and that they do nor exclude Cbr'ift from being true God, and true Object of Worlhip: Which is unfaying all rhat they had before afTerted, and is unravelHng their own Argument, fo far as concerns the bare necefTary Force of the exclufive Terms. For if They do not exclude Creatures, {Strangers znA Aliens, in comparifon) from being true Gods, much Icfs can They be fuppofed necefTarily to exclude God's own Son, of the fame Nature, and Duration, and Perfections with Himfelf (if the Thing be pofliblej from being true God with Him, and 07te God with Him. This then muft be argued from other Topicks, and not from any iuppofed necefTary Force of the exclu- five Terms. To conclude, we may ob- ferve that Scripture, and Antiquity often tell us of God and God, but never of two * See Clarke's Re fly, p. $0,6^- Vid. 8v Crell. de uno Deo Patre, Seft. i, c,i, Gods ; Serrn. IV. Stated ana Cleared, 149 Gods ; Creator and Creator, but never two Creators ; Saviour and Saviour, but never two Saviours ; Lord and Lord, but never two Lords \ Judge and Judge, but never two Judges-^ King and King, but never two Kings. Thefe Things are cafily ac- counted for upon Catholic k Principles: Fa- ther and Son are one Creator, one Saviour^ one Lord, one 'Judge, one King, and one God, becaufe their Operations. Attributes, Powers and Perfections, (and confequently the Subftance of Both) are One. To Fa- ther, Son, and Holy-Ghoji, all Honour and Glory he now and forever. Amen, L 3 The 150 Chris t'8 Divinity proved from his Coequality with the Father. O R Equality of Christ WITH THE FATHER. The fifth Sermon preached Jan. 6. 17^. Phil. II. 5,6,7,8,9,10,11. Let this mind be in you, which was alfo in Chrift Jefiis : who being in the Form • of God, thought it not Robbery to be equal with God\ but made Himfelf of no Reputation, and took upon Him the Form of a Servant, and was vtade in the Ukenefs of Men: And being found in fajhion as a Man, He humbled Himfelf, and became obedient unto T^eath, even the "Death of the Crofs, Wherefore God alfo hath highly exalt- id Him, and given Him a Name which is Serm. V. Equality of Christ, ^c. iji is above every Name, that at the Name of Jefus every Knee jhouid bow, of Things in Heaven, andThings in Earthy and Things under the Earth ; ojid that every Tongue fl?ould confefs that Jefus Chrift is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father. THERE have been great Difputes be- tween the Catholicks and Arians, about this Paflage : Both fides claim- ing it as their own, and as directly favour- ing their refpedtivc Principles. They have Neither of Them been content to be on the T>efenjive only, in rcfpc(3: of This, as in feveral other Texts; but, interpreting the Words differently, and taking them un- der contrary Views, They urge them againft each other, and appeal to them as decifive Both ways, according to their refpedive Tenets and Perfwafions. My defign is to inquire carefully into the meaning of fb re- markable a Palfage, and to fix it, where it ought to lie, on the Catholick fide. It will be proper to take along with us the Scope and Intent of the Apoftle in it, as a Jure Mark to dired: us to the true and genuine Senfe of it. The two Verfes immediately preceding thofe of the Text, run thus : Lit nothing be done through Strife and L 4 Vam* x^z Equality q tc7ntt/^.(riAJX t p^a^otxTTjf, Origen* Contr* Cclf. p. 342. is Sierm. V. with the ¥ at her, 15-5' is a farther Confirmation that thole Exprcf- fions of Image, or Form of God, relate to Chrift's Sonjhif or Filiation, whereby He is, as it were, the exadt Copy or Rcfcmblance of God the Father, in refped: of his divine Nature, being as truly GodofGod^ in That Capacity, as He is Man of Man, in Another. ThuiS, as before faid, the Ante-Nicene as well as Toft-Nicene Writers underftood the Thrafes of Chrift's being the Image of God, and exprefs Image of his Hypojfajis : And not only fo, but the very Words of the Text, his being /// the Form of God, were by Them * believed to fignify his be- ing God, or God of God, or Son of God*, Compare the parallel ZxpreJJioru in the jlpocryphal Book cf Wifdem. 'Aryji^ r?5 too Qiou a^jvuyjfoi^' ocynjifoiic r^t; tow Tnx.vTvxfj^re^oi taZ ®gow CMi^yncct^' liKUv rv5$ «ip^3-077jTT^ ccwtow, C.J. V. 25j26. * iEque non erit Deus Chriflus vere, fi nee Homo vcrc fuit 171 effigie Hominis confticutus — quod fi in effigie & ima- gine, qua Filius Pa;ris, vere Dei praedicatus eft, etiam in efii- gie £c imagine Hominis, qua Filius Hominis, vere Homincm mventum. Tertul. Comr. Marc. 1. ^. c io, p. 486. 'O fjjovoyivvi'i row ©few Ac-y©-, 0e«$ "ccz oc^')(^c>!v dv, ©sew, xix.ivay,i) iccvTtv, 8cc. Hippolytus, Vol. 2. p. 19. Fabric. Ed. G«C5 fjjiv KivaoTcc. ixvroy cCTn toZ uvxj tszcQio). Conc. Antioch, Labb. Vol i. p. 84,8. 'H it f/jop(pYi rod &iou, (c Aoyos fJt^ir' ecdr^ 0£o§, }^ 'ijas Qiv, Dionyf. Alex. Contr. Paul- Samofat. p. 855. Labb. Quamvis efTer in Forma Dei, non eft rapinam arbitratus sequdiem fe Deo cflc, Quamvis enim fe ex Deo Patre Deum cfie meminiflet, nunquam ^c» Kovat. de Trin. c 17, Ipfe a Patre e.xakatus lit, quia fe in Terris Sermo & Virtus» All 1^6 Eqijality ^ Christ Serm.V.' All amounting to the fame Thing. This Conftrudtion agrees alfo perfedlly well with the Context, which no other does. For the Phrafe of fiop(p^Y JVa» XolQcov^ taking up- on Him the Form of a Servant, is plainly D^.eant of his taking upon Him Humane Nature^ becoming thereby a Servant of God in that Capacity. The Apoftle Him- felf interprets the Form of a Servant, by the Words immediately following ci 'oixom- ficLTi cLv^pco^eav ytvo/xt^sy that is, being made in the likenefs of Man *^ which is the fame with being really and truly Man: being in the Form of Man, as Son of Man, in like manner, as He was before laid to have been in the Form of God, as Son of God, The * Antients have conftantly interpreted the Form of a Servant, in the Senfe which I have mentioned. Humane Nature was that Form of a Servant, which our Lord aflumed, and He became a Servant, by becoming Man. The Conftruftion then now given of the Words, cV /Wop(p^ 0ev, be- & Sapientia Dei Patris humili'avit. Cypr. de Unit at. IxcU p. iiS. Ox. The Sentiments of Poft-Nicene lathers are well knoicn, and nead not be mention'd. * Hcrm. Paftor. Simil. f. c. 2. Clem. Alexandr. p.'ifi. Origen. in Joh. p. 54. Hippolyt. Vol. 2. p. %, 5, 19. Novat. c. 17. Eufcb. in Pfalm. p. 616. Hilar, in Pfal. p. jif. Ed. Bened. Athanaf. Orat. I. p. 447. Edit. Bened. Cyril. Hierofol. p. 322. Ed. Ox. in g 1 Serm.V. with fhef at hek. i^y ing agreeable to the Context, as well as to the literal Grammatical Signification of the Words ; and being befides countenanc'd by parallel Places of Scripture, and received by the Anticnts in general, it is certainly preferable to any other ; and we need not look out farther for a Meaning, when wc have fb great realbn to believe that this is the true, and the only true one that can be allign'd. Yet I mud not conceal from you, that there is another Interpretation, w^hich has been taken up of Jare, and much contended for by fome of the Arian Per- fvvafion. I mud obferve to you, in the way of Preliminary, that all the Appear- ances of God, under the Old Teftamenr, were fuppoied by the Anrients to have been in, and by God the Son. It was He that called Himfelf God of Abram, Ifaac and Jacob, and all along headed and condudied the People of the Jein.'s. This Notion, lb far, is juft, and the Fad: true, and it is of very good ule againft the Socinians e(pc- cially ; and , 1 may add , againft the Avians alio, when rightly underftood. But fome amongft us, miftaking this Matter, have been pleas'd to fpeak of thofe Appear- ances, or Tranfadions of the Son of God. as being little more than what any Angel or Archangel might have been capable of fuftain- 158 Equality ^/Christ Serm.V. fiiftaining. They call it ferfonating God. ading m his Name ^ and fpeaking his Words. And thus they underftand that our Lord was, before his Incarnation, ci ixo^^y) 0€oii, in the Form of God, being God's Legate, Vicegerent, or Reprefen- tative. But againft this there he thefe following Objedions. I. That this Conftrudion of h ixo^qiy} 0g5, is perfecStly precarious. They cannot name any antient Catholick Writer that ever fb underftood it ; nor bring any parallel Text of Scripture to countenance it. 1. In the next place, the very Suppo- fition it felf of Chrift's perfonating God, in any fuch low Seofe, is a raeer Fancy and Fi(5i:ion,unrupported by Scripture or Catho- lick Antiquity. The primitive Writers who, fpeak of it, underftood that our BlefTed Lord did not barely perfonate God , but was Himfelf really God, and fpoke in his own Name, as well as the Father^ ; being Himfelf, Lord, and God, ^c. as Co-eter- nal and Co-cffential Son of the Father*. So that this Interpretation of Form of God, fo far as there is any thing of Truth in k, will at length refolve into the very fame W^hich I have before given. • See my Defenfc (^c, Qu. 2. p J+.d^. 3- Admit- Serm. V. with /^^ F a t h e r. \s9 3. Admitting, (but not granting) that God the Son pn-fonated the Father in any fuch low Senle as is pretended, (Tho* our Adverfaries cannot ihow, that He ever faid, / am God the Father, as He might have faid, upon their Hyfothejts ; which is worth obferving) yet That cannot be the meaning of h fJiop(p'^ 0g5 in the Text ; for this plain Realbn : Becaule St. Taul going about to magnify the great Condefcenfion of God the Son, from the higheft Pinnacle of Glory (if I may fo Ipeak) to the lowed Inftance of Contempt and Ignominy, would certainly begin with the mention of what He was in his higheft Capacity. Now his ferfonating the Father is nothing lb Ho- ncfurable a Circumftance, as what St. John Ipeaks of in the firft Chapter of his Gofpel, or what St. It^atil himfelf has obferved. {Colojf, I. 15-, i(> ) His being God from the Beginning, and Maker of the Worlds are of much higher Import than fer/bnat- ing God, which any Angel might do, in fuch a low Senle as is here pretended. If then the Apoftle'% Argument did require that He fhould begin with the higheft In-* ftance of Perfedion belonging to the Son, and if there be really a higher than is con- tain'd in this Circumftance oi perfonating God (fuppofmg it any thing more than a Fi<9;ion) i6o Equality of Cukist Serm.V. Fidion) it is a Dcmonftration that St.T aul did not intend ci i^o^^^ .©eS, {in the Form of God ^ in any fuch^ low Senle, as would only leflen the Miracle of Chrift's Conde- fcenfion, and weaken the Force of The Apoftle's Argument. So much for This. Having fettled the meaning of the Phrafe, 6i> MOjOfpM ©ei, signifying as much as God of God, or eflentiaily 'Divine ; we may next proceed to the following Words : Thought it not Robbery to be equal with God. The Phrafe ^% cLpTCoLffiov iyWls, occurrs not any where elle in Scripture; nor, io far as I can find, in any profane Writer ; (for there is a Difference between apmiua and ;, admits of no conftrudtion fb * Sermo enim Detis, qui in effigie Dei conftitutus, non ra- pinam exiftimavit pariari Deo. TertulK p. 329- ^ Beus erat Sermo Hie ccrtc eft qui in effigie Dei con- ftitutus, non rapinam cxiftimavit efTc fe scqualem Deo. Uhi. p. 504. M nam- i6% Equality . 125. f Et bene qui dixit ipfum imrrenllim Patreir. in Filie menfuratuiTj: menilira eiiini Patris Filius» quoniam & capit eum. Iren, 1. 4. c. 4. p» ijT. Clem. Alex. p. 86. Ed. Ox. *^Iv*, iiKav uvTc^ Tvy^cifcoy rov uoPoir^ &isZ, j^ ci tzJ f/jzyi^i 2'iti TToc^ifueuv Tjjv siKc)f». Orig, Contr. Cclf. p* 323. got Serm.V. "ivith the Y at hv.k. 1^3 got over : It [^ frequent * for the Sacred Writers to have the Word aAAcl inrtead of cL\\'o/jia}$j fignifying howheit, or never^ thelejs : and io indeed our Tranflators fliould have rendered it here, agreeably to their rendring of the words preceding. I ihall orjve two or three Inftances out of St haul's own Writings, i Cor. 9. ix. If others be partakers of this Tower over you, are not we rather^ Neverthelefs (^clWo, in the Greek) we have not ufed this Tower, So again: Rom. 5-. 13, 14. Sin is not imputed when there is no Law: Neverthelefs {khKl2^g2i\n) "Death reign' d from Adam to Mofes. There is therefore no fufficient ground for laying afide this conftrudion on account of the f article ; which fnay, and often does fig- nily the fame as neverthelefs ^ howbeit^ not with fanding &c. Thus far I have beea pleading for That Senfc of the Words which appears in our Enghih verfion. The funa of the plea is : that it is literal and gram- matical , agrees with the oldeft Verfions, is countenanc'd by Tertullian in the begin- 164 Equality of Christ Serm.V. cing of the third Century, and by the Ca- ^/W/Vy^ Fathers in general * after the Nicene Council, is very pertinent to the Apoftle's Argument, and there's no objedion of weight from the Context againft it. If this con- ftrudion be admitted, the Apoftle's reafon- ing, fo far, will run thus. ** Who being ef- •' fentially God, as Son of God, knew that *' he was rightfully, and naturally equal •* with God, and could not be faid to u- " furp or arrogate in refped to what was ** his own. Neverthelefs he made himfelf *' of no repitatton, appearing and ading ** much below his Dignity, taking upon •• him Humane Nature, &c. It muft be own'd that fome of the Ante nicene wriiers interpreted the Words differently, f Ori- gen, underftanding the whole pafTage, as it * 7 may give cm or ttoo for a Specimen. Quid eft noa rapinam arbitrntus eft ejfc fe dqualem Deo ? Non ufurpavit sEqualitatem Dei, fed erat in ilia in qua natus eiat, Augufl. Trafi. in Joh» 1 7. Non quafi rapinam habebat 3Equalitatem cum Patre, quam in Subftantia lui, ranquam Deus & Dominus poflidcbar» Amir of, de Fid. 1.2. r. 8. Non alienum arbitratus eft, efte tjuod natus eft. Aug.Cortir. Max. />. 681. Manens cnim in Forma Dei, non vi aliqua fibi ac Rapina, id quod erat, prjefunaendum exiftimavit, fcilicet ut Deo eflet »qualis. Erat enim in Dei Forma, nihilque ei ex ejus gloria deerat, in cujus Forma manebat; fedFormam fcrvi fui per Humilitatem accepit, e^^r. Hilar, in Pfalm» p. 525. Ed. Bened. f Origen. in Joh, p. 34. 41 jj. He feems to be of the farm Oftnion in hit Buok againft Celfus, See p, 167,168,1 71.^ leems Serm.V. "jvith the Y \t\iie.k, i6$ leems, of the M^n Chriji Jefus , ( whofe SouL\\t fuppofed to have /r(?-^.v//?d'^) inter- prets the Phrafc, ^x h^^yf^^^ i^ymxro &c. ^/V not affume, or covet to be bojwured as *God. And this conftrudion he was led in- to, from this confiderarion, That«the Aoy>u or divine Nature of Chrifl: could not be capable of any proper Exaltation, Nova- rM«* underftands the palFage, of the Aoy©^, or "Divine Nature, and makes the Seufe to be, that Chnil did nor pretend to aq abfolute Equality with God the Father, con- fidering Himielf as fecond only, or as Son^ of the Father. The Churches of Lions and Vienne(m a Letter recorded hy ] Eufebius^ Teem to underftand it thus, That our Lord did not alTume to Himfelf, as he juftly might have done, to be honoured as God, bur, waved his Privilege, and declined all oftentation 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 Catholick Principles. Origen's, tho* fingular, is very fafe, for one that would be only upon the T>efen/lve, in rcfped of this Text, agaiiift the Arians. Novatian's may lerve either way, becaufe while he denies only fuch an * Novatian. de Trin. c. 1 7. t Eufcb. E. Hift. 1.5. c. a. M 3 Equality i66 Equality ^/Christ Serm. V. Equality as do Carholick contends for. He aflercs the true Equality of Nature between Father and Son*. The third Interpretation is too loofc and general to make any thing of, on either fide : Only this is obiervable' of them aU, That They conftrue the words »y ipTTcty/to;' iyWctTT) &c. not as a part of the preceding Lhara^ier of Chrijt'^ great - nefs, bur as part of the confequent Account of his Humiliation, fo far contrary to the Interpretation which 1 have before been pleading for. You may have obferved from what has been already hinted, that raking the words as a fart of the confequent Ac^ count of Chr'ift's Humiliation , they are ftill capajble of a very good meaning, and no way favourable, but comradidory to the * Phoebadius of the fourth Century, a z,ealotis Defender of the Catholick Docirme aga'mfi the Arians; yet fcruples not to inr terpret this Text nearly in the fame ivay -ufith Novarian. Hic Sermo, cum in Forma Dei ejjet. Sapient ia & ratione, 8: Spiritu§ ratione, & Spiritus viriute conftru'^ius, Hoc eft, totam vim Dei poflidens, non fe Deo Vatri aiUquavit, fed Tormam fer'vi accipiens humiliavit fe ufcfue ad mortem. In- duerat enim quod fervire, quod mori poflit. J'hcebad. Conlr, Arian. Bibl. Patr, Tom. 4. p. 304.. Cyril ^//a ;(TOt]o, ai part of the confc- qttent Account of Chnft's Hufmliation, 'O f/jiv yx.^ T o>.6?v (Tzurup ;^ Ku^io^, xxiroi f/jtrcv cturo) to cv TrrJs '^ B-i07rt'7r,(i hxQ^vvi^ B'UKOi^y cu^ ecpxxyfAov itytKru^ to iTvccf Irx ©««, aAA* kxvTvv 6cc. ^vril. Alex. Contr. Jul. 1« ^, p. i9f . •"' ' Arian Serm. V. with the Father. i6y Avian Hypothefis. For let the Senfe of tlje Paflage appear as follows. ** Who being enentially God, (and confe- *' quently having a rightful claim to bcHo- *' noured equally with God) yet did notco- '* vet or defire to be fo Honoured, did not *' infift upon his right, but for the great- '* er Glory of God, and for the good of *' others, chofe rather, (in the particular lu- ** ftance of his Incarnation) to WMve his '< pretenfions, and, in appearance, to re- '• cede from them. This way of Para- phrafing the Words, takes off the Objedtioa about the particle i\Aocj and anfwers to That Senfe of the Phrafe, iy^ cL^TtafyfJLov iyn- .oy^, cvoiv fA>i9 •7nx,^ei eltv '7m<^ei t? vZyjsCj »] y ^v^vi. ovyKcc^Qouvoiv J« occ. Origen, Contr. Cell, p. 170. Non aniittcns. quod erat, ^d accipiens quod non erat. uiufi. injoh. Traa. \1' ^ *E(ryjiy.(.vviv uCtoZ rvtv Jic'vjigi, Euleb. 1. I. Ct 15. Nam etfi Apoftolus femetipfum cxinanilTe dicit, Formam fervi fuicipicndo, non uticjue iic exinanitum accipimus ut ajiud quam quod fucrat idem Spiritus fieret: Scd ut fepofito interim Majeftatis fuse Honore, Humanum Corpus inducret, t|UO fufcepto, Salus Gentium fieret. Ut cnin? Sol cum nubc Form Serm. V. with the Father. 1^9 Form of God, by taking on him the Form of Man, No: He had the lame e\fent'ial Glory, the fame real dignity, which he ever had, but among Men concealed it; appear- ed not in Majcfty and Glory like to God, but devefted Himlelf of every dazling ap- pearance, and every outward mark of Ma- jefty and Greatncis, *condeicending ro ap- pear, and ad:, and convcrie as a Man, like unto us in all things. Sin only excepted. In this Senfe it is that our Lord emptied Himlelf He came not with any pomp and oftentation of Greatnefs, he laid afidc his Godlike Majefty, and diliobed Himlelf, as it were, of all outward Glories, becoming a, Man, a raiferable Man, and in that Na- ture, Suffering, Bleeding, and Dying for us. rcgltur, claritas ejus comprimirur, non cxcatur; £c Lumen iilud quod toto orbe diftufum claro Splendorc cundia per- fjndit, parvo admodiiiii obftaoulo nubis includitur, non au- ferrur: Sic & Hotno ille qiieni Dominus Jcfus Salvatorque noflcr, id eft, Deus , Deique Filius induir, Deum tamen in illo non interccpir, ^iid abicondit. Vjeud'Ambrof. de I'id, Orthodox c. 8. p« ^ff- Ed. Bened. * To cncyrzlfjsv t^ fiii^}\.uc6f))^ tbiJ 0£6u o Ky^to? YtJi*U)i XflfOi 'IvfircZt; cine ^A^v Iv n^v^Tra uXa.'Qinoui o\td% v:z;rtfri(Pcet:x^, KcifTrep uiiToZ s>,xX7i(nv. Clom Rom. Ep. c. l6. p.yo. i-JuvxTD- a,XX' vifAiuii ouaSAUTTOTe TO fjutyi^ti "V »b'^J;5 ocvTcZ /3«fat- ^jiv yihvuiJt.ijK. Iren. 1.4. c. ^8. p. 284,. OioJi'«f. Orig. in Joh. p. 413. Huet. yu9v§v¥x) &c. Hippolyt, Fragm. Vol. i. p. 2^. Fabric. the Serm. V. with the Father. 171 the Senfe before given, in relpcdl of the 2)/V///^ Nature oFChrifl:, For, z.s* Atha- nafius and other Catholicks well argue ia this cafe , How could He that was with God, and in the Bofom of the Father, be exalted, or become higher than he always was? How could the giver and diipcnler of all Graces^ receive any thing as a mat- ter of Grace or Favor ? How could he be Then laid to have attained the privilege of being adored, who had long before been a* dored boih by Men, and Angels? He who was God from the Beginning, who had Glory with the V^xhQx before the PForld was, who is Himfelf the Lord of Glory, and Crea- tor and Prefefver of all things, was infinite- ly too High, too Great, and too Divine, to receive any acceflion to his Dignity, any real increale either of Perfe(9:ion or Glory, Thus far is very right; and therefore if a proper Exaltation, in that Senle, be intend- ed, it can only be meant of Chrifl: as God- Alan, receiving thofe Honours and Titles, in his Human or Mediatorial Capacity, which he had always enjoy'd in another. And thus the f Antients, for the mod part, have underftood Chrift's Exaltation to be * Athanaf. Op. Tom. i. p. 4.4^*, &c. no ^j-L Equality ^Christ Serm.V. no more than a kind of new Invejiiture, upon his new and late Condefcenfion ; and his having thole Rights, Titles and Ho- nours 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 Fadt. But there is fome reafon to think that it is not precifely and accurately the meaning of this Text. For \i the Exaltation be meant only of the Httmane Nature, it \s more natural to fuppofe that St. Taul would not here have fpokcn of the Con- defcenfion of the Logos, but would rather have told us only what the Man Chrift Je- fus had done, how humbly anihow righte- oufly Chrift had deraean'd himfelf. in that Capacity, and how God had rewarded his fervices. And thus it is that * Hermas , ZnKcci $ix,ot> (reipyJq. Cyril. Alex. Thefaur. p. 130. Vid. etiam Greg. Nyfl'. Contr. Eunom. Orat. 5. p. 5-97, Athanaf. aliofque. ♦ Adhibito i^que Filio, quern carum & Haeredem habebat, 8c amicis quos in confilio advocabat, indicat ea qu*e Servo fko facienda niandafTct, quae prxterea Ille feciflct. At illi protinus gratulati funt Servo illi, quod tarn plenum Tefti- monium Domini fui aflecutus fuifTet. Ait deinde illis: Ego quidem Huic Servo libcrtatem promifi, fi cuftodiflet manda- tHni meum quod dedcram, &; Cuftodivit iHud, & prseterea opus bonum adjecit in vineam, quod mihi quam plurimum placuit. Pro Hoc igitur opere quod fecit, volo eum Filio wco fa cere cohaeredem ; quoniam cum fenfiflet quod eflet bonum, non ornifit fed fecit illud. Herm. Simil. f. p. 104. 0«uUr. a very Scrm. V. with the F a t h e r. 173 a very early Writer of the firft Century , repreients this matter. *An anticnt Com- mentator, upon this Text, gives feverai rea- fbns why the Exaltation here fpoken of, is not, cannot be intended of the Man only, but of Chrifl in his whole Perfon. ** I. Bccaufe if Chrifl: be God as well as •* Man, then all the time from his Incar- •* nation, he mufl: have had, along with ** his Humanity , all that pertains t6 •* God; and therefore could not afterwards *' properly receive what he had before. " 1, Suppofing that he wanted any thing, " in refped of his Man-hood? yet w^hy ** iliould the Father be faid to give what *' he himfelf, as God, could eafily fupply? ** 3. The things mention'd as given to •* Chrifl:, are too High and Great for the * Qaibufdam tamen vidctur Homini donatum cfTc nomen; quod ell: fuper omne nomen quod nullo genere, nulla ratione convenir. Si enim Chriftus Dei Filius idem ipfe & Homo eil, non'poterat Deus Homo fa6tas, fed mancns Dcus, his egere quae habebat: aut fi lecundum quod Homo crat, his egsbat quas Dei funt, ipfe fibi Dei Filius Deus dediflct quae deerant ei juxta quod Homo erat.. Nequc caro Hoc poller cffici quod eft Deus. Sed forte ut Adoptione Deus clTet : £■: hie color eft. Incipict enim ex pa.Te Deus verus cff-' Chriftus, 8c ex parte adoptivus, aut duo Dil : fed aliud Scriprura lignificst. Ilii enim donatum fignilicat, qui fe exin:nivir, qui Formam fervi accepit, qui in fimilitudinem Ho- mii:ir. fa6lu,'; eft Homo, qui patri obedivit. Si Homo Deo Patri obcd.vit, quid magnum eft quod dixlf Apoftolus? Sed Hoc magnum dicit, quia cum sequalis cflet obedivit. Ffeud- Amhof. in loc. p. i^j.. *« Maa 174 Equality Sanftificans Infantes: in parvulis parvulus in juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juvenibus ficns, & San^lificans Domino, Sic 8c Senior in Senioribus, ut fit perfedus Magifter in omni- bus- dcihdc \X ufque ad mortem pervcnit ut fit primo' Man- iy6 EcKJALiTY of Christ Serm.V. Manner to proclaim the high Dignity of God the Son, to reinforce his rightful claim of Homage, and to command Heaven and Earth, Angels and Men, to pay Him all Honour, Reverence, and Adoration fiiit- able to the Dignity of lb great, fo good, fo divine a Perlon as the Son of God. He had lately run through an unparallei'd Work of Mercy , had redeem'd Mankind and tri- umphed over Death and Hell : Upon this, his T^tvhitty is recognized, and his high Worth proclaimed. We may obferve, how, under the 0!d Teftamcnt; i: pleafed God often to infifl:- upon what great Things He had done (li^'' nnany of them flight in Compariion tt >e Work of Redemption) in order to au .c tl e Pcribos coricern'd, to receive Him vis God. So He tells Abram, I am the Lord that brought Thee out of Ur of the Chaldces, Gen. if 7. And to the Children of Ifrael, He lays : / will take you to me for a 'People, and I will be to you a God: and ye Jhall know that genitHs ex mortuu» ipfe primatum tenens tn omnibus, Princeps vit£e, prior omnium, prseccdens on.nes. Iren. p. 147, 148. The Senfe of all This ts lery dijlmciiy exprefi'd hy Hippolytus. i-uv yiyiVijfjijivt^ riv tTnyu&iv oi, on ' A>'.9-f.«zr(2>^ tv 'AvB-f-a)'^r7>ii iyivviijij, o(.va,7:Xucisa)f ©V eotcir^ tov 'Accc/h>' xxTti^GdvtAfv at, on llippol. de Antichrift. cad. p. if. Fabric. I am Scrm. V. with the ¥ AT ii^V(.. 177 / am the Lord your God, which hringeth you out from tinder the Burdens of the Egyptians, Exod. 6. 7. and again, / am the Lord thy God. which have brought Thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the Houfe of Bondage Thou Jhalt have no other Gods before me, Exod. xo. 1,3. Or when it plealed God to {peak any thing higher? of what He had done. He remind- ed his People of his being their Creator^ and Redeemer. Thus faith the Lord that created Th'ee, O Jacob, and He that formed Thee, O Krael, fear not : for I have redeemed Thee, I have called Thee by my Name, Thou art mine, lia. 45. i. We lee from hence, how even God the Father aflerted 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 notG<9^and Lord before^ but becaufe the Obligations laid upon them were apt to ftrike the more powerfully, and to bring the Conflderarion of their Duty towards him, dole and home to their Hearts. To apply this to our pre- fent purpofe; you may pleafe to confider that afcerGod the Son had fliewn fuch ama- zing and aftonifliing Adts of Goodnefs to- wards mankind, then was it proper to ce- lebrace his name to the utmoft, to recog- N nizc 178 Equality eli' verer, and only Redeemer *. As to theSenle of the word exalted, nothing more frequent. * God the Father had remain' J as glorious as novp He is, although He had never created the World \ for the Creation gmve much, even all they had, to Things created, it gave no- thing unto God jT^ho was in Being infinite: yet if God had created nothing , the Attribute of Creator couUl have had no real Ground, /"/ had been no real Attribu:e. In like manner, fttp- pofe the Son of God had never conde/cended to rake our Nature upon Him, He had refnain'd as elonous in his Nature and ter- Jon, as noTP He is; yet not glorified for^ or hy, this Title or At- tribute of Incarnation. Or Jappofe He had not humbled Him- felf unto Death -He had rerruzir/d as glorious m hn Nature and Perfon, and in the Attribute of Incarnation, as now He is: but mthout thefe glorious Attributes ef being our Lord and Redeemer, and of hei^ig the Fountain of Grace, ill Serm. V. with the Father. i 79 in Scripture, than fuch as I have here given. 1 Ihall mention only two or three exam- ples, referring to a Concordance for the reft. He is my God and I will exalt hint. Exod. 15'. X. Exalted be the God of the Rock of my Salvation, x Sam. 22.47. Let the God of my Salvation be Exalted. Pfal. 18. 46. Be thou Exalted Lord in thy own Strength. Plal x i . 13. Thou art my God and 1 will praife Thee, thou art my God and I will exalt Thee. V{. 11 8.x 8. The Lord alone foall be exalted in that day. Ifa. x. 11, 17. Thefe (bcfides many other Inftances of like kmd) are enough to juftify this Interpretation of the wor<^ exal- ted.'^ Befides that I would have it obferv'd that thcword» in the Original, is not j;NL^crE, and Salvation unto us. All thcfe are real Attributes, and fubpofe a real Ground or Foumlafion j and That was his hum- biing Hiniicif unto Death, even the Death of the Crofs. Nor are thefe Attributes only real, hut more glorious, botK m refp?rt of God the Father, ' roho rt>as plea fed to gne his only S&/J for us ; and in refpeii of God the Son, who was pleAfeJ to pay our Ran/om hy his Humiliation^ than the Attribute of Creation h* The Son of God then, not the Son of David only, ha'h been exalted fince his Death, to be our Lord, by a new and real Title , by the Title of Redemption and Sal- vation, jackfon on the Creed, Vol. 5. -1. 2. c. 3. pag. 316. See a/fo Bull. Prim. Trad. p. 39, 40. N X but i8o Equality ^/ Christ Serm.V. but yTrtgv^fflcre*. The former, very probably, would have been uled, had the Apoftle in- tended only a proper local Exaltation of the ManChriftJefus, to the Right hand of God. Farther; the immediate Words following con- firm this Senfe of the Word. For, How is Chrifl: exalted? God hath given him a Name ivhich is above every Name. That is, he has extolled and magnified his Name, above all Names. Thus was the Son of God Exalted, or Glorified, for the great Things he had done , and dignified (if I may lb fpeak) with a very high and ho- nourable Title (too big for any Creature to have merited, or for any thing lefs than Himfelf to wear) that of Redeemer and Tre/erver of Man, and Lord of the whole Univerfe. After the Apoftle had taught us the great and lujiereminent Dignity of God the Son, it was very proper to add, to the Glory of God the Father, that wc might not be io inrirely taken up with ad- miring and reverencing the Excellency and Perfections of God the Son, as to ioget »«; It) TTum^ f/y y'-^ ^ A'|:4 or^.. 'iMlutnv ecurvv a Ti^r^p- uXTuc Kxl 'tjoq iU^xffi r 'Tizi.Ti^y &c. Djonyi'. Alcripr, Epift. Conrr. Samofat. p.88i. Labb. hzlp z-civ^ T»? ©£85. Pfal. Cf6. 9. A 1 \ ^ I * r.i rt ycco i^v cv 7e<$ ovcnv, » u.xT.'^e, ]^icc, f/Act if ouvcctMii^ jjuid v, Tr'f^q, Cyril. Hicof* Catech. 16. p. 2;6. Ox. Ed.' * Licet a Patre proccdctt Spiritus vcritatis, 8c det lllis Deus Spif-itum Saiidlum petentibus fe: Tamen cjuia omnia. quA habit Fater mea funt., & Ipfc Spiritus Patris mcus eft, and Serra.VI. proved from his Titles. 189 and obvious meaning of the Text, confb- Dant to other Scriptures, and to Catholick Antiquity ; as fliall be Ihown in the Sequel. The Text might lead me to difcourfe on the T^ivhiity of the Holy-Ghofi, as well as of the iJ^;/ : But having hitherto confined my felf to the.fmgle point oiChriJl'sT>ivimty , that I might the more fully and diftindtly treat of it ; I fliall, for the lame reafon, do fo ftill, and occafionally only touch upoa the other, as it may fall in my way, or may be fubfervient to my main point. The Words, now under confiJeration, will afford two diftincft Arguments of the T>ivinity of God the Son ; one particular and fpeci- aly the other more General. I. The firft, which I c^Xl particular and fpecial, is contained in this, that the Opera- tions, Gifts, and Graces of the Spirit of God, with the Glory of them, are afcribed to Chrijl. -L. The fecond, which I call General , lies in iht General reaibn given as the Foun- dation of the former ; that all things that the Father hath, our Saviour attributes to Himlelf, and challenges as his own. Of thefe in their order. & de meo aocipiet. D'tdym, 4e Sj^ir, San^* apud Hieron. Tom. 4. p fi<5. I, We 190 Christ's Divinity Serm. VL I. We are to obferve, that the Operate ODS, GilTs, and Graces of the Spirit of God, wirh the Glory of them, are afcnbed to Chrif}'^ He Jhall receive of mine, and Jhafl Jhew it unto you. He Ihall Glorify me : The Glory of whatfoever fliall be done, or taught by the Holy Spirit, our Lord afcribes to Himlelf, as being (in con- jundion with the Father ) the Author and Fountain of it. The context indeed men- tions only the Spirit's Teaching ; But the reafon is the fame for whatever fliould be done by the Holy Spirit of God, who is alfb the Spirit of Chriji : And therefore the Miraculous Works of the Holy-Ghojt are expreflly afcribed to Chrifl , by St. *Peter. AcSs 2. 33. Being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promife of the Holy- Ghoft , He hath Jhed forth this which ye now fee -and hear. W^hen therefore our Lord fays, He jhall receive of mine, and Jhall Jhcjj it unto you, it \s^ bat reafonable to underftand it of every Operation, Gift, or Influence of the Holy-Spirit, (of what- ever kind \z were) fhowcr'd down upon the Apoftles. All were derived from Chrift; to Him therefore (in conjundtion with the Father and the HolyGhoJi) is the Glory of them to be aicribed, as is plaimt Scrm.Vl. f roved from his Titles. 191 plain from the Words, He /hall Glorify me, V. 14. Now, if the Holy Ghoft Himfelf be a divine Perfon, and One with God the Fa- ther, and adored together with Him, as the Carholick Church has all along taught*, and Scripture it felf has fufficiently intima- ted ; then we have here a clear and irrefifti- ble proof of the 'Divinity of Chrift, who, as appears from this Text, is at leafl equal to, or, in fome ftnfe, greater ■t\\2ixi the Holy-Ghofi \. But becaufe the Divinity of the Holy- Ghoft is what our Adverfaries will no more admit than they will the o- ther^ and it would be here too great a digref- fion for me to enter into the proof of it ; I muft be content ro wave that point, and confider only whether, or how far, our Argument may be conceived to ftand inde- pendent of \x.. The Perfon oit\\tHoly^Ghofi\s, defcrib'd, in Scripture, as the immediate Author and ♦ Juftln. Mart. ApoL i. c. 16. Athcnagoras, p. 40, 96. Irenaeus, I. 4. c. yj. Clem. Alex. p. lozo. Ed. Ox. Ter- tullian, Contr. Prax. c 9, 13, 25-. Hippolytus. Contr. Noet. c. 12. Origen. apud Baiil. de Sp. S. p. 219, in Joh. p. 124. C-'yprfan. Ep. ad Jubajan. p. 103. t Si a Chrifto accepit qwa: nunt'et, major ergo jam Para- cleto Chriftus eft: quoniam nee Paracletus a Chrifto acci- perer nifi minor Chrifto cftcc, ?4ir.or autcm Chrifto Para- Worker ipx Christ's Divinity Serm. VI. Worker of Miracles ^ ; and even of thefe done by ourLordHimftlf ^; The Condu<3:or of Chriji Jefns, in his Human Capacity, during his Srate of Humiliation here upon Earrh^; The infpirer of the Prophets and Apollles'^; the Searcher of all Hearts, and the comforter of good Chriftians in difficul- ties =. To lie to Him is the fame thing as to lie unto God^. Blajphemy againft Hira is unpardonable s. To refift Him is the fame thing as to refift God ^. He is in God, and knows the mind of God as perfedJy as a Man knows his own mind ; and that in refped: of all Things, even the deep Things of God ^ Men's Bodies are his Temple ^ and by being his Temple, are the Temple of God^. He is joined with God the Father and Son, in the folemn form of Baptilm"^; in religious Oaths, and in Invocations for Grace and Peace"; in the fame common cletus Chriflum etiam Deum efle hot: ipfo probat a quo ac- cepir C|U9? nuntiat; ut Teftlmonium Chrijli Drutn'itatis grande y/V, dum minor Chrifto Paracletus rcpcrrus> ab Illo fumit quae czeteris tradir. Nozat, de Trin. c. 24. a Ads 2. 4, 4f,4<^. Rom. if» 19. 1 Cor. i. 4,5-. -—it. 4,8,11. — 14.2. Hebr. 2. 4. b Matt. II. 18. Ads 10. 38. c Matt. 4. I. —12. 18. Luk 4.1. Job. I. 31 — 3.54. Adl. 1.2. d Seethe Proofs in Claik's Script. Dodr. c. 3 Sed,2. e See Script, Dodr. c- 4. Sed. 5. f Afts f. 5,4. g Matt. 12. 31, 32. h Ads 7 fi. i I Ccr. 2 lO^ J I. k 1 Cor 6, 19. 1 i Cor. 3. 16. Ephci. 2. 2i> 22. m Matt. 28. 19. n 2 Cor- 13. 14. Rev. 1. 4, y. Rom. 9. a. Opera- Serm. VI. proved from his Titles. 193 Operations*; in the lame Authoritative Milfion and Vocation of Perlbns into the Minillry^; and He is join'd with the Fa- ther in the fame common Mirtion, even of the ty<9;/Himrelf ^: In a word. He '\%Lord^ ( or Jehovah ) and God «, and Lord of Hofts ^. This is a brief Sumn3ary of what the Scriptures have taught us of the Per- ibn, Charader, and Offices of the Holy- Ghoji. Exceptions may be made (tho' of no great weight ) to fome Particulars, which 1 have not here time to conftder: The leaft that can be inferred from them, and what the Ar'tans rhemfelves wili not fcruple to admit, is, that the Holy-Ghoji is a Perlbn of very high Eminence, Dignity, and Ma- jelly ; much fuperior to any Angel or Archangel, or any other Perfon whatfb- ever, excepting only God the Father, and his Son Chrifi Jefiis. Let it then be con- fider'd, that however great and glorious, however mighty and powerful , however wife and knowing, however venerable and adorable This Perfon \'^, and however in- timate with, and united to, God the Father, whofe Spirit He is ; yet all that He is, and a 1 Cor. 12. «5, f, 6, 7, ^yc. b A(£ls 13.1. Com^. HoH 2.23. Actsp.if. cir.48.l6. d C<7;«P»E\-od. 34. ^4. ttfith z Cor. 3. 17. e Acls 7. 5, 4. f Com^. Ha. 6. wnfy O alt 194 Christ's Divinity Scrm.VI. all that He does, is ro be referr'd to Chrift, as the Author and Fountain of it. He claims the Glory of all, becaufe All is his. Now if we confider the infinite diftance there is between God and the very higheft of his Creatures^ and how arrogant it muft appear in any Creature to make a claim of this Kind and Value, a claim upon God's own Spirit, a claim oi Glory (tho', in ftrid:- nefs, Glory can be due to God alone) as having a hand in all his Works, and, as ic were , aiTifting and influencing the very Spirit of the Father : 1 fay, if we confider this, and at the fame Time reflecl: that our Blcffed Lord, (who was the mod perfed: Pattern of Humihty, Meeknefs, and Mo- defiy) has really made this claim, and has been thus jamiliar with Almighty God; what can we think lefs than This, that our BJefTed Lord is infinitely Superior to all Creatures^ and confequently is Himfelf really, truly, and effentially God, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father*? Thus, and thus only, can his Claim be juflified, and his Prctenfions reconciled to the Scriptures, or to the Truth and Reafon of Things : Which will appear farther, if we confider, * Necjue enim de Creaturis fumebat Spiritus San Filius Pater. Si enim dixifTet, Omnia qu^cunque habet Dens, men funt , haberet Impieras occafionem conFxngendi , Sc veri- fimile vide.ctur Mendaciura. Cum vero dixerit: Omnia quA haket Pater, me a funt i Patris non^'nc fe Ftiium declaravitj Paternitatem, qui Filius erat, non ufurpavit, Didym, de Sp. ^^ hiiercn Tom, 4, p. fi6. Ed.B'rned, O X leges, \ 196 Christ's Divinity Serra. VI. leges ; the fame Honour and Glory ; and, in a word, the fame Nnttire^ Subjiance, and Godhead. Then, indeed, every divine Work is his Work ; the Spirit of the Fa- ther is alfo his Spirit \ the Operations of the Holy Ghojf muli, of Courfe, be the Operations of Farhcr and Son too ; and the Glory of every thing muft be referred to Both, as to one common Author and Fountain thereof On thefe Principles, the Senie of the whole PafTage is eafy, expe- dite, and clear ; and very Confonant to our Bleffed Lord's account of Himfelf in other places of this Gofijel : Particularly, where He lays; what Things focver He (the Father) doth, thefe alfo doth the Son like- Uuife, Joh. 5*. 19. / and my Father are one, Joh. 10. 30. He that hath Jeen me, hath Jeen the Father / ayn in the Fa- ther^ and the Father in me, Joh. 14. 9, 10. Glorify me with thine own felf with the Glory which I had with Thee, before the JVorld was , Joh. 17 f- j^^H mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glo- rified in Them, Joh. 17 10. Thefe are very high and ftrong Expreflicns, con- firming That Senje of the Text which I have given, and which prevailed \\\ the Chriflian Church (as appears from Tertnl- lian above ciccd) before the Council of Nicef Scrm. VI. f roved from his Titles. 197 Nice, as well as * after. But my dcfign is next ro proceed to ochcr Scriptures which cxprcfly afcribc the faaie high Titles, Powers, and Perfections to the Son w^hich They do to the Father; therein juflifying, cr rather more tuily and particularly de- claring what our Lord had but briefly in- timated in the Words: All Things that the Father hath are mine, Pvly method ihall be. 1. To /liow that the divine Titles arc afcrib'd to the Son, in HoIy-Scripturc. And, 2. That the divine Attributes ^xt alio applied to Him. 3. T(f fum up theForceof the Argument, and to obviate fuch general Objections asr tend to weaken our Conciufion. I. The divine Titles aicribed to the Son ia Holy Scripture, are as follow; God, God with us. Lord God, True God, Great God, Mighty God, God over all blejfed for evermore, Jehovah, Almighty, Lord of Glory , King of Kings and Lord of ■* Athanallus, Vol. i. p. iof>. H'hrius de Trin. 1. 9. p. 1004. Didymui, Intcrpr. Ilicron. Op. Torr.. 4. p._yi6. Ambioi". de Fid. 1.2. c. 4. p. 477. Ed. Bjncd. Cyril. Alex. Thel! 1. 9. Auguftin. Contr- Maxim. 1.2. p« 697. 706. Kd, Bened. Cyril. Hierof. Caih. 16. p, 236. O 3 Lords, 198 Christ's Divinity Serm.Vl. Lords, Alpha and Omega the F'trft and the Lajt. Of thefe in their Order. As to the Title of God, our Adverfaries are pleafed to allow, that the Terfon of the Son is in the new Tejiament (and the Old Teftament fliould not have been entirely o- initted ) fometimes ( and why is it not faid frequently ? ) fliled God^. But then we are told that it I is not fo much (is it then at all ? ) on account of his metaphyfical Subflance — as of his relative Attributes and divine Authority, that He is fometimes fliled God. Bat this is more than our Ad- verfaries know, or can give the lead flia- dow of proof to countenance. The Son of God may be proved from Scripture to be God, in the find: and proper Senft, after the very fame way, and by the fame kind of Arguments that the Father Himfelf can be fliown to be God, in the flrid and pro- per Senfe. What is faid about metapbyfi- calSubftance (by which, it leems, '\^ meant, abflrati metaphyfical Subflance \) is trifling to the lafl: degree. For, undoubtedly, the Trinitarians are not fo deftitute of com- mon Senfe and underftandjng, as to take * See Cia ike's Script. Doar. Tropof.i^, p»i6^. 2dMit. f Clarke's Script. DodJr. Prop, if. p»z6^> ^ Clarke's Script. Dpdr. p. 342. id. Ed, the Serm. VI. j^roved from his Titles. \^() the Subjlance of Father, or Son, to be an abjira6ildea\ which is all the Scnfe of an abftrn^i Subjlance. They certainly mean a Real, Living, Intelligent, and infinite- IjTerfeR Subftance, exifling without, nc- ceflarily exifting. And when they fay that the Son is Stibjlantially ^ or Ejfentially God, They intend to prevent Equivocations^ and to afTert that the Son is. not of a fading perirtiing Nature, 2i$Creatures zvQ-^ no pre- carious Being depending on the IVill and Choice of another, but truly divine and ne- cejfarily-exijting. If this be admitted, we have no farther occafion to fpeak a word of Subftance ; w^hich, after all, is nothing more than another name for Being, or Thing: And it rauft appear very ftrange, and lavouring too much of Delicacy , or Cavilling, that, if w^c are able to prove the Son to be Eternal, 'Divine, Necejfarily- exifting, &c. we may not be allowed , to lay that his Subftance is Eternal, Di- vine, &c. which is really neither more nor Icfs than faying, that He is To. Attributes and Powers mud have fomething to rcfide and inhere in, which fomething is what we call Subftance, and confidered with divine Attributes, divine Subftance, or God. And this is what Scripture means in calling the Son God\ as we are able to prove from the O 4 fame lOG Christ's Divinity Serm.VI. fame Topicks, and iu the fame way of rea- foning, which Another might make ufe of to prove the Qne God (or the God of the Jews ) to be the Supreme, Eternal and Immutable God, againfl: any Marcionite , Valentinian, Manjcbee, or Oihtx Heretic k that fliould prefume to deny it. Let thofe who objed ro us the ufe of Metaphyficks, try if they can come at the proof of the i^^rZ;^r's being Self extfxetit, under ived, one Simple, unco7npGunded, undivided^ inteL ligent Agent, &c. without entring into Me- taphyficks i And let them from thence learn to diftinguilli between fal/e Metaphyficks and true-^ and not prefume to condemn Both promifcuoufly. As to Confequences, be they Metaphyjical or Thy (leal. Moral or Religious, it matters not, provided they are h\xi jujl and' true: which is the only thing to be inquired into. We are told, that the Scripture, 'when it mentions God abjolutely , and by way of eminence, al- ways 7neans theTerfon of the Father"^. But this is an AfTercion not only void of proof bat impoflible ro be proved ; and \s> befsdes contrary to all Antiquity^ (as I have fliown clfewheref ) and even to the fentiments of the Antient Arians ; whom * Clarke's Script, Boftr. Prop. II. ■f Defenfe of fome ^eria, Q. i. our Serm.VI. proved from his Titles, lol pur Modern Avians would be thought to come up to at lead, tho' they really fall fliorc of them, as well in this, as in many other Inftances. However, certain it is, that the Church of Chrift, down from the very times of the ApofHes, have been in nothing more unanimous than in ftiling the Son, God* And what they meant by That name, as applied to the Son , is well known to the Learned, from their JVGrjhip of Him, and their utter Abhorrence of any Inferior Deities ; from their arguing for the Son's Divinity confider'd as a Son, of the fame Nature with his Father ; from their Simili- tudes and lUudrations ; from the divine Titles, Attributes, and Perfections which they afcribcd to Him ; and indeed from the whole Teuour of their Writings. This is ^ confirmation to us, that the Son of God, in Scripture, is fo ftilcd in the (Irid: and proper Senie of Uncreated, Eternal, and Necef farily-exifling. Another divine Title given to God the Son, in Holy-Scripture, is God-'-Ji'lth-us , or Emmanuel*. Matt. 1.23. A late wri- ter \ would infinuate that the woxdiGod, in ■*f M':?j' v.t/jav i ©i3{. GoJ, bj toay of Excellency, -with the Article 9 prefix'd. f Clarke's Hcri^t. Do,^a, p. 7 1 . id. Ed. tiiis loi Christ's Divinity Serm. VI. this place of St. Matthew, may be meant of the Father. B jC the Text is plain and full to the contrary. Behold, a Virgin Jhall be with Child, and Jh all bring forth a Son, and they Jhall call his name (the Son\, not the Father'^ name) EmmanneL Chrifl: therefore is Emmanuel, or God with us. The fame Writer pretends that the name Emmanuel proves nothing more (in point of Argument ) than even the names of places, Jehovah f ir eh, Jehovah- Sham- mah, Jehovah-Shalom, Jehovah Ntffi, &c. But this Socinian furmife had been before liifficiently confuted by the learned and ju- dicious Bp. Tearjbn'^% vvhofe reafonings upon this Head fliould have been anfwer'd, inftead of repeating a dale Objec5tion. I fliall only take notice that the early Wri- ters of the Chriftian Church conftantly un- derftood that Chrifl was really God with us, conformable to his name Emmanuel \ and interpreted this Text of St. Matthew as we do \. To proceed. * Pcarfon on the Creed, Art. 2. p. 120, f Diligentcr igitur figaificavit Spiritus Sanfrus per ea quse dij ^y\ ctlmo^. ) There is no other fubje(3: of the latter pre- dicate befides the ^tc^, This, going before. If it be laid that the particle >j may (land for cLuTYiy and lb the Senfe be, This is the 'jyaj, pointing as it were to Je/iis Chrifi before mentioa'd ; yet fo the Conftrudiioa is very harfli and unnatural: BefTdes that the particle ?i is obferved to have been want- ing in i\i^ Alexandrian^ and feveral other Manulcripts, Our Interpretation therefore agrees much better than the other, with the words following after Std^, This, And I muft obferve farther, that it agrees alfo better with the words going before it. IVe are in Him that is true, even in {or even by) his Son Jefus Chrifi. Then follows immediately Jtzj^, This, This Perlbn, im- mediately before mentioned, viz. Jefus Chrtft. io8 Christ*s Divinity Serm.Vr Chrifl. For, allowing that a Troitotm may Ibmctimes refer to a remote Antccedent\ yet is not fo ulual, nor fo narural; neithcf iliould it be prciutncd to do fo, without d manifeft ncceffity. Having fliown that the Context plainly favors our Conftrudion, let us next examine the Pretences on the contrary fide. % It is faid *. that the moft and bejl MSS read f iAjiSiiov ©eov, the true God, inftead of T iA>]5iv:y, Him that is true: and (o the Words will run thus ; IVe know that the Son of God is come, and hath given Its an underjianding that we may know the true God, {viz. the Father) and we are in Him that is true (the true God be- fore fpoken of) in ( that is, by) his Son Jefus Chrijt, This is the true God, and eternal Life. Bur admitting this reading of the words, it is ib far from confronting the Senfc before given, that it rarher con- firms it. For then it comes *to this; that we are in the true God, viz. the Father, by being in his Son, becaufe That Son is the true G^d. This Cooftrudion is fo far from bcingf ablurd or flat, that it is very exprcffive and fignificant ; intimating that there is none lo certain way of knowing * Clarkc'j Scn^t. DoHr. p. 5 \. id. E«J. the Serm. VI. proved from Aij* Titles. 269 the true God, as by a Teacher who is Hira- {qM true God'^ nor any other way of be- ing reconciled ro 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 becaufe He Himfelf is true God'^ who by being Incarnate could join the 'Divine and Humane Natures, God and Man, in One. This kind of reafbning is very much infifted on by the Antient Fathers * ; and upon this Account the T)i vinity of our blefled Lord was look'd up- on by Them, as an Article of the utmofl: Importance to Salvation. Now we fee from whence They borrowed their Notions, na- mely, from the ApoftleS; fi om St. John * 'Ayxxpiyif sZ id r6v<;'H?icovH^. Ua-, aJvavruf im^'vyoj^, Zi.f/jvio Iren. p. 271. ©sow hioi(^ov](^ O^Z* ^i^alxPi^) Tiiri<7t'^, ccyBv Qsou f/jtf yiva- fficsS-uf rov 0=cv. Ibid, p, 234,. El i/jit Q 0J55 i^^>}ati'^ T-/IV ffzoTfjo'uv, cvy> civ /Biou^u^ iyo^iv ccuT/iV. t(^ ii tJjvt azivitvitfjyj 6 "Av^'p&fT^-oq tcS 0^5, cmc ciy *)dhfyijii fLCimsysiv Tiii c6(pQiitp(nciq, \hi p/cep T ffjunrU/j &icu re y^ ' Av^pu- foixv To'jCi ccfJCj'Poriffii'i as fDYote particularly r.gainji the Error f»/ Cerinthus. Iren /. 3. c. i i. The fame Ireuteus intim^ites thctt 67, lohn'i Epifilc ponited at the fime Hercfy. Fnl. lien. I. 3. c. 16. p. 2^' -AtiU Tertul- lian is Jiill more particular in thefe Words, In Epiftola, eos maxime Antichrijios vocat, qui ChriHym negarenr in carne venilTe, & qui non putarcQt Jefum efle Ftuum Dei: lilud Marcion, Hoc Hebion Vindicavit. TertulL Prdfcript. adv* H^rcf. c 33» Life, Serm. VI. J^yoved from his Txti.'es. 211 Life, Ch. 5". v. ii* {See alfo v. i©, 11, 130 andCh.3. V. 23.) Now. what fore of tJ^?;/, or Son of God, Sr. John miift have meant, appears fufficiendy from the firft Chapter of his Gofpel : He was the only- begotten' Logos, that was with God, and was GW, and by whom all Things "were made. Such a So7t of God as This, the Cerinthians and Ebionites denied our Lord to be;beheving Him to be a meer Man, that had no Ex- iftence before He became Man. Nothing therefore could be more dired:ly level'd againft thofe Herefies than this very Verfe of St. John's Epiftle, afTerting at once Chrift's proper Sonjhip , and his true T)ivinity% which indeed amount to one and the fame Thing. Thefe Confiderations put together abundantly make good our Interpretation of this controverted Text. But the * Au- thor of Scripture-'DoETrine is pleafed xo cenfure our ConftrucStion, of this Paflage of St. John ^ as Modern, Some Moderns y He fays, refer this to Chrift, but others, with all the Antients, underjfand it of God the Father, It may be thought fome- vvhat Hard to have a Conftrudion cenfured as Modern , which has undoubtedly pre- vailed in the Chriftian Church thirteen Cen- ^ CIarkc'.< Script. BoBr* p./i. 2d. Ed, P % turies ziz Christ's Divinity Serm.VI turies upwards *, if nofh!gher. The Ca- tbolicks of the fourth Century cited it in this Scnfe, without the lead Scruple ; and without any Intimation , fo far as I can find, that it was ever otherwife undcrflood. The Avians themrelves, as iccms very pro- bable, admitted this Confb udtion ;| or cer- tain it is that many of thorn allowed that the Son was ©e^;? olA- •) ir-l^, true God, (I fup- pofc in virtue of this Text, fince They ob- jecfjed not againft thcTitle 2L%unfcrij[>ttiral) but they eluded the Cathalick Senfe of it;};. The Ante N'tcene Fathers, probably, un- derftood the Text, juft as the Toji-Nicene Catholicks did ; only They had left occa- fion to cite it, having k many other Texts, both of the Old and New Teftaraent, to produce in proof of the Son's being God -^ which was the fame with Them as true God, the diftindion between God^ and true Cod^ being hardly ever (larted before the Arian Concroverfy. It is a very fingular way of fpeaking, which the Author of Scrlpture-T>onrme makes ufe of, when He lays, all the Antients underftood this * Athanafius, p. gg. iS^ ffS. 684, S88. Bafil. Contr, EiinoiT). 1.4. p. io<5. Didym. in loc. Cyril Alex. Dial. 8. ad calc Ambrof. de Fid. 1. i. c. 17. p. 467. Hieron. Nor. in IT, p. 6f» Auguft. Contr. Max. 1. 2. p.70f. Serm. 140. p,6£i f S^g Ambiofe Epift. Claf. i. p-79!. Ed. Bened. ^ Thcodor. Eccl. Hill. 1. I. p. iS. Text I Serai. VI. proved from his Titles. 213 Text of God the Father. Who would not imagine frorg hence, that feme one, at Icaft, of the Jlntieiits might be produced, inter- preting the Text as He pretends They did? yet certain it is, that He cannot produce one. The Fa(5l is only this; That none of the Writers of the three firft Centuries interpreted this Text at all : From whence this Author , I fuppofe, concludes ( if we may judge of him from a Friend of his, without a Name*) that the Text, muft, in Courfe , have been underftood of the Father. This preoarious . groundlefs In- ference (without letting his Readers know that it is no more than an Inference ) He purs upon us as undoubted Fa6t, in Scrip- ture-T>o£irine \ which is greatly abufing his Readers. The fum then of what hath been plead- ed for our Interpretation of the Paflage, is, that it is literal, and grammatical \ agree- able to the Context, and to the Dodrine of St. John, in other Places; that it fuits perfectly well with the Analogy of Faiths and the undoubted Principles of the pri- mitive Church; that there is no one In- ftance of any contrary Interpretation of the Text, in dXi Antiquity , but all that there ♦ Mod^ft flea, &c. p. 261. P 3 • are 214 Christ's Divinity Serm.VL are, are fally and clearly for it; that the Objedtions againfl: it are truly Modern, and, befidcs, of little or no weight in Them- felves. Upon the whole, every reafonable Man may be left to judge whether This, or the other Interpretation ought to be prcferr'd= To proceed. Another divine Title given to the Son, in Holy Scripture, is Great God. * Look- tng for that blejfed Hope, and the glori- ous appearing of the great God and our Saviour (or, our great God and SaviourJ Jefus Chriji, Tit. x. 13. What we infift upon here, is, that the Titles of Great God and Saviour are, in this Paflage, equally applied to Chrijr, Our Adveriaries them- felves cannot but confefs that the Words will grammatically bear thisConftrudtionf; And we have good rcafon to believe, that, all things confider'd, They can fairly bear no other, i. Becaufe of the Omi/Tion of the Article rS, before cut^^, which, in ftrid propriety of Language, fliould have been inferted, had the Apoftle been fpeak- ing of two Per/bns; as the Article ^^//^r^/Zy is (tho' not always') in fuch Caies where ^ yjiyu>.^ OiS (z' azoTKeoc, Yfjjuv 'I;}t5 X^irS. Tit. 3- 'J- t Clarke's Script. Dccfr. ]P'77. ad. Ed. different Serm. VI. proved from his Titles, z i y different Subjeds are intended ^ ; And it is obfervable, that the Apoflle goes on in /peaking oi Chrift only, without a word of the Father (v. 14. ) which makes it ftill the more probable that the Article t5 would have been inferred, had He intended different Pcrfons. x. Becaufe \^(pimaL the appearing is always ^ in the New Tefta- raent, alcribed to the Son alone, and never to the Father. For rho' it be faid {^Matt. 16. X7.)that the Son of Man Jhall come or ap- pear in the Glory of his Father, yet it is no where in the New Teftamcnt faid that the Father fliall appear, but the Son only. If it be replied that it is not here faid that i\i^ great God, or Father, fliall app ear, hwt his Glory only ; I anfwer, that g'TrKp^ve^o. '^ Jb'^vjj, does not ncceflfarily fignify the ap- pearing of Glory, but may properly fignify the glorious Appearance ; as it is rightly rendered in our Englifh Verfion*-'. Againft this Conflrudion of the Text, it is ob- jeded ^ that the Tide of great God is, in the Old and New Teftament, the Charader a ViJ. M. Martin. Traitc lic laRelig. />/?/-*' 3. /). 262, Sec, b 6Vc 2Ther.2.8. i Tim. 6. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 10. — 4,. i, 8. c See Murt'm. Traite de la Rdig. Rcicl. fnrt 5. c, 17 p. 271, 8cc. d Clarke's Reply, p. 8^. Mociefi Plea, &c. p. 2fo. C^/*/? True Script. Do6tr. p. 26. and True Script, Dodlrine conti- aucd, /. 84, &c. P 4 of %i6 Christ's Divinity Serm.VI. of the Father: which, if true, does not prove chat it may not, in this place, be the Charader of the Sou too. But the Fad: is very uncertain and may as eafily be denied as aflerted. As to the Texts of the Old 7\flamenf ; fince there is nothing to diftin- guilli 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 Ifrael is the great God There fpoken of ^ and it is beg- ing the Queftion to interpret the Paffages of ih^ Father only. As to the New Tefia- ment, there is but one fingle Text cited to this piirpofe; and \i is Rev. 19. 17. where (if That be the true Reading) mention is made of the Supper of the great God\ wbich the Objedors imagine to be fpoken of the Father. But if it be confider'd that our blelfed Saviour is filled King of Kings and Lord of Lords^ (v. 16.) but a very lit- tle before the Supper of the great God is mention'd; and that the Apoftle goes on fpeaking of Chrifl ( not God the Father ) dcfcribcd as fitting on the Horfe (v. 19. comp. V. n.) and 2l% faying Thofe whofe Flejh was to be given to the Fowls (v.ii.) that is, as providing That very Supfer , which is called (v. 17.) the Supper of the great God, becaufe of the great God's pro- viding Serm.VI. proved from his TitIuZS, 217 viding or making it : I fay, if vvc lay thefc Things together, we 111 all be incliued to think that this Text of the Revelations, inftead of anfwering the purpofc of the Ob- jed:ors, is another Evidence of the Son\ being ftiled great God\ and fb helps to con- firm our Interpretation of the Text in Titus, whereof w^e have been treating. We have fcen'then that there is no Ob- jedion of Weight to be made againft our Interpretation. In Confirmation of what hath been urged in favour of our Conftrud:ion of the place, I may obferve farther, that * Bafil, Gre- gory Nyjfcn, Eptphaiiius, Chryfojiom^ and AujtiUy of the fourth and fifth Centuries interpret the Text as we do. And \^ wc may judge of the Arians from Maximin^ a celebrated Biiliop amongft Them of the fifth Century, They alfo admitted the fame Interpretation!; ib unconteftcd a Thing was it at that Time. We have the lels reafon to wonder at it, becaufe the Ante- Nicene Catholicks before, very probably, uuderftood the Text in the lame Senie. ** Bafil. Contr. Eunom. I.4. p. 107. Greg. NyfT. Contr. pun. p. 265. Epiphan. Ancor. p. 74. Chryfoft. Tom. i. Horn. 30. p. 341. Horn- in Joh. p. 56. f Vid. Auguft. Oper. Tom.S. p.6f^ 9- <^- ) according to the Sep- tuagint, as it now is, or as it was, in fbme Copies at. lead, in the time of St. Jerom, * JDsus fcparatim, qui Hcbraice E/ dicitur. Dcnique in con- fequentibLfs ubi Icginms; Tu ef enim Deus cy nefciebamus. Et Jterum: Ego fmn Deus, ^ non efi alius pvAter me, & multi his iimiiis, pro eo quod in Latino dicitur Daus, in Hebraicc '£l fcripuim eft. Hieron. Comm. in If. p. 85-. Ed. Bened. f Qui nominum majeftate perterritos LXX reor non efTc aufos de puero diccre cjuod apcrte Deus appellandus fit, & csetcra: Sed pro his Cc)i nominibus pofuifTe quod in Hebraic© jion habetur Magm Conflii Angelum &c. Hieron, ibid. p. 86. .f Vid. Iren. i.g. cai. p. 21$. Eufe- no Christ's Divinity Serm VI. Eufebius, and even Jujfin Martyr'^ \ but according to what ic lliould be, and as it lies in the Hebrew Text b; citing it in proof of the "Divinity of Chrift. In like manner, Clemens oi Alexandria, tho' equaily an Ad- mirer of the Scptnagint Verjion^, yet cites the fame Text of Ifa'iah, much after the fame Senfe with Irenaus, and not accord- ing to the LXX'^; drawing an Argument from thence of the Greatnels, Majefty, and efTential Divinity, of the Son of God. It is the lefs to be wonder'd at, if afterw^ards we but feldom meet with this Text cited in proof of Chr id's Divinity, lince the Seftuagint , which the primitive Fathers chiefly followed and quoted from, exhibit- ed another Senfe of the Paflage. Yet we find it cited by Athanafms^ (if That piece be his) and the Elder Cyril^^ for that pur- a See Dial. p. 21^. Ed. Jebb, b Vacatur mmen ejus admirahilisy covfiltarius, X>eiis Fortiu |>e«s fortis eft, 8c inerrabile haber genus. I /en. p. 273. c Vid. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 410. Clem. Alex. ?xd. 1. l. p. 112. ©£ov i^vffov, &50V TToi^^lcv WjcCrli. Dionyf. Alex. Epift. Contr. Paul. Samof. p, 8f 2.. Labb. ff/Kq. Athan. de Incarn. Contr. Arian. c 22. p. 889. Cowp- Apoft.Conftit. 1, 5. c. 16. Pfeud-Ignat. ad Antioch. c.5. f K«6>iffTKf 70 cycf/^ uurov UjkyKXiic. /3»A?5 T«^ ^ TTAT^Oi; Ay- pofe Serm. VI. proved from his Titles, iii pofe. And There the vcrfc is cited accord- ing to the Hebrew Original ; only taking in part of the LXX's Tranflation : From whence one might fufpedt that there had been two Verfions of the fame words, and Both, by degrees, taken in to the Text, and tack'd together. To what hath been laid, I fliall only add, that the mighty Givine Title alcribed to the Son, in Holy Scripture, is, over all God blejfed for ever Rom. 9.*). That this is faid of Cbrift, not of God the Father, ap- pears from the whole Context, and the very form ^ of ExprefTion. 'O c^i' naturally refers to the Perfon of Chrifl immediate- ly before (poken of: And the Antithefis'^ Et' t'JI 0«d(; i'^J^OC, t3tB to 'TTZC'JiOV , 'Zt%«« OCUTOU ^YiXov il'pnKt hci^lh '0(pSyiTB^ o Qioq T ia>j cv Sisyy. Pfal. 83. 8. Cyril. Hierofol. p. 512. Ox. a See Ircn. I. g- c. d. p. 180. Cyprian, adv. Jud. 1. 1. c. 18. p. 48. & de Bon. Patient, p. zio. Eufcb. in Pfal. p. 209. b Comp. 2 Cor. 11. 31. c Co?np. Rom. i . 3,4. Ste Crabe*^ Not* in Bull. Def. F. No Scft.i. C.3. between \±zz Christ's Divinity Serm.Vt. .^^between what he is according to the Flejh, and what according to the Spirit , re- quires it. Thus all the Antients, ^ Catho- licks and Hereticks , conftantly under- flood the Words, referring Them to Chriji^ as here called over all God bleffed for ever. The Author of Scri-pture~T)o5frine fays, that the word ©205> God, is want- ing in many MSS ^. But, I preiuoic, Dr. Tearfon and Dr. Mills, who Both declare all the Manufcripts have its may be be- lieved, till He produces his Vouchers, or explains his Meaning. The Reading of the place being fix'd and certain, and .its Reference to Chriji no lefs certain ^ , as w^eli from the Context \x. felt, as from the conftanr, uniform Senfe of all Antiquity, we a See the Teftimonies referrd to in Dr. Mills. To which may be added Hippolvtus, Contr. Noec. c. 6- p. lo. Ed, Fabric. Vol. 2. b C\2.x\iz\ Scrip. Bocir. p. 7^-. id. Ed. C(?/w/>, Reply, p. 85. and Modcft Plea, p. 1+2. c The pretenfe of Erafmus from\the Fathers is -vain; and as vain is That of Grotius frc77i the Syriac Tranjlution, which haih in it the Name of God, exprejly, as well as all the Copifs of th':: Original, and all the reft of the Tranflations. Pcaribn on the Creed, Art. 2. p. i i,^. Non tantum Codd. omnino fiiilti omittunt ©£<>■; , {td ne- ffue ipfa Syriaca Verlio. Vcrbo dicam Leftionem hanc pri- ferunt MSS omnes. Mills in Locum, 4: Some have pretended to underjland the U^ords over all * God blefTed, Qr-c. of God the lather, rohofe pretences Jee con- fitted by Dr. Grabe in his Remar'u who is, not o CL}^Ti'(kfi^^v{^ , who is appointed over all, ^c. It is very trifling in our Adver- laries to refer us to \Cor. 15'. 17. where it is laid, that all things are put under Chrift: As if the Force of our Argument lay more in the Words over all, than in the Words, God blejfed for ever\ or as if Chrift's Mediatorial Kingdom, commence- ing at the Refurre;p {Almighty) is alivays appli- ed to the Father only, in the mojt antient Writers: which is notorioufly falle in Fa6l, as appears from their underftanding this very Text of rhe Son ; befides other collateral Evidences*. The laft pretence is that the Title of wx^TOL^iiu^, Almighty, is al- ways elfewhere, in Scripture, applied to the Father only. To which I anfvver i// that it is mecr groundlefs preiiiraption tofiippofe that as often as Thnt Title is applied to the one God in the Old Teflamenr, it is applied to xhQ Father only ; fince it may often be un- derftood indifferently either of Father or Son? or of the whole Trinity. And zdly that there are feveral Texts oT the oldTefta- ment, which w^e have good reaibn to believe are to be underflood particularly of God the Son. Tfabn the 24^/7. has by the pri- mitive Fathers \ been interpreted of Chrijf, Now that'Ki;e^o5 hj^iyam Lord of Hojis , ap- plied to Chrift in ThuTfalm/is equivalent £0 Kvo.oi TfavroK^To:^ , Almighty , appears * Juftin. Mart. A'^fiicuvion c/Pfa]. 24. jo- Dial. p. 10711 Jeb. Clem. Alex. p. 277. 647. 831* Tertullian. adv. Prax. c. 17. Origen -r^e^'Ap^. l.i. c. 2. Hippolyt. Contr. Nocr. Vol. 2. p. 10. Fabric. Eufcb. Demonftr. Evang. 1.6. c. 16. p. 281. Ccm^. Eufeb. in Pialm. p. 417. Comm. in Ua. p. 374.43i'' t Juftin. Martyr. D:al. p. 197. Cyprian, adv. Jud. 1. 2. c. 49. p. 49, 50. Origen in Matt. p. 438. Eufcb. in loc. j^mbror. de Fid. 1. 4. c. i. p» J23. from Serm. VI. prov'd from his Titles, x 3 i from hence, that the LXX Interpreters ren- der the fame words indifferently by one or other, as is obferved* by Ambroje and Jerom ; and may be eafily lecn in a multi- rude of Inftances, by looking into Trom- mitis's Concordance. Befides that St John Himfelf in his Apocalypfe (4. 8.) alluding to a PufTage of Ifaiah c. 6. 3. H'oly , Holy, Holy is the Lord of flofis ; inftead of YJjtii%* hiniyiim (orcctCai^) LordofHo(is\ puts Kue^@^ 0605 'TravTGxpctTiijp, Lord God Almighty, If may be proved likevvife from If. 6. 5. compared with Johu ix. 41. (as I have formerly obferved f) that our Savi- our Chrift is Lord of Hofts, that is, K^/iio^ 'TrcLvro^tpiTap, or Lord Almighty. The fame may be farther proved from Zech. x. 8 :):. as is noted by the Learned Enfebius ; who is therein followed by Ambrofl\ and Jerom, And a further proof of the fame thing may * Nam & hie fie pofitum plerfque codices habent, quod 'Dommus Sabaoth ipfe Jit Rex glorU: Sabaoth autem Inter- pretes alicubi Do/ninum virtutumy alicubi Regc)7i, alicubi Ornnipotentem interpretati funt. Ambrof. de FiiL /. 4. t. i. p. 5-24. EJ. Bened. Sciendumque quia ubiquumque Septuaginra Interpretes Dominum Virtutum, 8c Dominum Omnipoientem exprefle- rint: in Hebraeo /it pofitum Dominns Sahaoth. H'teron,Tom.i, P'S*9' ^'^' ^^'^"^ Tom. I. p. 1718. f Scrm, 1. p. JO, i Vid, Eufeb. Dcmonftr. Evang. 1. 6. c. 16. p. 181 , H"eron. in loc p. J 7 18. Ambrof. de Fid. 1. 1, c.4, p.476. Q 4 be cvi- 132. Christ's Divinity Serm.VI. be evidently dravvn from Zech. ix. 5, 10. compared with Job. 19. 34, 37. Thefe Inftances are liifficient to check the confidence of iiich as roundly affirm (without a Syllabic of Proof) That the Title of 'TcoLVToxpxTcop , Almighty^ is in Holy Scripture, applied always to the Father only. As to the three remaining T)ivine Titles given to the Son, in Holy Scripture, 1 Ihali but juft mention them, not Tiaving room to enlarge. He is called The Lord of Glory ^ I Cor. z. 8. which if compared with the Title of King of Glory ( Pfalm 24.) and the defcription there given, will appear to be a Title of great weight and fignificancy. Kiitg of Kings and Lord of Lords^ is another "Divine Title attributed to Chriji Rev. 17. 14. 19. 16. This very Title is made the di- iftinguifliing Charadler of the one true God by St. Taul, in thefe words: who is the blejfed and only Potentate , the King of Kings mid Lord of Lords. I Tim. 6. 15. The laft T>ivine Title I intend to mention , and barely to mention , is That of Firji and Laft, Alpha and O- mega, the Beginning and the End. (Rev, 1. 17. 22, 13.) the fame that is applied to Serm. VI. f roved from his Titles. 233 to the one fupremc God. I fa. 41. 4.-44. 6. and ro God the Father Rev, ii. (J. The force of thefe Exprcffions I have elfe- where* open'd and explained, and need not here add any thing farther. Thus far I have proceeded in recount- ing, explaining, and vindicating the feve- ral divine Titles afcribed to God the Son, in Holy-Scripture. Particular ob- jedions to This, or That, I have took care to anfwer in their proper places : General ob- jedions againft the whole, intended to ♦ SiQ Defenie of fome Queries, />. 113. and Chaldec Vara," fhrafe upon Ifa. 41 . 4. N. B. The Anonymous Author of Modeft Plea continued* ^.12. endeavors to elude the force of thefe TextSi. i . By re- f erring to the Words, I am He that liveth and was dead, ^-c. Rev. I, 17, 18. But He would have done well to have confidered the Force of Zvv. See ift. Letter to the Author of the Hiftory of Montaniim, p. pad. idly> By referring to Rev. 3. 14. rohich I have explained Serm. 2d, and which confirms the Senfe I had given of Alpha and Omega, ^dly. By remit- ting us to Rev. 15. 16. which is no Explicaiion of the Vhrafe of Firft and Lad , but very wide and foreign, ^thly. by refer- ing to Heb. 12. 2. IVPjtch, if it be a good Comment upon Ifa. 4r. 4 — 44 6.-48. 11. and Rev. I. 8. — 21. 6. Then let it be alfo a jujl Explication of the Parallel Texts. Rev. i. II, 17. — 1. 8. — 22, 13. But if the contrary be manifefl in one Cafe, we mujl have fomething more than meer ConjeSiures And Fancies, before we admit it in the other. The fhrafe firft and lad, exprejfm \fl, the Feerlefs Majejly of God who is He the True God. If. 41. 4, 2/>', Eternity. Comp. If. 43. lo. ^dly. Supreme Power^ Dignity, and Glory. See IT. 44. 6, 7, S, ^thly. Creation and Government of all things. See Ifa. 48. 12. (^c^ * Vid. M. Abbad:e on tht Divinity tfQhriJi. p, 77. &c. 185. weaken ±34 Christ's Divinity Serm. VI. weaken the Conclufion we draw from them, fhall be cpnfider'd hereafter. Bur it will be proper, in rhe mean while, to take a view of the "Divine Attributes applied, in Scripture, to our Blefled Sa- viour. Thefe therefore ( if God permit ) are to be the Subjed of Difcourfe, at €ur next meeting. Divine %3S Divine Attributes afcribed to Christ. O R Christ's Divinity PROVED FROM HIS ATTRIBUTES. The feventh Sermon preached March 2. \i\^. / Z o John XVI. 15-. All Things that the Father hath, are mine ; therefore faid /, that He Jhall take of mine, and jhall Jhew it unto you. IN a former Di(courle, upon thefe Wojgds, I obfervcd that rhey contaiued two Ar- guments to prove xht^ivittity of our Blef- fed Lord : The Firjl of which arifes from this confideration, that the Influences, Gifts, and Graces of God's own Spirit, with the Glory of them, are afcribed to Chriji; And the 23^ Christ's Divinity Serm.VIL the Second is , that all things which the Father hath, are by our Bleffed Lord claim- ed as his own. After a brief account of the firft Argument, I proceeded more at large to open and illuftrate the fecond, pro- pofing thefe three particulars: I. To Ibow that the T>ivine Titles are afcribed to the Son, in Holy-Scripture. X. To fliow that the Divine Attri- butes are hkewiie afcribed to Him. 3, To Suuj up the force of the Argument arifing from thence, and to obviate fuch General Objediions as tend to weaken otw? Conclufion. I had Then only time to go through ihe firft of thcfe three particulars ; recount- ing the feveral T>ivme Titles, which are in Scripture applied to God the Son, as well as to God the Father. I proceed BOW II. To fliow that the iame "Divine At- tributes are hkewife afcribed to Both. I fcall infift particularly upon Four .• Eter- mty. Immutability y Omnifcience^ and Qmn'i^re fence \ of which, in their order. i.Tfee Serm.VII. j^rov'd from his AtttihuiQS. 137 I . The Scripture-proofs of the Eternity of God the Son, are many and clear; and may be divided into two forts, being either implicite and indirect, or explicit e and ^i- re^. The implicite or indirecSi proofs I fliall but briefly mention, as belonging to other parts of my Defign, and not fo properly coming in here. If the Son be God, in the ftrid and proper Senfe, as I have before ihovvn, he is of courfe Eter- naL But this I paft over here, my defign being now, not to prove Him to be Eter- nal becaufe he is God, but to prove that he is God becaufe he is Eternal*^ founding thereupon a new and diftindt Argument of Chrifl's "Divinity. I have before fhown that Rev. i. 8. is to be underftood of God the Son. And now I muft oblerve, that That fingle Text affords two Arguments of his Eternity. He is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending', which is the very defcrip- tion given of the Eternity of the one God of Ifrael* , and which our Adverfaries themfelves would not fcruple ro interpret as We do, provided only they might be per- mitted to underftand the Text of God the father. Befides this, the Son is alfo He * Set my Defenfe: p, iig. Serm> 6. p. 235. "^^'hich xaS Christ's Divinity Serm.VII. which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Our Adverfaries allow that thefe words denote indepen- dent Eternity * : Only they are pleafed , without any grounds for it, to underftand them oiGod the Father \ having before-hand fettled it as a Rule of Interpretation with themfelves, that every Text, of this kind, jhall be underftood of God the Father-^ or clfe that the very fame Phrafes when applied to God the Son , fliall lofe their fignificancy, and bear a very different meaning from what they do when applied to God the Father, The Son's being Jehovah is a farther proof of his Eternity, That Name expref- fing (as Criticks allow) Necejfaryexi- fience. Our Adverfaries would never fcru* pie This Conftrudion of the Name Jeho- vah\, could They but find a way to con- * Clarke's Script, TioBr. p. 264.. Eel. 2d. + See Clarke's Script. Dear. (p. 88- 2d Ed.) JVhere He in- terprets iwf, and TO ov, the Self-exiftent Being, or Perfon, and, to confound his Readers, puts SQ['t-e\\^cni i/ijlead cf\>lcct^2.n- iy-cxilling. Comp. Rei^ly p. 164. /z-W Script. Do6lr/2^»4. See alfo Modeft Plea p. \6l. M'hcre the Author admits that the IVord Jehovah alludes to Sclf-exiitence ( He Jljould have [aid NecefTary-txiltcnce) and tells us that it figuifies Him, whofe that EfTcnce is, meaning the Father only^ adding a weak Rea- [on or twOy ivhy the fame Name, when applied to God the Sou, (Ijflll yjot fgnijy the fame Thing, viz,. NecelTary-exiftence. fine Serm.VII. frov'dfrom his Attributes, xjj fine the Name, as They do the Things to the Father only. But having an HypO" thejis to ierve, and relblving that Words fliall not flgnify what They really do, any farther than is confident wjth their precon- ceived Opinions, They are forced either to deny that the Name Jehovah fignifies Nc- cejjary-exiftence ac all, or at lead to deny that it ib fignifies when applied to God the Son. Such is their Tartiality in this mo- mentous Caufe, in which the Honour of their God and Saviour is fo nearly and deeply concern'd. But I proceed. The E^ ternity of God the Son is farther proved from his creative Towers, which 1 have before explained and vindicated at large: And more dircdiy from Thofe Pafiages of Holy Scripture which declare Him to have exifted before all Creatures f. For if He ex- ifted before any thing was made. He mufl: of Conlequcnce be unmade^ and therefore cttriial. There is a Famous Pafiage of the Pro- phet Micah, relating to this Head, which is roo confiderable to be omitted. But Thou Bethlehem Efhratah , f hough Thou be little among the Thoufands of Judah, yet out ofTheeJhall He come forth unto me * Joh. I. 3, lo. ColoiT. i. ij. i Cor. 8. iC, that ^^o Christ's Divinity Serm. VII. that^ is to be Ruler in Ifrael, whoje go- ings forth have been from of old, from ever lofting. Mic. 5. x. Here is a plain de- Jcription of Two comings forth : One when ChriJiOxould be Born m Bethlehem-^ the o- ther long before from of old, and from e- verlafting. This paflTage is a full and clear proof of ChrijH preexiftence before his Birth of the Virgin, and a probable proof, at lead, of an eternal^ pre-exiftence. Here are two Expreflions /r) oov TTfoa:^^ tJ vvv dv. ri5? E;;5A££///, «AAflC (Zs^fncuviH Toy ki^ut^ jx tw," fiiXXoi (X.;>(^fovov ufx>^-j y.vu'o-Ks rov Tmri^. Cyrill, Catech. 1 1 p. 14^. T ccixyuv Ik TTurfoq •y.vof.A.ivnyKoCTzii tv' ul ilohi xtircu cctt' u^x^^, s| tctaivuv Pi7rKvr>] Attributes. 241 more than probable % fince there \s not ground (ufficicnr for calling ic certain aud indifpitable. Only this I may add, by way of remark, that vvhofbever lliould un- dertake to prove the Eternity of God the Father, from any exfrefs words, either of the old or new Teftament, would find his proof of it liable to the lame difficulty, and uncertainty, ixom the Ambiguity of the Hebrew, or Greek Phrafes uled to de- note Eternity, Another Argument (of like kind with the former) to prove the Eternity of God the Son, may be drawn from Solomon^ % de- fcription oi IVifdom Prov. 8. 22, 30. The Jews of old*, and the Chriftian Church from the Beginning, underftood That paP- fage of a Terfon, the Subfiantial Wif- dom of Godf, (either the Word, or the Holy Spirit, but generally the Former.) And this was no matter of difpute between the Catholicks and Arians formerly j nei- ther is it, as 1 conceive, at this day. The only difpute is, whether we are right in our interpreting the Phrales, from the begin- * See Allix, Judgment of the Jevoiflj Church, + ]\ii\. Mart. Dial. p. 184, 375-. Ed. jebb. Iren. 1. 4. c. 20. p. af3. Clem. Alex. p. 832. Tertull. contr. Herm. c. 18. contr. Prax. c. 6. Origen. Comm. in Joh. p. 11. 17. 33' 3^» ArhenagoFas. p. 40. Theoph. Antioch. p. 82. R ning. %^% Christ^s Divinity Serm. VII. nifig, from ever lofting &c. (Prov. 8. 23.) of a ftrid: Eternity. It muft be own'd that our Argument, fo far as it is built meerly upon the Critical meaning of the Phrafes, and their ufage in Scripture, amounts only to a ftrong Probability, as in the Text of Micah before fpoken of. But it may re- ceive fome Additional ftrength from feveral other confiderations, which it may be pro- per to mention : Wtfdom is here faid to have been with the Lord, in the Beginning of his way, before his works of old ( v. XX.) that is, before the Works of Creation; before there were any Creatures; confe- quently from all Eternity. Wifdom is far- ther faid to have been by him, as one brought up with him: (v. 30.) which feems to be a very eafy and natural defcrip- tion of Two that had been always together coeternal with each other ; which is farther confirm'd from the following words, and I was daily his delight, rejoycing always before Him (v. 30.) intimating, as Origen has well obierved *, that the Father can no more befuppofed to have been ever without the Word, or hly®*, (here fignified under -|- Ou ^«/ TfiV oiiB'ive^ccv ijfjjZv to, earsit iSe-' »» av, ^ ^ati ovk hv. Orig. apud Athanaf.Tom. i. p. 2^:3. Aura) yx^ TreiOoyjidoi rS it7ivv2t — 'Ey^) sif/ji y 'AAi^^^ef >^ ci(X> TT^ rZv x^"'^^ '^'5? '"oy Xg/ifow l^^cui'Eitfts cyx «v. Origen. contr. Ceir. 1. 8. p. 386. 6WT£ k^vecr^^ ohn ot^iiXivm ?v. Hippolyt. contr. Noet. c. lo. p» 1 5. Fabric. 'Ail h i)V, iiyi c* TTiF ^cCTfii'i^V' >< • ^ £i'A(Jj9«> »9 (rzCPiX, Tf05, rt.'6(H05 i^oi; t^, ioy®^ y^ crscptcc £fj tcu 0rec» 'i^ff?, tj" ^rvTe c* p. 308, 309. R 3 nal z^6 Chris t's Divinity Senn. VII, nal with Him. Some Moderns may in- deed aflign other reafons for the Sou's hav- ing thole Names : They may rell us that He is called the Wtfdom of God and the ^O'^ji'er of God, becaulc God'^. E'"tfdom and To'wer a?'e mamfejied ky Him *. But then let them own that this is buc ConjeBtire at moft, novel Conjed:ure ; and that the Rea- fon aiijgn'd by the Primitive Fathers may be* true, for any thing that appears to the contrary ; nay is much more hkely to be true, confidering how near many of thofe Writers lived to the A^^oftolkk time, and how unanimous they were in thofe Senti- ments, and how fuitable thofe Sentiments arc to the other high Things faid, in Scrip- ture, of the Son of God : Befides that thefe Names and Cbara5lers are not common to other things; not given to Troj^hets , or Apofiles, nor to the very Angels, (tho' God's fVi/dom &c. is manifefted by them) but are pccuhar to the Son of God. We find the Catholicks, afterwards, following the Example of their PredeccfTors, frequent- ly infifting upon the fame way of reafon- ing, in proof of the Son's Eternity f : which * See Clarke's Reply p. 173 tiy>i^orti7t ^ n- -^ " ^ '\ ' V -A V «- ' \\ •.^ * , / >\ I the Serm. VII. prov'dfrom ^/j Attributes. 247 1 the rather ob/ervc, becaufe it \% evident that thofe later Writers, eipecially, were very far from liippofing the Son to be no- thing but zw Attribute', And indeed it is but miireprefentation, without {o much as any probable ground, ro charge it upon rhe^»- te-nicene Writers ; tho' they may fometimes have expre/s'd themlelves more briefly, or obfcurely on that Head. Ideo Sapientia Dei appcllatur, ut nunquam Pater fine Sapi- ent ia, hoc eft, fine Filio fuo fuifie credatur. Pfeud- Ambrof. de Fide Ortliod. c. i. p. 349. F/iQc, li>y TTVTi ocAoy^ 3 >^ (pus ci/f «;^£yy^5 ^v, Comp. 618. and 683. Noh ergo credere quod fuerit momentum aliquod, quo fu- erit fine Sapient la Deus, aut fine Splendor e Lux. Ambrof. dc Fid. 1. I. c. I 3. p. 460. Ou ydf ic6au,Kry)SA?9V, an tCAXfAj7r>i oiz^civ, oun utrs^ov 0£ov, «x ec^npoc dijf/jHipyov, cvk ot- ?ioyor ufx^^y, one uTFcuahc Tra.ri^cx.. Greg. NyfT. contr. Eunom. Orat. 7. p. 634. Comp. p. 633. Hon isv y.v 6 TTUTyi^ /d^i^'i ''« ^^^^ «:7rwyp«(r^c67T>5 j Hon 6uk kv ei cTecrpt tv <^as uvroZj Cyrill. Alex. Thcfaur. lib. I. p. 21. Comp. p. 23. 27> 28. R 4 There z^^ Christ's Divinity Serm. VII. There is Another Argument of the Son's Eternity infifted on by ibme, even of the Ante-nkene Cathohcks*, drawn from the confideration cf the Son's being the exfrefs Ima^e of the FatherV Terfon, ( according to Hubr. 1.3.) and confequenrly relcmbhng Him in every Perfedlion, and particularly in his Eternity^ the prime perfection of all. But I proceed. There is one paflage more in the new Teftament, which has been ufually brought in proof of Chriji's Eternity. The Au- thor of the Epiftle to the Hebrews (Ch. 7.) introduces Melchifedeck as a Type of Chrtjl, Of him he fays, th'at he had no- beginning ofT) ays, nor end of Life \ that is, no beginning nor ending of his Prieft- hood is any where recorded. This \% a ty- pical reprefencation of Chriji \ wherefore it feems that Chriji mufl: really have what the Type was no more than a faint refem- blance of viz, an eternal cxiftence without Beginning, and without End. That he iliall never have end of Life, is unconteft- cd. If therefore to have no end of Life imports a future Eternity in the largefi: Senfe, it feems mod natural to underftand that to have no beginning of T>ays mud * Origen. apud Athanaf. Tom. i. p. 2,33, Alexand. Alex, apud Theod* 1. i. c 4,. p, 17. jjp_^ Serm.VII. frov'dfrom his Attributes, i^^ import Eternity backwards, in the largefl: Senfe alfo*. Thus far I have proceeded in the Scripture-proofs t of Chriji's Eternity, confider'd as didind: from the Attribute of Immutability 5 tho' in found reafoning one implies the other, and to prove Either, is at the fame 'time proving Both : This being premis'd I pafs on, 2. To the more particular proof of his Immutability. I fliall not repeat the Argu- ments from his being Jehovah ; Alpha and Omega ; he which was, and which is, and which is to come, or the hke, eqaally proving both Eternity, and Independent Eternity, that is, Immut ability \ becaufe the force of thofe has been already confi- der'd. But there are two or three Texts, before omitted, which I have referved for * Qui typum gerens Domini, & fine Patre, & fine Matrc & fine generationis enarratione, & fine initio, & fine fine dc" fcribiturj ut ofienderet Senipiternum Filium Dei in hunc mundiim efie venturum, qui & [me Fafre fecundum incarna- tioncm natus eft, £< //«? Matte fecundum divinam generatio- nem, & fine enarratione generationis -^ quia firriptum eft: Ge- nerationem autem ejus quis cnarrabit ? Ambrof. de Fid. lib, 3, c. II. p. 5'?' f As to the Senfe of the mo ft early Fathers, in relation 19 Chrift'i Eternity, / ha-ve cccafionally flyotcn it in fart. For the refit I refer the ingenuous and impartial Reader to Bp Buii'j Colleciions And Ohjervations on that Head, in his Dc- feofio Fid. Nic Wmh are abundantly fufficient to fiatisfy every ingenuous Encfuirer, that the Eternity of God the Son was the confiant Docirine of the Qhrtfiian Church from the Beginnings snd that the Contrary was always accounted Herefy. this nso Christ's Divi NiTY Scrm.VII. this place, and fliall now confider diftindly. The Author oF the Epiftle to the He- brews, oppofwg iho Immutability of Chrift to the fading and perilhing Nature of the Heavens and the Earth, lets it forth thus, in very exprcffive Terms. Thou, Lord, in the Beginning haft laid the Foundation of the Earth '^ and the Heavens are the Works of thine Hands. They ftoall perijh^ but Thou remainest : and they all ftoall wax old as doth a Garment \ and as a Vefture ft) alt thou fold them up, and they fhall be Changed: hut Thou art the SAME, and thy Tears ftoall not fail. Hebr. I. lo, II, II. This is the very defcription which the Holy Tfahniftgwts us of the Im- mutability, or unchangeable Nature, of the only true Eternal God. And fince it is here, without any reftridion or limitation, applied, by the inlpired Writer, to our Sa- viour Chrift ; we canftor reafonably under- ftand it to mean any thing left Here, than It does There. There cannot be any words devifed more cxpreis or emphatical than thefc are : They ft all perifto ; hut Thou remaineft : They ft all he changed, but Thou art the fame^. The force of thele * Ortgm quotes the Words , av ^ i ccutv^ u, feveral Times, 0s a proof of the to ctrfujfloy ;(^ uvaXXciwity the unconverti- expref- Serm. VII. frov'd from /-?/> Attributes. ^5 1 expreflions was well underftood by the great Athanafius, and triumphantly urged againft the Arians*, There is another paflagc out of the Epiftle to the He- brews of like import, declaring in ftrong Terms the Immutability of Chrirt. Jefus Chriji the fame yeflerday , to day, and for ever Hebr. 13.8. Here is the Phrafe ctuTo^, the fame, again applied to the Per- fon of ChriJl, as before in Chapter the firft : And, befides, here's all Tim^ ]^aji^ jprefent, and to come, taken in, to make the delcrip- tion ftill more full and compleat. It may be bed explain'd from a parallel Text in the Revelations, by the Charadler of, which is^ and which was^ and which is to come : Words which confefTedly and undeniably denote eternal, unchangeable exiftence. What is There exprefs'd by, is, was, and is to come, is Here fignified by yefierday, to day^ and for ever. Thus was the Text gene- rally underftood by Cat ho licks of the.4^i6. and jth. Centuries, t and frequently cited a- ble^ and immuia^Ie Nature of God* Origen. Contr. Celf. p. 17. 169. 318. * Athanaf. p. 440, 462, 68 "J. Ed. Bened. Vid. etiam Cyril. Alexandr. Contr. Jul I. S. p. r66. f Alcxand. Alex, apud Athanaf. Tom. i. p. 599. Athana- jjus Tom i . p. 440, 45-5, 6Sj. Gregor. Nazianz. Orar. 38. p. 613. Ambrof. de Fid. 1. f. c. i. p-ff5. de Incarn. c. 6> p. 716. Cyril!. Hierofbl. Catcch, la. p. 1^6* Cyril]. Alex, de Rs6t. Fid. p. 47. de Incarn. Dial. p. 7I0. gainft 25*2, Chris t's Divinity Serm. VII. gainfl: the Avians, How the Ar'ians re- phed to it then, we know not ; unlels we may make a Judgment of it from what is faid now. It is now pretended that the meaning of the Text is only this ; that the "Dodtrine of ChriJI , once taught by the Afojiles, ought to be freferved mtchaJ^- ed*. But, under Favor, this is rather the pradical Inference built upon the Propo- fition of the Text, than the Propofition, it felf : For let us take in the whole Context, which is as follows. Remember them which have the Rule over you^ who have Jpoken unto you the word of God: whofe Faith follow, confldering the end of their Converfation Jefus Chriji (is) the fame "^eflerday, to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and flrange ^o^rines \ for it is a good thing that the Heart be ejlablijh'd Scz. Now, whether the words have reference to thofe going be- fore viz. confldering the end of their Con- verfation-^ or to the words immediately following: viz. Be not carried about with divers and ftrangeT>o [trine s \ Either way, the Senfe is good and the Apoftle's Argu- ment pertinent. For upon the former fup- pofition, the Senfe will run thus: " Imi- • Clarke's Script. DQcir, p. II 7. Reply, p. 169. Modeft Pica c>c. p. 304. '* tate Semi. VII. p'ov'd from /^/j Attributes. 25-3 ** rate your Paftors, confiderkig how great ** and how Divine aPerfon you thereby ad- '• here to ; one who is no created or mu- " taip/eBQin^, capable of failing in his own *• Perlbn, or of dilappointing you in your '* juft expectations, but one that is e- '• tern ally and tmchayigeably the lame*; ** whom therefore you may infalhbly de- *' pend on, in the final reiult of Things. In this view, the Apoftle's Senfe \s both juft and pertinent, and is nor much unlike to what is elfewhere faid of God, that he is the Lord and changes not Mai. 3. 6. and that with Him there is no variablenefs neither Jhadow of turning. Jam. i . 1 7. But if we underftand this Text with regard to the w^ords immediately following : ( Be not carried about with divers and Jirange ^o6irines) ftill the Senle is juft and to the purpofe. '* Do not ye change, for Je- «' fus Chrift never changes, being immuta- *' blyand effentially the fame: Endeavor to *' copy after Him as far as your imperfc(3; " Natures will permit: Thus the Precept and the Example hang together, much after the fame manner as in a Text of St. Mat- thew : Be ye thjerefore perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is fer * See Trm Scriptrnt Do^rine of the Trinity continued p. 20(». fea. 254 Christ's Divinity Serm.VIt. feEi : Where an Argument is drawn from the natural and neceffary Perfediions of God, to induce us to fome faint refemblance and imitation of Them. Upon the whole, it appears that our Interpretation of this Text in the Hebrews^ is l'tte7'al\ which makes it preferable to any figurative conftrudi- on, unJefs there were a neceflity for it : It is alfo very agreeable to the fcope and de- fign of the Author in that place, and to what he had before taught us, Ch. i. x'Lth. of the fame Epiftle : It is farther countenanced by the Catholick Fathers, at leaft, as high as the ^th. Century ; and not contradid:- ed by thofe before them : In fine, it is op- pofed only, or however chiefly, by Thofe who, having an Hyfothefis to ferve, like not the Dodlrine it contains; which Do- drine neverthelefs is fet forth by other Scriptures, and confirmed by all Antiquity*: And now let any Man of common Inge- nuity be left to Judge which of the two * The Immutability cfChrifl n implicitely and confcqucn- tially ajferted as often as the primitive iVriten affert the Eterni- ty, or Confubflantiality or proper, ernphatical Exijieiice {which roe novoexprefs ^^^y neceffary-exiftence) of God the Son-, or declare Him to be God in the firtcl Senfe, or no Creature,- fo thmt di- reB and exprefs lefiimonies of Chriji's immutability, ;/ r^^- occur not fo often , are left needful. But fome there are, full and particular to that 'very point. Vid. Iren. I, 3. c. 8. p. 183. TertuUian. Contr. Prax. c. 27. Origen. Contr. Celf. p. 169. 170. inter* Serm.VII. frov'd from his Attributes, lyy Interpretations offer'd, be the true one. Having confider'd the Scriprure-proofs of Chrift's Eternity, and Imfmit ability , I proceed next to Another of his Divine At- tributes. 3 Omnifcience is Another divine Attri- bute, afcribed, in Scripture, to our Saviour Chrift. Now we are Jiire that Thou know^ eft all things ; faid his Dilciples unto Him. {^Joh. 16.30.) And again, Lord^ Thou knoweft all Things {J oh. xi. 17.) laid St. Teter, directing his difcourfe to Chrift. The Words , in both places , are general, without any limitation or refervc intimated in Text, or Context : neither does the E- vangelift, who recorded thefe fayings, any where infert any Caution to prevent our underftanding them in the higheft and moft unlimited Senle. Thus far the Prefumption lies in favor of our Conflrudlion : And I ill all endeavor farther to ihovv from other Scriptures, that thofe ExprcfTions ought to be underftood in their utmoft latitude, and lliall withal examine and confute the Arian or Socinian pretences to the contrary. That God the Son knoweth all Things, in the ftrideft Senle, may be judly inferred f?ona his being The Searcher of the Hearty and 2,5^6 Christ's Divinity Serm. VII. and His Knowledge of the "Deep Things of Cod. To be ys.^l\Qymqy\i^ Searcher of the Heart, is the peculiar and diftinguilhing Character of the One true God, as appears from Jerem. 17. 10. / the Lord fear ch the Heart, I try the Reins. And from I Kings. 8.39. Thou, even Thou only know- eft the Hearts of ail the Children of Men, And from A6ts. if. 8. God which knoweth the Hearsts, Yet this very Perfe<5tion our Blefled Lord claims to Himlelf 1 am He^ faith He, that fear cheth the Reins and the Heart, Rev. 2. 23. And St .John teftifies of Him, that He knew all Men. Joh. x. 24. knew what was In Man. Joh. i. 25-. And the Difciples, in their prayer to Him ( as ieems moft probable) fay, Thou, Lord, which knoweft the Hearts of all Men. Ads. i. 14. This is farther confirmed from Hebr.^. IX, 13. 7 he W OKD of God Is quick and fowerfuh and fharper than any two-edged Sword, j^ierclng even to the dividing a- funder of Soul and Spirit , and of the joints and marrow , and Is a T>lfcerner of the Thoughts and Intents of the Heart : neither Is there any Creature that Is not manifeft In his fight : but all Things are naked, and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. That this Pal^ lage is to be underftood of the Ao;^^, or Word, Serm.VIL frov'd from his kmxhutts. z^y Word, that is of Chrijf, I think, need not be doubted : The Charad:ers are plainly Yerfonal, and the Name of IVord is appro- priated to Chriji by St. John-, {Joh. r. i. Rev. 19. 1 3.) and the Sword, or two-edged Sword, is a Figure often mentioned in the Revelations , where Chrift is fpokea of: Rev. I. 16. — 2. IX, 1(5. — 19. 15-. This paflTage was underftood of Chrift^ both before and after the Council of Nic^y by Catholick Writers * : And the Appli- cation of it to Chrift is not ( that I know of) fcmpled by our Modern Arians, any more than it appears to have been doubt- ed of by their Predeceflbrs. Here then it is faid of Chriji , that All things are naked before Him; that every Creature is manifeft in his Sight ; and that He is a "Difcerner of the Thoughts and In^ tents of the Heart : Strong and lively Ex- prCiTions of his T)ivine Omnifcience\ I know not whether any fuller, or more figni- ficant can be produced out of the Holy Scripture, in proof of thQ Omnifcience even of God the Father. To This may be ad- ded Another celebrated Text, (Colojf. z, 3 .) In whom are hid all the Trea/ures of * Oriq;en in Joh. p. 34. Athanaf. Tom. l. p. ^03. 5*59. Serm, Maj. p. 6, Ambrof. dc Fid, 1. 4. c. 7. p. 5'34. Ed. Bened. Eufeb. in Tfalm'. p. 189. Cyrill. Alex. Thefaur. p. 1 60. 5^^ !%lfo Clarke** Script. Dodr, p. 1 16 .Ed. zd. S IVif X58 Christ's Divinity Serm.VlI. Wifdom and Knowledge. The Author of ScriptireT>o6irine pretends, that it is am- btguQUs whether this refers to the Father^ or to Chriji. But, if it certainly refers to Either, there can be no reafonable doubt but it refers to Chriji, immediately before men- tioned. The words run thus : The acknow- ledgment of the myflery of God and the Father, and ofChr'tJt^ (ev a") in whom are hid all the Treafures of JVtfdom and Know- ledge. There may be fome Queftion whe- ther the words (gv 0)) may not refer to ^U75e>t». Myjiery, before fpoken of; and fo-may not be properly rendered, in which, inftead of in whom. But if they be rightly rendered in whom, it is plain they muft refer to the iKareft Antecedent, Chrijl: And in this, In- terpreters are agreed *. Origen, Hilary, and the antient Author of the Commentaries under the name of St. Ambrofe, refer the words to Chrijl. The Two latter, as alfb Cyril oi Alexandria, draw an Argument from them of the abfolute Omnifcience of Chrift. Clemens of Alexandria twice cites the Text : But whether he underftood the words in difpute • to relate to Myftery go- ing before, or to the Perfbn of Chriji, is * Orlgen. Comm. in Matt. p. lop, Hilar, p. 1025,1028. PfeuH-Ambrof. in loc : Clem. Alex. p. 683. 65)4. Vid. ta, Cyril!. Alex, ad*', Anthropomorph» p. 382, unccr^ Serm.VII. frov'd from his Attributes. 1^9 uncertain. It is obfervable, that Four of the Authors, now mcnrion'd, read the words fomewhat differently from the prcfent Q?- fies"^. As to the Senfe of the Words, and their reference to Chrift, we iliall find but little rcafon to doubt, if we confider the general fcope and drift of the Apoftle, in this Epiftlc; which was to fet forth the Excellency and Dignity oiChrid. This ap- pears particularly from verfes if, 16,17,18, 19th, of the firil Chapter; and from the 9th verfe of this very Chapter, where we are told, that /// Him dwelleth all the ful- nefs of the Godhead bodily. Well might the Apoftle fay, that j4ll the Treafures of IVifdom a7id Kno^ujledge were in him in whom all the Fulnefs of the Godhead was alio. 1 know, our Adverfaries, whether J^fi- nians or Arians, will endeavor co elude the Force of this Text^ as well as of the other. Bur, as the Apoftle ulhered it in with a very folemn Caution, to beware left any Man ffoil us through Thilofophy, and vain T>e- ceity after the Tradition of Men, after the Rudiments of the World, and not af- ter Chrift % So let all true Chriftians be- ware, left they be impoled upon by weak '^ My fiery of Cod in Chrifii So Clemens^^w^ Pfeud-Ambrof. i^y fiery in Chrifi-, Origcn. My fiery of Cod «ven Chrifiy Dc\ Chriftij HiUr. S ^ pre- x6o Christ's Divinity Serm.VlI. Pretences, built upon falfe Thilofo^hy, and vain deceit ; not upon found and true Rea- foning. The Author of Serif ture T>o- Qrine refers us* to John 14. 10. The Fa- ther that dwelleth in me, he doth the Works, If he means that the Father's Na- ture and Godhead fo dwells and refides in Chrijiy as to make a full and intire Commu- nion of Subftance, and of all Perfcdli- ons, infomuch that the Son lliall therefore be Totus ex Toto, TerfeEtus ex Terfe^o, very God of very God ; then indeed this Conftrudlion would not be amifs, being the lame which Hilary, and fome other Carho- licks give of it. But, if he underflands the Father's in-dwelling \n any lower Senfe, it would have come better from a Socinian, who would interpret the Ftilnefs of the God- head, of the Father dwelling in the Man Chriji Jefas. It cannot eafily be imagined that the Apoftle, who, in the firft Chapter of this Epiftle, had faid fo many high and great Things of rhe Inherent and Perfonal Dignity of the Son of God , as exifting before all Things, Creating, T*referving, and Sujiaining the whole Univerfe, iliouJd now fall fo low as to tell us, that he meant it not of any inherent perfonal Dignity of the Son, but ol the Father only : Or ♦ Qhxkt's Serial, HoSir* p. 114. 2d. Ed. if Serm.VII. prov*dfrom his Attributes. i6i if the Apoftle had fo intended it, why ihould not he have faid plainly that the Father dwelt in Him, a plain eafy Thing, inftead of furprizing us with fo folemn and ponnp- ous an Expreflion, ( and that too after the Ceremony of a Preface to introduce it ) as that in Him dwelt all the Fulnefs of the Godhead bodily '\ The Author of Serif ture-T>o6irine, not confiding in his firft Explication, invents another, inconfiftent with it ; tho' he lets Both (land together, in the fame Page. Fulnefs of Godhead, He interprets Ful- nefs of 'Divine Tower, Dominion, and j^u- thority : For fo the Word, SgoTjj^, Divinity, Ht fays, fignifes '^ and elfewhere*, always fignifies. He is much miflaken in his Remark upon the Senle of S-eor);?, as might be Ihown by a hundred Inftances out of the bed Ecclefiaftical Writers ; fome of which I have referr'd to in another place f, and upon another occafion. However, if 5eo- T>i^ always fignifies Tower, Dominion and jiuthority ; then it never fignifies the Be- ing, or Terfon whofe that Tower, Domi- nion, ox Authority is; and therefore the Text of St. John ( 14. 10.) which fpcaks * V.eply. p. 285. f Defenjt of fame Queries, p. S<5. 394, S 3 of %6% Christ's Divinity Serm.VII. of the Father's ( not the FatherV Tower, ^omhfiO'n6Lc.) dwelling in Chrift, is very inconfiHenily put together with this other Conftrudiion. But enough of this. As to the Scnfe of the Text {Col. x. 9.) we need not have recouife to any remote and far-fetch*d Explications , when the natural and obvious Conftrudlion of it is fo near at hand. Whoever confiders that theL^^^^^j* or ff'^ord, was God, and was made Flejh^ or was God manifeji hi the Flejh *, ( as St. Taul exprefles it) will eafily believe that That was the great Mjfierj which St. Taul had in his Thoughts, when he told us that the Fulnefs of the Godhead dwelt in Chrift bodily. He had the more rcafoa to uilier this in with a prefatory Caution a- gainft Thilofophy, and Vain deceit, becaufe the Myftery of God incarnate was what the 'Dijputers of the World were moft of all offended at, and what none of the He- reticks of the Earlieft times would come into f . The T>oceta, a very early Sed:, denied * I Tim. 9.16. Ai to 0ii>?, in this Text, and the agreement of the Greek Copies in it, confult BiJJjop Pearlbn, on the Creed: p. 128. and Mills in loc. Dr. Ciarke'j Surmife that All the fathers read (oc,) or ( o) mjlead of 0£o?, //// the beginning of the 6th Century^ -Khlch He pretends to collet^ from the Te- nour of their ComiTients, is -mthout any grounds. See Greg. NyfTen. Orat. lO' Contr, Eun. p. 69}. Where 0£o§ is read, and ihe Tenour of the Comment requires that Reading, f See mv Befenfe of feme ^eries. p. 325. Scrm.VlI. frov'dfrom his Attributes. 1^3 the Humanity of Chrift, that they might ftill retain the Behef of his "Divinity \ while Cerinthus, and the Ebionites denied his Divinity, that they might ftill acknoW' ledge his Humanity, neither one nor o- ther admitting thcDivinity and Humanity together ; becaufe fuch an Union and Mixture, of God and Man^ appeared utterly repug-^ nant to their Thilofophy, Both thofe He- refies, probably, had their Rife in the Apo- ftle's times, and before St. 7aul wrote this Epiftlc. And now we may underftand what St. Taul meant by Fulnefs of Godhead: The Divine nature, the A07®", full and perfect God, afTumed a Body, took Flefti upon him, or became Incarnate. The Word was made Flejh, and dwelt among us (in our Nature) and of his Fulnefs have we all received. Joh, i. 14 .16. The Conftrudion which I have here given of this remarkable Paflage, is not mine, but That of the primitive Catholick Writers *, as * AioTn^ ^ TO SK TJJ5 THtf/SiVit .yi^(^v, in Cleinens, does not fignify Vy the Will of the Almighty {as the Doiior conftrnes it} but by )\^i Soveraign, all-containing Will. Ste Parallel ExpreJJlons in other Authors. Mova? ^i i ©go{ •!f*fAfX^ "^"i /SifAiiVei TO 5T<^y. Pfcudo-JulL ad Orthod. Qu. 11. Iranrienfus cum fit Deas, & mundi opifex, atque Omnipo- ictiSy immcnfa tc mundi opifice, atque omnipotenti voluntaie, & e£fe6lu novo, potenter & efficaciter fecit ut? omnis pleni- tudo, &c. Fragm. Irenasi : pag. 341. Ed. Bened, Comp. CIcm. Alex. p. 647. 679. f Se» Glarke*i Ssript, 'Bodlr* p. 4.1". 138. Taught Serm.VII. frov'dfrom his Attributes. t6j Taught, taken from what is cuftomary a- moDgft Men, fliould be apt to cbnvey a low Idea, when applied (tho* in a more re- fined and elevated Senfe ) to the Perfons of the ever Bleffed Trinity *. It is very cer- tain that the Son has his Knowledge, and every other Pcrfedion, from the Father, in the fame Senle as he hath alfo his Nature or Subftance from the Father: But itfliould be confider'd, that after our BlefTed Lord had faid, The Son can do nothing of Him- felf ( John 5". 19. ) He immediately added. For what things foever He (the Father) doth, thefe alfo doth the Son Ukewife, Let it then be acknowledged that the Son can know nothing of Himfelf, provided only that we add this Confideration to it, that what things foever the Father know- etb, thefe alfo knoweth the Son likewife\ And then it will appear that thole Exprefli-i' * Dieere autem 8c loqui, in Trinitate, non fecundum con- faetudinera noftram accipiendum, fed juxta Formam incorporalium naturarum — ncque enim ignorante Filio ( Qui Sapienria & Veritas eft) Pater fuam nunciat volunta- temj cum omne quod loquitur fapiens verufque fubfiftens in Sapientia habeat, & ia Subftantia. Loqui ergo Patrem Sc audire iMlium, vel e contrario, Filio loquente, audire Patrem, ejufdem naturae in Patre 8c Filio, confenilifque, fignificatio eft* Bidym* de S/). 5". p. jif. Ed* Bened. Ftlius nihU a Jemetipfo pojjit F/icere, nifi v'uhr'tt Vatrem faci- entem: in fenfu kilicct facientem. Pater enim fenfu agitj Filius vero> qui in Patris fen(u cflj videas pefficit. TertuU. Ccnty. Pra,r» c. i^: oas a68' Christ's Divinity Serm.VII. bns, which the Objedors lay hold on, are fo far from denoting any imperfedJion in the Son's Knowledge, that, on the contra- ry, they fct forth the great and unnieafur- able perfedtion of it ; as being infeparably linked with, and indeed one and the fame, in extent, and degree, with the Father's, 3. A third Obje<9:ion, *again(l what we aflert, is taken from Revelations, i. i. The Revelation of Jefus Chrift which God gave unto Him. But This has no difficulty with any who confider that all the Tranl- adrionsofGod the Father with Mankind, are in, and by, Chrift Jefus. Every Re- velation of God is through Chrift his Son, the Revealer and Interpreter of the other- wife unknown Father, and his Will, to Men. This Order and Oeconomy, obfer- vable in the Perfons of the Sacred Trini- ty, is what we ought humbly to adore and reverence, rather than pry too curioufly in- to ; left pretending to be wife above what is written^ we fall from our own ftedfaft- neft, and lofe our felves in inextricable Mazes. 4 The laft, and moft material Objedion againft us, is from Mark, 13. 3x. But of ♦ Glarke'j S^W/»^ Bo^r. p. 45-. 172. That Serm.VII. proved from his Attributes. 169 That Day, and That Hour knoweth no Man, no not the Angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, hut the Father, Or Father only% as it is in Matt, 24. 36. which the Author oi Scripture-T^odirine ^ particularly taketh Notice of*. He does not, in Terms, declare whether this Text be, ia his Opinion, a Proof of God the Son's be- ing ignorant of any Thing ; but \s content to fayf, or infinuate as from Irenaus (tho'He miflranflates his Author J that the Father is Superior in Knowledge, and that He only has perfeSi Knowledge-, Very fufpicious and doubrful Expreflions, and left without Guard or Caution. But to come to the Point. I am to ihow that Thefe Texts of St. Mark, and St. Matthew, prove no- thing at all againfl: iheperfe^ Knowledge^ or ftricS: Omnifcience of the Divine Na- mr^of Chrift. It is not faid, iheSon of God knew not the Day of Judgment, but the Son, that is, the Son of Alan-, as appears from the Context, in Both the Evangelijls : {Matt. 24. 37, 39. Mark, 13. 26, 34.) And it is well oblcrv'd by AthanafiusX^ that, after our Lord had mention'd the A71- gels as not knowing that Day, He did not * Se^ Clarke's Scri^. DoSir. p, 45-. 132. f Clarke'j Script. Docir. p. 1 35, 134, ^ Athan^r. Tom. i, p. ^93. add 270 Christ's Divinity Scrm.VlI. add. neither the Holy-Ghoft*^ that it might flill be confidered, that, if the Holy-Ghoji knew the Day, well might alio God the Son know it; and that therefore what is here faid of the Son^ relates to the Son of Man only. It is objedied by Crellius^ and Others, that it could not with Truth and Sincerity be faid of CAri/? that He was igfw- rant of the Day, if He knew it in any Capacity : as it cannot be denied that Man is immortal, fo long as He is immortal in any RefpecSk or Capacity. But to This I anfwer, that as it may be truly faid of the Body of Man that it is not immortal, tho' the Soul be : So it may be truly faid, that the Son of Man was not knowings tho' the Son of God knew every thing. Now, fmce Chrift may Ipeak of Himfelf, either as Son of God, or as Son of Man ; it is not inconfiftent with Truth and Sin- cerity 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 fays, in one place. Now I am no more in the World, {Job. \j. 11.) and in another place, Te have the Toor always with you , but me ye have not always, {Matt. 26. II.) denying that He was, or iliould be, any longer prefent with his Difciples; which can only be underftood of Serm.VII. frov'dfrom his Attributes. 271 of his Humane Nature and Bodily Pr^fence : For in another icfpe(!t He cKewhere fays; Lo I am with you always (Matt. x8. 20.) and // any Man love me — my Fa- ther will love Him, and JVe will come unto Him and make our abode with Him, Job. 14. 13. From hence we fee, that our BlefTed Lord might, without any Breach of Sincerity, deny that of Himfelf confidered in one Capacity, which He could not have denied in another. He denies the Know- ledge of the Day of Judgment, but in re- fped: of his Humane Nature \ in which refpedt alfo , He is faid to have increafed in IVifdom (Z//^. i. ^i.) the Divine Logos having, with the Human Nature, afTumed the Ignorance, and other Infirmities proper to it *. If it be objeded that the Son \^ here placed after the Angels, and that the Gra* dation requires that we fliould underftand the Text of a Nature fuperior to Angels ; it is eafily anfvvered, that the Son of Man's Union with the Logos, and the particular Concern the Son of Man has in the lafl: Judgment, are fufficient to account for the fuppofed Climax, or Gradation], ♦ See Mr, Boyfe'j 'very judicious Account of this Texty in anfroer to the pretences of Mr. Emlyn, -who never thought fit to make any reply to that part. f See Dr. Beiuiet en the Trinity, p. 154. ^(, Upon %TL Christ's Divinity Scrni.VII. . Upon the whole then, it appears that our Lord might very fincerely and juftly fay, that He knew not the Day or Hour of the Final Judgment; underftanding it of Himfelf confideredin his Human Capaci- ty i tho' at the fame time, in another Re- fpecSl , He could not be ignorant of any Thing*. If it be pretended farther, that the Son of God, as fiich, and every o- ther Perfon whatever, is excluded, becaufe of the Words Father only\ I anfwer, that the exclujlve Term, only ^ is not to be fb ftridly interpreted as to exclude what effentially belongs to the Father^ and may be reckoned to Him, as included in Him, His Word, or Spirit. It is faidj {Rev, 19. ix.) of God the Son^ that * A learned Gentleman hen lately attempted a different So- lution of the difficulty arifing fran thefe Texts ; for which I heartily thank Him. I do not dijlike the propofing of fever at ronys of coming to the fame Foint: O^ily I voiJJj the Author had been content with recommending One^ without condemning Another. He may pleafe to conjider, that we are upon the De- fcnfive only, with regard to Thefe two Texts ; that we prove the Son's Omnifcicnce from other Texts i and that a Refpondent, as ftich, can never beg the Queftion. Not to mention that the diflmBion of the Two Natures^ Divine and Human, is demon- (Irably plain from other Scriptures ; that therefore Our Solution is very natural and obvious ; that it muft be admitted with re- gard to Luk. z. «) 2, (and why ?7ot in the Other Place?) and that if our Saviours' sT):kr'k. and Myftical way of [peaking be fufficient/o jttflify even fo hard a Suppojition, as That feems to be which this Gentleman goes upon ; it will be more than fufficient to takeoff all Scruple with refpeci to fo enfy^ and fo unexceptionable a Solution as ears is. He Serm. VII. p'ov'd from /^/V Attributes, %f% He had a Name written, which no one («je!$) knew but he Himfelf. Now, if it be rcalbnable and juft to infer from thence, that the Father was Ignorant of That Name ; then let it alfo be reaibnable to infer from this place of St. Matthew^ that the Son was Ignorant of the Day of Judgment : Of, if iiich Inference be mani- feftly falfe and unjilftifyable, in one caft; there inuft be foniething more than the bare Force of the exclujive Term to make ic true or juftifyable, in the other. From what hath been (aid, it is mani- feft, that Holy Scripture has, by nccelfary Gonfequence, and allb in exprefs Terms, aicribed Omnifctence to the Son of God : And that the Pretences againfl xt are of no weight ; being founded only on mifinterpre- tation of Texts, and mifapplication of what relates to Chrijl in one Capacity, to hinj confider'd in another. 3. I proceed, thirdly, to another divine Attribute afcribed to Chriji, in Holy Scrip- ture ; viz,. Omnipre fence. The Texts which prove it are thefe that follow : Where two or three are gathered together in my name. There am I in the midft of them : Matt, 18. xo. Lo, I am with yoti always, T even 274 Christ's Divinity Serm. VII. even unto the end of the V/orld^ : Mate. 28. 20. By him all things confift : Col. I. 17. Thefe Texts demonftrate that our BlefTedLord is prefent on Earth, at the fame time that he is alio prefenc in Heaven ; that his prefence reaches to all the Eads of the Earth, to all Men living quite round the Globe; to the whole Syftem of Creatures; for by him all things - confift -. As much as to fay, /// him they lii^e, and move, and have their Being ; which is the moft lively and cmphatical defcription of the Omnip\fence of God. Chrift's Omnipre- fence is iikewife intimated from the Wor- lliip order'd to be paid him by Men, by An- gels^, by the whole Creation*^. The fame thing may certainly be inferr'd from his be- ing Creator of the Univerfe. Hence it is that the Antients do, with one voice, declare for the Omniprefence of God the Son^. Some of them indeed have been thought to have given into contrary. Sentiments, in their Dilputes with the Noetians ^ or a Vhi.Ongtn. Contr. Cell" p. 299. in Joh.p, 122, 128, 419. b Heb. I. 6. c. Rev 5.8. Si Hon^o rantummodo Chriflus , qnomodo aJefl ubtquc invocatus, cuni H^c Hominis Natura ncn fit, fed De/, lit adeJlc cjnni loco poiTic? Noxat. c. 14 d Juft. Mart, Apol. 2. c. ii. p. 17. Ed. Ox. Irenacus p. 190. 251. 3if. Ed. Eencd. Clem. Alex. 711. 831. 840. VA. Ox. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 23. Origeii. Contr. Celf, ?- 239^ 1^4. i-lippolyt. Fragm. p. 4j» Vol. 2. Fabric. Jews Serm. VII. frov'd from his Attributes. ij^ Jews. But, upon careful inquiry, this ap- pears" to be only a groundleis iurmile; as is largely and folidly proved by the Judici- ous and Learned Bp. Bull*, k may perhaps be objeded, that rheSon'5 being preient to all Men, or even to all Crearures, does net prove his Ommpre fence ^ in the largeft and fulleft Senfe. To vvhtcb it is fufficient to reply? that, tho' there is not any Scripture-proof of an abfolute Om- n'tprejence of the Son, extending beyond the limits of the World into I know not what imaginary extramundmte Spaces, yet there is full proof of his Omnt^refence through ihQ whole Creation-^ which is, to all intents and purpofes, the very fame thing to us with T>ivine Omni^refence ; and is as high as Scripture has any where carried the Omniprefence^ even of God the Fa^ ther. Thus far I have proceeded in the proof of the 'Divine Attributes afcribed in Scriptureto our Saviour Chrift. The Ti- ties I have recounted and vindicated in a for- mer Difcourfe. Nothing now remains buc III. To Sum up the Force of the general Argument, and to obviate fiich general Ob- jections as ate brought to weaken our Con- •« Bull -Defenf. Fid, Nic Se(f^. 4. c, 3. T X clufioa 2/6 Christ's Divinity Serm.VII. cluficn I have left my felf but little room for this: Indeed, much is not needful. If the Premifes ftand. the Condufion makes it felf Every (m^Q Attribute that hath been mention'd, every fingle Title, almoft, juftifies the Inference, that Chrift is no Crea- ture, but truly and ftridiy God-. All to- gether make lb full, fo clear, lb irrefragable a Demonftration of it, that one might juftly wonder how Any, who retain the leaft Re- gard or Reverence towards the Sacred Writ, can make any ierious doubt of it. It can- not be Ihovvn that anyone of thofe iV^^^^j", Titles, Attributes, and Ejfential Troper- ties of God, was ever given, in this man- ner, and with thofe eircumftances, to any Creature. If one or two of them, (as the Name, God, for Inftance,) might be equivo- cal^ yet the reft are not fb ; and the manner and eircumftances wherewith they are afcri- bed to Chrift , fufEciently determine the Senfe of them. If Titles alone are not of weight fufficient, Attributes come in to flrengthen and confirm them : And if any Scruples remain (till, Creation and Adoration underftood of,and Attributed to Chrift, rtxido^t the Proof ftill more irrefragable. The Strength and Number of the Evidences concurring to eftablifh Chrift's 'Divinity, when fewer and kfs confiderable might have been fufficient, is Serm. VII. frov'd from /?/> Attributes, tjy is very wonderful; as if Divine Wifdoni had purpofcly fo order'd it, forefeeing what Oppofition would be made to it. Were it poffible, by any Quirk or Subtlety, to elude tVQvy Jingle Evidence, yet the joint Force of all together would be very confiderable ; becaufe it is hardly to be imagined that, ia an affair of this moment, God would ever have lufFered fo many plaufible Appearan- ces, and (pecious Prelumptions, of a thing that is not, to (land in Scripture, for the deception even of JVife^ and Good, and Conftient'totis Meo. The Jewijh Church were trained up to aSenfe oi ihQTrueGod, by thofe very Chara^ers which are appli- ed to Chrifl:. Upon thofe rhey formed their Idea of the 'T>ivme Being; and would, have thought it Blaffherny to have afcri- bed the fame, tho' by way of Figure only (in io ferious a Concern) to any Crea- ture. And not They only, but all Man- kind mud allow, that none more expreflive and fignificant Chara<3:ers of God can be devifed, than (everal of thole are which arc applied to Cbriji. If we are miftaken in this Matter, it is a Miftake which the Chriftian World, by plain Force of Scrip- ture, has, in a manner, inevitably been led into. He muft be a very weak Man ^ho can imagine, that the Doctrine of the T 3 Tri- ayS Christ's Divinity Serm. VIL Trinity could ever have come in, or could have iubfifted half a Century, were it not for the plain and irrefiftible Reafons for it , appearing in Holy Scripture, How the matter now ftands all the Chriftian World over (except a few Reclaimants) is very wxU known. If we run up 14 hundred years higher, (or thereabout) we find the Body of the Biiliops and Clergy, fummon'd from all Parts to debate this very §lueftion, de- termining at length as we have done, and as much deceived, ( if we are deceived ) as we are at this Day. If we look 60 Years higher, and may judge of the Prin- ciples of the Church at that Time, from thoie of the two Celebrated Biihops oi A- lexandria and Rome, wii:h their Clergy; we fliil find them lying under the fame fatal deception that prevails now. Go up a hundred years higher, to the middle of the iecond Century ; ftill, all the way as we pafs, we meet with plain Marks and Charaders of the fame T)elu/ion, if it be any, overfpread- ing the Church oi Chriji\ at a Time when Miracles were not ceafed, nor Revelati- ons uncommon. \vl fnort, when we have carried our Searches up to the very Apofto- lick- AgQ, we flill oblerve manifeft footfteps of the lame Error ( if it be one ) pre- vailing : nor can we find fo much as one Mao Serm. VII. j^rov'dfrom A/j Attributes. 179 Man, of any confiderable Repute amorfg Chri- ftians whom we can certainly prove to have been ixtt from it. Surely God had foon forlaken his Heritage, and given up his Church to jirong T)elufions (Thar Cllurch againft which the Gates of Hell jhall ne- Ter prevail) if we have been miftaken in thefe Things. It appears however from hence, how powerful and forcible the Scrip- ture-Evidences of Chrift's Divinity have ever been, upon the Minds of Men: not the Illiterate, Unthinking, or Injudicious, bur the Wileft, the oioft Confiderate, the brighteft Ornaments, and the mOil eminent Lights of the Chriftian Church. But our^<^- verfaries are Men that can look up againfl: all thefe Evidences, and can harden their Minds in Oppofition to them. Let us fee what they have to plead, in order to fence ofFCon- vidion, and to keep their wretched Caufe in any tolerable Countenance, at this Day. I. To our Argument, fo far as refpeds the T>ivine Jitles given to God the Son , in Holy Scripture, it is Objec9:ed*, that the Higheft Titles of all, fuch as !54*r©^, the mofi Higb^ or Supreme \ 'TroLV'wx.pirap, the Almtg'bty, or Supreme over all-^ iis 06o^ ^ -srarii/) ^a.^Tm , the one God and Father of all J ^5 ©ei^ g^ a m -TravTitj one God of *ModeftPlea. ^ T 4 whom z8p Christ's Divinity Serm.VII. whom are all things, are never applied to the Son, in Scripture. To which I an- fwer, Firft, that if God the Son has not every "Divine Title which is applied, in Scnf^ture, to, God the Father, yet He Las more than enough to prove that he is no Creature \ but that he is truly, ftridly,^ and elTentially God : So that if any other high Titles be afcribed to the Father, (not as Father but as God) Thofe alfo, tho' not fpecially applied to the Son, in Scrip- ture, are virtually contain'd, and neceflari- ly included in thofe Qther that are exprejly given Him. 1 anfwer. Secondly, that the Title of cTfltvTc/xpctTti'f^, Almighty, is exprefly applied to God the Son, in Scripture, as hath been iliown*: AndtheSenfe oiv-hiq^^^moji High or Supreme over all,) is plainly afcribed to Him Ro7n. 9. 5, And, very probably, the Title it fclf, in other Scrip- tures, is applied to Him f , were it worth the while to infift upon a fruitlefs Nicety, after fo many and great Proofs of what \;ye maintain. As to the Titles of one God and Father of all, and one God the Father of "whom are all Things, wo. iliould * Serm. <5. p. 217. f Plalm 87. S* ^^^« Tertull. contr. Prax. c. 27. Atha- nall p S89. Ambrof. de Fid. 1. 3. c. 2. p. 498. Pfalrri 8i. 18. Vul. Arhan. p. 889. Ambrof. p. 498. Luk. i. 16. Tid. Ambrof. dc Fid. 1. 3. c, 2. p. 498. ihink Serm.VII. frov'd from his AtznhixtGS. zit think it very ftrange indeed, to find Them apph'ed to God the Son ; bccaufe, taken all togetber,Theyare?^^ry3///2f/Titles,pccuharly belonging to God the Father, It mud appear very much for the Advantage of our Caufc, that Scripture has fo indifferently applied e- very divine Title almoft, to Father and Son, as barely to leave no more than were pro- per or neceflary to keep up the Diftindtion of Terfons : And it muft appear as a (land- ing Monument againfl: our Adverfaries, to their Shame and Confufion, that after we have given them every Proof that can be requifice to fliow that the Son is ftridly God, yet none 111 all be thought fufficient, unleis it be a Proof of what we pretend BOt, of God the Son's being the very jfame Perfon with God the Father, This indeed is the fecret meaning of all the Oppofiti- on made againfl us : Here lies the Myftery of their Herefy, in this one falfe Principle; that the Son cannot be the Supreme God^ that is, not truly, ftridly, and efTentialfy God, unlefs he be the very Terfon of the Father. Upon this Bottom reft both Sa- belliantfm and Arianifm: 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 Difappointment. To conclude this z2i Christ*s Di viN iTY Serm.VIf. this Article ; we rQadily allow that the Ti- tle of 07^e God and Father of all, is na where applied, either in Scripture or ^#- tiquity, to God the Son ; becauie the Son is nor the Father: Bat the Title of the one God, we prove to belong to Him? as often as we prove that he \% Lord 2inc\ God, Jehovah, over all God blejfed, and the like ; For Scripture acknowledges no more Gods than one. The Title of one God the Father of whom are all things , may alfo be peculiar to the Father*, becaufe of the ferfonal diftinguilliing Charaders, *^ N, B. The Author cf Modeft plea ^c. continued, is f'^r. Ep.73. p. loo. Ed. Ox. Quomodo ergo Quidam dicunt foris extra Ecclefiam, imo contra Ecclefiarn, modo in nomine Jefu Chrifti, ubicunque 8c quomodocunque Gcntilem baprizatum rcminjonem peccato- rum Confequi pofTej quando Ipie Chriftus Gentes baptizari jubeat in plena 6c adunata Triniure? Cyp?, Ep, 73. p. io6. lick Serm.VIII. ftom t be ¥orm of B^Lptirm. 189 lick Age, and wrote within forty Years of it. It was Then the conftant Pradlicc of the Church to Baptize in this Form, purluant to our Lord's Commillion ( a certain Argu- ment that this Text of St. Matthew ap- peared in the CofiesTh^n in uie, as it is alio Now found in all the Copies, and all the Antient Verfions) aod there is no jufl rea- fon to fufpcd:, but that Baptifm had been conftantly adminiftred in That very Form from, and in, the Times of the Apoftles. There is indeed fbme ground of Scruple (which the Hereticks^ of former Times laid hold on ) arifing from the Hiftory of the jlcfs, which no where tells us of the Apoftles Baptizing in the name of the Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft ; bar mentions only their Baptizing in the na^ne of Jefus Chriji^.ox in the name oftheLordJefus"^^ or in the name of the Lord'^. St. Cjifrian^ in anlwer to this difficulty, feems to admit the matter of Fad fo far, that the Apoftles did Baptize fome in the name ofChriJi Je- Jtis, but Jews only ; not Gentiles, whom. He thinks, the Commijfion peculiarly re- a Vid. Cyprian, Epift. ad Jubajan, p. 2 of, 206. ad PompciV ij Afts 2. 38. Com^, 3.27. c A6ls 8. 16 19.5. Com* Ronl.6.3. 4 Ads 10.48. 12.16. V Ipedledv zcjo Chrift's Hiv'mxty j^roved Serm.VIlI. Ipedcd, and wtiofc circumftances were fbme- thing different from thofe of the Jews*. Neverthelefs, it may be doubted, whether this was Cyfrian's Solution of the Difficult ry or no; (bme pafTagesf of the fame Epi- ftle feeming to carry a contrary Senfe : And conddering how unanimous moll, if not all the other early Writers | of the Church have been in denying the FadJ, that ever the Apoftles Baptized in any different Form from what our Lord prefcribed, one may incline to think that Cyprian was of the fame Judgment. The mofl probable and moft generally received Account of this matter is, that the Apoftles Baptized all, both Jews and Gentiles, in the fame Form; /;/ the name of the Father, and of the Son, and oftheHolyGhoJi: And that when they are faid to have Baptized in the name of ChriJI Jefus, the aieaning only is, that they Baptized into the Faith and Religion of Chrifl Jefus% in that Method, and ac- cording to that Form which our Lord Him- * Alia enira fuit Jud&orum Tub Apofloiis ratio, alia efl Ge»- til'mm conditio. Cypr. ad Jub. Ep. 75. p. 20f. f Jcfu Chrifli rnentionem fecit Petrus, {AB. i. 38) non quafi Pater Omittcrecur, fed ut Patri quoque Filius adjunge- retur. Cyprian, ibid. p. zo5. :t Some doubt has been mnde of St. Ambrofe, as to this pur- iiculary of which fee the Notes to the Benedi(fline Edition: Ambrof. de Sp. S. 1. i. c. 3. p. 607. See alfo Mr. JBingham*^ Antiquities of the ChriAian Churcii, £.11. ^.3. felf Serm.VIII. frvm the Vorm of Baptiiin. 191 felf had prefcribed *. The Apoftles admi- niftred Chriji's, (not John's Baprifm) That Baptilin which Chrift had appointed: Sr. Luke exprefles it briefly by Baprizing itt the name of Chrifi% not becaule ir ran \vl his name only, but becaufe ir was Infticurcd by his Authority. Thus the Practice of the Apoflles is reconciled with the Commif- fion given them. As to the Pradiice of the Chriftian Church after the Apoftles. there can be no doubt of it, confidering how many and how early Records we have of it* The main Thing now to be inquired into» is, the Meaning, Intent, or Purport of that (blemn Form in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy-Ghofi. Baprifm had been an Antient Cuftom of the Jews, long before our Saviour's Appearance in the Fleflif. It was by Bapttfm that They admitted Trofelytes into their Religi- on, entering them thereby into Covenant with the true God, in Oppofition to all the Gods of the Nations. This very Pradice "* To wtf lie, Xf.2. c. 14. 8.4,5-, 6. Bapiifma unum: eodem enim modo, 8c in Patreni, 8c in -Filium, 8c in Spiritum Sanduni baptizamur, 8c ter mergi- i?iur,ut Triniratis unum appareat Sacrame'ntum. Et non bapti- , zamur in nominibus Patris, 8c Filii, 8c Spiritus Sandli, {td in uno nomine quod intelligitur Beus. Et miror qua confequea- tia in uno Vocabulo, eodem opere, 8c eodem Sacramento, Naturas Diveriiratem, \Arius, Macedonians, 8c Zunomius fufpv- |:entur. Hi^ronyuj, Com. in E^h, €.4., p. 362. Ed. Bened. Rational Serm.VIII. from theForm of Bapuim. 297 Rational Account can be given of the So7^ znd Holy-Ghojl'shtrng fo indifferently join*d with the Father, in lb publick an Ad, and of fiich high Importance to the Salvation of all Men, unlefs it be that all Men are required to h^ivc Faith in, and to pay fVor- Jhlp and Service to Them alfo, as well as to the Father : So neither can it be realbn- ably imagined that they arc recommended to us in any fiich Capacity, as Perfons to be Believed in, Served, and Adored, if They be Creatures only, or if They be any thing elle but the true and Living God. Thus tar I have been Arguing the Point from the Nature and Circumftances of the Thing it Self, without taking in what Scrip- ture has revealed of the Nature, Charader, and Offices of the Three Perlbns : That indeed would be the beft Comment upon the Form of Baptifm ; but it mufl: be waved here, my defign beitig to raife a diftind Argument for the "Divinity of Chrift, from xhtForm of Bapti/m, conMcrcd by it felf; only taking ii; luch Confiderations as natu- rally arife from it, together with the Senlc of Antiquity upon it, which I come next \o Examine. %. Whe- 298 Chrift's Divinity J>roved Scrm.VlII. z. Whatever Uncertainty there may be in our Reafoaings on this Head ( the' the lead that can in Juftice be faid of them, is, that They are extremely Probable ) if they appear to be countenanc'd by the concur- ring Sentimehts of j^ntiquity , they muft then be own'd to be of much greater Force, and will the more readily be lubmitted to, by all Wife and Confidering Men. The Author of Scripture ^odirine* 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 Baptifm^ tho' he happens, as is ufiial with Him, to give a very lame and crude Account of Antiquity ; interpret- ing the Form of Baptifm by the Afoftle's Creed (as he pretends) and the Creed it Self, as be pleafes. As to the Jpoftle's (that is, the Roman) Creed, and whether it be a frofefs'd Tarafhrafe upon the Text of St. Matthew, I jQiali fay more in the Sequel: In the Interim? it will be pro- per to inquire into the Sentiments of the '^ His PTords are: How this Text was univerfally under- wood in the primitive Church cannot be doubted, there being flill extant a profefs'd Pfiraphrafe upon it, even the Apojile's Creed j which, from the earlieft Times of Chriftianity, was, with little Variation, in the feveral Churches, the Bapttfmal Creed, or VrofeJJion of Faith, which allChriftians were taught, on purpofc that They might under fland -what it was They were baftix,ed into. Clark«*j ^^fy* p. 204.. earlieft Scrm.VIII. from the Form (/Baptifm. 199 carlieft Writers, in refped: of the true and full Import of the Form of Baftifm, Jujiin Martyr is the oldeft Writer we have, that Mentions the CommifTion to Bap- tize in the name of the Father , and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofi, How He, and theChriftians of his Time underftood it, may be eafily gathered from his Writings. In his firft Apology, He takes upon Him to anfwer the Charge of Atheifm, brought a- gainft the Chriftians by their Heathen Per* fecutors : And There he has thefc remarka- ble Words. ** We are called Atheijls, *' And indeed we confefs that in refped: of •' fuch reputed Gods, we are Atheifis% ** but not in refpedt of the moft true God •' untainted with Evil, the Father of Rightc- •* oufneft and Sobernefs, and of other Vir- •' rues. Him and his Son that came from *' Him (and who taught us and the Hoft «• of other Angels, that arc good, being hit *« followers and liken'd to Him,thefe things*) *• and the Trophetick Spirit, we Worlhip *• and Adore, Honouring them in Spirit (in «' Reafon) and in Truth j. Here it isObfer- * See this Tajfage jufttfied: Bull. D. F. p. 70. Op. Pofth. f 'EvB-ivh tfffjf ecjioi K£icXHU/t%tt t(0ji ofJuoXcySf/^iv X remruv ynf/ii^ofjuivav QiZv eijioi slvctf, uXX' i^i ^ cthrfJtfztTiS, 1^ ireCT^ci yablc 300 Chrift's Dmnlty proved Scrm.VIII. vable that Jtijiin,^ in anfwer to the Charge oi Atheijm, iliows both what and whom the Chriftians Woilhip'd : nor God the Fa- ther only, but the Son alio, and the Ho- ly-Ghoft, The Worlhipofthefe ThreeHe Oppofes to the Worlhip of the refuted Gods of the Gentiles : A plain fign of his underftanding Baftifm to be an enrring in- to Covenant with all the Three ; and in- gaging in the Service , Faith, and Worfliip of them as "Divine : yet not as three Gods (for all Antiquity declare againft it) nei- irher yet as one God and two Creatures (for That is contrary to the fappoficion of their being ©i'l^/Vi^'^befides that all Antiqui- ty, and Jujiin in particular, is againft Crea- ture- fVorJhip'' ,^ but as one God-^ the Fa- ther, with his Son and Holy-Spirit. Ju ^ fiin does again, in the fame Apology \, af- iert the V/orjhip of all the Three Pcrfons; mentioning a difference of Order ^ not of Nature, amongft them. From the whole it appears, that, in Jujiin's Account, the (>^ «iW|«cv^ Vfi2$ TBJW7K, ''^ "^ ^ ^AA Tmrseu, tC, **}ov ©far, XXI ZViUfXiOt OCy.OV, gllKVOV'^ UUTdV PCUl Tfjl' OV TVJ Sy&Xri 0PVCtfAl¥, Koci TYiV Oil rvi 7w|« ctou^iaiVy uKiiOTtc, k^iii(; x.aXuf.i'jSiiiii, Athciiag. Legat. c. lo. p. 40. Ox, jc: r*y TTxf ecvToJ ^cyov, Athcnag. c. a6, p. laa. ^ Com^, c.ii. p. ^6. c, xi, p. 9$, ' xhcn 3 01 Chrift^s Divinity proved Serm.VlIL then we may very juftly infer that the Chri- ftians, in his Time, did not underftand the Words of the Form of Bapifm, of God^ and Two Creatures ; nor of one fapreme God, and two inferior Gods ; but of Three divine Perlbns, and all but one God, About the fame Time with Athenagoras^ lived the Author of a frofane "Dialogue, afcrib'd to Lucian, Whatever Doubt there may be about the Author, there is httle or none about the Time He hv'd in * ; which was tht fecond Century ^icwzr As the middle of it. Whoever he was, he appears to have been well acquainted with the Chrijiian Te- nets, tho' a profefs'd Pagan. He introduces, in a jeering manner, a Chriftian Catechizing an Heathen ; and, among other Things, in- ftrudling his Catechumen in theMyftery of the Trinity: For, to the Queftion, whom He Jhould fwear by. He that perfonates the Chrijiian returns this Anfwer. •* By *' the God that reigns on High, the great, ** the immortal and heavenly, with the ♦* Son of the Father, and the Spirit pro- '* ceeding from the Father, One in Three, •* and Three in One: Take Thefe for " your Jupiter, imagine This to be your * Vid* Bull. Def. F. Nic. p. 75. Judic. p. 32. Fabric. Biblicth. Grsec» 1. 4, c. 16, p. ^04. •' God. Serm.VlII. from the ¥ovm of Baptifm. 303 •« God*. Here we fee, what kind ofln- ftrudions ufed to be given to Catechumejts^ Preparatory to Baptifm : For it is to thofe that this Author, while He ridicules Them, plainly alludes. Here we may obfervc what Baptizing into the three Terfons meant at that Time. It was receiving thofe Three as divine, and as one fufreme God. It is not one fufreme God, and two in- ferior Gods ; but Father, Son, and Holy- Gboji are reprelented as being in the place of the one mpreme Jttpter, and being All together one God, Pais we on, next, to other Teftimonies of the fame Thing, in Chrifiian Writers of the lame Century. Irenatis is our next in Order, about the year 173. He no where gives us any profefs'd Paraphrafe upon the Form of Baftifm : But from the Creeds \ which he hath left us, with his In- terpretation of them; and from what he has occafionally laid of the three Ter/bns, it is very manifeft that He ( with the Church in his Time) believed tbe Son and Holy- WiZfj(jai, c^ Titer ^oc, <^7T6^iv'o^ijoVy h cm rfiim, ^ £| syo? rg^fet* TWWTitf M^»^£ 2JJ»o6, Tov ^i jjycy ©«ov, Lucian, Philopatr. p. 770* Comp. p. 774. f F/W. Iren. 1. i. c. 10. p, 48, — I. 1. c. 12. p. 98. < I.3.C.3. p.i70^-. Iren. 1. 4. c. 58- p. 285-. See this laft Faf- [age explained in my Dcfenfe, ^c, p.4g8. f Vtd. Iren. p. 152. ly;. 217. Ed. Bencd. Sez Defenfe of fotiie Queries, p-i^X^./^i^, PerlbnS' Serm.VIII. from fheYavm of Baptifm. 305- Perlbns infeparablc from Each other, the One God of the Chriftians. Clemens of Alexandria, another Excel lent Writer, contemporary with Irenaus^ \% a farther Evidence of what we are plead- ing for. He gives us a kind of lliort Bap- tifmal Creed, as it feems. in thefe words. *' One Father of the whole Univerfe, and " One Word of the whole Univerfe, *' and the HoJy-Ghoft One, the fame •' everywhere*. Clemens, in this Padagc, attributes the fame Divine Omniprefence to every Perfbn of the Sacred Trinity -^ which therefore He took to be really "Divine, and nor made np of God and Creature, And to fhew you farther thatHelook'd upon all the Three as one God, we may cite another Paflage from Him as follows. " Let us " give thanks to the only Father and Son, ** Son and Father, to the Son our Teacher «* and Mafter, together with the Holy- •' Ghoft, One in all refpeds; in whom are '* all Things — to whom be Glory both now *' and for everf. When He fays of the ♦ E<5 /W/Sf T 'oXm "TTztriif* tl; ai }^ o T cXav Ao'vt^' >cxi tv wtvjMot TV ccytov £v, id^ TV oiurv TTZcv^x^* Clem. Alex. p. 1 15. ■f Eu^CC^lSUi> T&f //SVO) TTCCT^i KXi 'l\(f, 'tJW XOCt TTXT^t, TTCUaeC' yaya neci oia'ccay.oiXw 'i|J, (hj* kxi txJ" dyta Tcviufjuau' tt^cv^ t^ hn' cv CO Tu. TrnvTB^. -—(it ij dl^ot %en vun, »«« u\ rouq uimot^ Clem.Pxd. 1. 3. p» JH. X Three 3o6 Chrift's Divinity proved Serm.VIlI. Three Perfons that they are in all refpe£ts (or entirely) One^ He means that they are one God\ as is plain from another Paflage, where, fpeaking of Father and Son as being One, He explains it by their being One God^. It is therefore exceeding clear that, according to this Writer, Chrijtians were (uppofed to be Baptized, not into God and two Creatures^ , but into Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft, ThxQt "Divine Perfons, One God, Thus far for Teftimonics of the Second Century, all within lefs than loo Years of the laft of the Apoftles. I pafs on to Tertullian, at the Head of the Third Century. There can be no Queftion made of his Sentiments, in the pre- fent Cafe. He tells us plainly, that the Father is God^ and the Son God, and the Holy-Ghoft God, and every one Jingly God"^ , and all together make one God^. He fays farther that this Dodlrine is, in a manner, the prime Article in the Golpel, the very a ^E" y«*p u^}V, to ^ ocyitv 7rv£jf^ <^ TrZiTiv^ «AA;S/>- 78- d'/iM TTviCf^T^ TTftiuauf/jiv - . . ' .>■ yivcua>:,&)v cm. ». 7xz*^f»»i; A&yQ»>' tJj;' oi-Mivcfjtjim y^ TO ^iXvifAob. ^ x:t>Tp9. (Jffy. Si?'i|<»o 55*. Oi^cL p-*rp Tc^pthq TZCCTVi ^fitTMp h^u^STveJ. Tiurlif ^c^ I/sAjj- «5*, \o(i sTmtjffiv, TKviZfAcc i(pccvi^(-i.sit. Hip.jMjl^t. Contr. Noet.- 3IO Chrift's Divinity proved SermVUI. *' xhtDivinity {or Godhead) of the Adora- *' ble Trinity*. All I have to obferve up- on ibis Paffage of Origen, is, ift. That He fuppofes Baptijm to be a dedicating our Selves to the Service and Worfliip of the whole Trinity, 5eo77777, or, as it is orher- wife read, ^eiortiv, to the Godhead, ftridly, or, at leaft, to the divine MajeJIy, of the adorable Trinity, x^/y. That He fuppofes the Spiritual Graces or Influences to defcend from all the Three Perfons, by Virtue of our Invocation of Them ; which perhaps may mean only by Virtue of their being folemnly named: or if it means more, our Argument is fo much the ftronger. The Sum is, that, in Baptifm, we recognize the divinity of every Perfon menrion'd, and acknowledge our Obligations of Duty, and Origen. Cit. npud Bafil, de Sp. S. c. 29. This Vajfage ts fomething differently read in our frefent Co- pies of Origen -, tho the Senfe it much thf^ [arm. Too ifjjTTifisXi^vli iccvTDv rvj '^ionjlt r^^ ovvkyjiMc, tzov 1? ^oi^cncvvj)' Orio;. Comm. in joh- p. 124.. Ed. Huet. Compare the folLmmg Citations from Pamphilus*^ Apologp Ex quibus omnibus difcimus tantse & nuftoritatis & digni- tatis SubftantiamSpiritusSaniii, ut Salut-areBaprifrnum non ali- tor ni/i ExcellcntifTimac omnium Trinitatis auc^oritate, id eft, Patris 6c Filii & Spirirus San<3:i cognominarione complea- ?:ur.— — ~ Nuncjuam utique in imirate Trinitatis, id eft, Dei Patris inconverribi'is , 8c Filii ejus, etiam ipfc Spiritus Sandlus haberetLH*i nifi quia 8c,< Ipfe Temper crat Spiritus San- (flus. VAmph, Jpolo?^. P'lgi. Ed. Bened. Thank- Serm.VIII. from the Form ^/Baptifra. 311 Thankfulnefs, and Adoration towards All : which cannot be made Senfe of, if One only of the Three be fuppofed to be God^ and the other Two, Creatures. I fliall fubjoin to thefc Teftiraonies from thQ jinte-Nicene Fathers, a remarkable Paf- iage of St. Cyprian, of the Third Century. Arguing for the Invalidity of Heretical Bap- tifms, He asks, how any Perfon, fo baptized, can be fuppoied to obtain RemilTion of Sins and become the Temple of God, For, fays He, " of what God {of which of the di- *c vine Terfins^ is He made the Temple ? '' Is it of {God) the Creator? He cannot •* be fo without beheving in Him. Is it '* of Chrift? Impoffible that anyone iliould ** be his Temple that denies Chrifi to be '' God, Is it then of theHoly-Ghoft? But *' fince thofe Three are One, How is it *' pofTible He Ihould be at Peace with the " Holy-Ghoft, while He is at Enmity ei- '* ther with the Father, or the Son*? ♦ Si baptizari Quis apud Haereticos potuitj utique & Re» miflam Peccatorum conlequi potuit^ Si peccatorum Remif- fam confecutus eft, & Sandificatus eft, U Templum Dei faiSlus efti quacro cujus Dei? Si Creintoris^ non j^oiait qui in cum non credidir: SiChrifii, nee huj us fieri potell Templum, qui negat Deum Chri/ium : Si 6piritMs SanH{> cum Tres unum fm^^ quomodo Spiritus Sanflus placatus efTc ei poteft, qui auf Patris, aut Filii Inimicus eft ? Cypr, ad ^uhj. £/. 73. /. 203. Comp. Cmcil.Carth, w. 39. />• ^lfm X 4 From 3 1^ Chrift's Divinity f roved Serm.VIII. From this PafTage of Cyprian, we may re- mark the following Particulars. I. Thar being baptized mto Father, Son^ and Holy-Ghoji, was being bapiized into Three divine Perfons, or Three Perfons Each of which is God, i. That whoever is validly and lavingly baptized, does thereby become the Temple of each divine Perfon ; and of Conlcquence, the Temple of God.. 3. The Reafon why fuch Perfon is not faid to become the Temple oi Gods, in the Plural, but of God, in the Singular, is becaufe the Three are One, or one God:, as Cyprian clearly enough intimates, and his Mafter Tertullian exprefly afferts, as be- fore fliown. 4. That the denying Chrijt (and for the fame Reafon any other of the Perfons) to be God, is, m Cyprian's Account, making the Baptifin of no Effed: ; fo nearly is the Sacrament it felf, and the Salvation of the Recipient concern'd in the Faith of the di- vine and adorable Trinity. Upon the whole it is manifeft, that St. Cypriau un- xJerftood xhtForm of Baptifm, of three di- vine Serm.VIII. from the Form tf/Baptifm. 31$ vine Perfons, All one God: which is utter- ly repugnant to the Faith of fiich as under- ftand it of God, and Two Creatures. To Cyprian's, I fliall add the Tcftimonies of Two celebrated Bifliops of the fame Age, about the year 159. one oi Rome, and the other of Alexandria. T>ionjfiis, Bifliop of Rome, in a Letter (wrote, very probably, with the Advice and Conlent of his Clergy Synodically con- vened) very particularly explains the Do- (Slrine of the Trinity, as profels'd at That Time. He calls it the raofl: auguft and venerable Dodlrine of the Church ; and the Trinity of Perfons, the divine Trinity. He blames Thofe who divide tht facred ^nity into Three feparate Hypoftafes, thereby making, in a manner, three Gods, being the Oppofire Extreme to Sabellius, who made but one Terfon. At the lame Time, He blames Thole as much, that prefomed 16 make a Creature of God the Son, and cen- fures it as Blajfhemy in a very high De- gree ; underftanding the word Creature ac- cording to the common Acceptation, and as all Men of plain good Senle have ever underftood it. The Sum of his Dod:rine He gives us in thefe Words. " The divine ** Logos muft of neceffity be united to the '' God 314 Chrift-s Divinity frov'd Serm.VIII. " God of the Univerfe ; ^niiht Holy Ghojl *' maft abide and dwell in God ; and the *' divine Trinity muft of neceffity be con- <* ceiv'd to be gathered together, and col- " led:ed,as it were, into ^//^ /7io7iyJius briefly ex- prcflcs the fame Thing thus ; ** We extend ** the Unity, without dividing it, into a '• Trinity ; and again , we conrradt the «« Trinity, without taking from it, into ** Unity f. It may be rendred more briefly thus : *• The undivided Monad we extend to •' 2iTriad', and again, the undiminifli'd Triad «' we colled into 2i Monad, It is very plain ^Xo^a^iXv h rJ 0£a) nou C'j<^icci7K(^c(j hX tv ayiov Trviuf/jcc' ^^ am r^v ^i'c&v Tpioiff)» &i\ svx^ aoffrine^ th^i. How this Text (of St. Matthew) was 'Vniverfal/y tmderjlood in the Primitive Church ^cannot be doubted-^ there being ftill Extant fo many Writings of the Antients difcovering their Sentiments of it: which therefore may ferve as the bed: Comment^ or Tarafhrafe^woi only upon That Text, but upon the Creeds too , which ought to be interpreted by the fame Rule, as I ihall fliow preftntly. I fhall not add any Te- ftimonies of Tojt-Nicene Fathers, however many and weighty, becaufe their Senti- ments are well known ; and our Adverfaries will readily give them up to us, in the pre- fentQueftion *. 1 ihall only obferve, that the * The Council 0/ Conftantinople, in the year 382; in their Synodical Epifile, [peaking of the Nicene Taithi do, in the mniny expre/s the Senfe of all the Poft-Nicene Catholtcks, as folloT»s. Senfe jifi Chrift's Hiyimty proved- ScrvsxVUt Sen|e which I h^ve given of the Form of Baprifm was, in the j^tb. Century, fo weU known and undifputed, that the Empero? Jtiytan (called the Apoftate) made it aa Argun;ient againfl Chrifl: and his Rehgion *, ^hat whereas Mofes and the Prophets ha^ ^id. Thou Jhalt fear the Lord thy God^^ 47id Him only jhalt thou firve ^ Chrifl m coQtradicftioa thereto (for fo the A^a flate pretended) had ordered his Difciples to baptize in the Na^.e of the Father, and qfthe Son, and of the Holy-Ghojh Tho' &om what hath been faid, I take the PoiGt J intended, to have been fufficiently proved*, yet \% may not be improper to throw \vx Two or Three gcjneral Remarks to confiru}, it ftill fa;thcr= 5. The firft may be taken from theknowBi Cuftom of the Primitive Church, in requir-. m^'^'^Qompetetttes , or Candidates for Bap-. ^fn^v rij<; ft:.->i>)9-ow5 Tnfsui;, ai/voi'^iffx.Biv- ait, kv ^^oAi; jtbti x^fcby-^ •7U,rIw 7t 6UJKV, 1^ M^XV^OV T^ (icCTnicrfJC/Mt, K^ ^J^OTCUffV^' iiyjoc^^ nmvMv iii, TO ovofjjoc t5 7s:ccTfo He Speil. C.4. p. 74. See Bingham Chrilb'an Antiquities, B. ll. Ch- 7. b Vul. Cyril. Hierof. Catech. IWyftag. i. p. i83« ApoftoK Cgn(l. ]. 7< c. 41. c A£ls 8- 12, 57. I Pet, ^.11, d Amplius aliquid refpondentes quam Dominus ia Evan-* pclio determinavir. TertulL de Coron, c. 3. p. 102. ■See Walls Hiji, oflnf, Hap. part 2a c. 9. p. 495-. Jiaptifmd 3 1 8 Chrift's Divinity f roved Serm. VIII. Bapifmal Prcfeffion, or Creed, beyond that Form of Baptifm which our Lord Himielf had prelcribed ; and which proba- bly was, at firft, the Occafion and the Sub- je<3: matter of the Baptifmal Creed, as well as the Rule and Mealure of it. This I offer only as conjedure. Certain how- ever it is, that a Profeffion of Faith in, and adherence to, God the Father, Son, and Ho- ly-Ghofi , immediately followed upon the Abrenuntiatton of the "Devil Sec. v^hich is a Confirmation to us, that as, on one hand, they renounced all Idolatry and Falfe Gods; lb their Aggregation, ( if I may fo call it ) or joining of themfelves to thefe Three Per- fonswas intentionally receiving Them as the true and only God. X. I lliall fubjoin a ftcond Confideration, drawn from the Principles and Practices of the Antient Hereticks. No fboner did They alter (many of them) or corrupt the true Faith in the BlefTed Trinity, but they thought of altering the Form of Bap- /^//fe Iikevvife; left it fhould appear incon- fiftcnt with their novel and pernicious Te- nets. This was remarkably feen in the Tri- theifs* and 7raxeans-\y and Valentini- * Apoftol. Can 49. f Vid, Tcrtull. Contr. Prax. c. 26. Pfeud-Ignat. Ep. ad Philip, c. I. Apoft. Can. _^©. Cum Not. Cotel. &; Bevereg. ans^ Scrm.VIII. from the Form ^/Baprifm. 319 ^wj^jWho had All corrupted the true ori« ginal Faith in the Trinity. To coa- ceal their Shame and Self- Condemna- tion, and to propagate their erroneous Principles, They innovated in the Form of Baptifm-, which was one of the beft Fences to the true Faith , and a ftanding-Bar to moft Herejies. The Hkc was afterwards praftis'd by Eimomiusy who was a thorough- paced Ariauy but a Man of fhrewd Parts, and who readily perceived that it might be an eafier Mat- ter to bring the very Form of Baptifm into Difufe (tho' That was very (liocking too) than to root out of Mens Minds the Catbolicky and only true Senfe of it. That Form was as great an Eye fore to Him and his Followers, as a Nicene or an ^- thanajlan Creed, or as 'Doxologies and Liturgies^ exprefling the Catholkk Do- ftrine, are to fome now. They were forced at length to alter the Inftituted and only regular Form of Baptifm^ for o- thers of their own Deviling j which might be more confiitent with, or favourable to, their no^vel Opinions. Sometimes They caofc to baptize in the Name of the Fa^ ther U'icreate^theSon created by the Father^ and the Holy-Ghoji created by the Sonf. * VJ. Iren. f. I. c. 2. p. 94,. f Vuh Epipban. Hscrcf. j6-> Ac 310 Chrift's Divinity fr&ved Serm.VIII- At other Times they were content, more briefly> and with lefs OfFenfe, to baptize into the T>eath ofChriJt * ; or in the name of the Father^ by the Son^ in the Holy-Ghoft. All the while, it is obfervable that the Ca- tholicks never varied the horm ^ nor fo much as mferted, or added, any Thmg by way of Exphcationj or in favor of their Princi- ples. Either it rauft be faid that They had no need to do it? the Form it felf be- ing fo plainly and clearly on their Sidej or elfe that They were the more pious and rnodeji Men, and durft not attempt any the leaft Innovation in a Sacred Law and Inftitution of Chrift. Our Modern Arians f have not yet attempted (that I know of) to alter the Form of Baptijm : But They hope to be able to difguife of elude the antient Catho/tck Senfe of it. 1 know not whether it might provoke our 'Pity^ or our Indignation moft, to find Some endeavoring to run down the truly primitive Interpretation of it, under the Notion of new Scholaflick Hypothefes \', and, at the fame time, vending their own Novelties and Heterodoxies^ under the ve- nerable name oi Antiquity. The pretence * Socrat. r.. H. 1. f . c.24. Theod. Hser. Fab. I.4. c. 3: ^ Air.Emlyn, indeed', is for /;iy/>2^ Baptifoi it felf ajide, among the Poftcrity c/ baptized Chriftiansj -which is doing the Bufinefs at once. (See His Traftj, p. 429,&c.) But I know not sshether J am to reckon Him in the Nufnber of the Arians. :j; See Dr.Clarke'j B.eply, p. aoj". jg Scrm.VIII. from the Form ^r, 0.^;;^, and * Stillingtlcct on th Trin. Ch. S. p. 229- Serm.VIII. from the Form ^/Baptifm. 331 Holy-Ghoji, may be certainly known other- wife than from rhe Creeds, z. That the Creeds themfelvcs ought to be interpreted according to That Senfe fo known, having been fo underftood from the Beginning, or from the Time of their compih'ng |. 3 . That by laying of antienc Teftimonies together, and comparing of Evidences, we have full and clear proof that the Primitive Church never" imagined 5^//^ i/^ to run in the name of the Father only as God , and of the Two other Perfons as Creatures ; but in rhe name of Three Perfons, Every one God.znd All together the one God oi Chriftians. And now, my Chriftian Brethren, what remains, but to exhort and warn you, as you render your Evcrlafting Salvation, to abide evermore in that Faith whereunto you have been Baptized , and which alone caa t N.B. A late Writer (Modefl: Plea.c^-^. confinued,p.«54 ) y^yj that Dr. W {jpeak'ng of the Creeds) is forc'd to add, as interpreted by Thole that recite Them 5 and the reafon of it.. He fays., is, becaulb the oldeft Creeds mention nothing of thofe Matrers, he. the Eternity and Confubilanriality of God the Son. To which I anfwer. i . That I had good Renfon t& refer to the primitive Writings for the Interpretation of Creeds i ejpecially at this dijlance, when unlearned Readers may the more eafily be impofed upon by a Novel Senfe put upon them. 2. That this Writer betrays his Ignorance of the oldeft Creeds ; rohicht if They do not explicitely declare thofe Articles; yet All, or mofl of them do tt implicirely. Irenxus'j, TertuIJian'jj Origen';, Jerufalsm Creed, Apoftles, ^c. give 33i Chrift's Divinity /r^wi Serm.VIII. give you any reafbnable Confidence, or Hope of AfTurance towards God. Remem- ber Thofe who have gone before you, the Apofiles and Prirniiive Martyrs andConfef- Iprs, whofe Faith follow, eonfidermg the end of their Converfation. Jefus Chriji ijS the fapiCf yejierday, to day, and for-^ ever. Be not carried about with divers and Jtrange T>oBrines,, by the pght of Men, and cunning Craftinefs,, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. What have Th,ey done, by reviving Antiquated Here- Jies^ but diflurbed the Minds of tJie firaple» railed confufion and diftradion acuongft inany, atjd given a handle to Libertines^ 'Deifts, and Atheifls, to infult, and to Blaf pheme ? What is there in Arianifm, either of Truth, or even of ProbabUicy, to make OS amends for thefe things? I mention not the daily Inroads made upon Chriflia^n 'Simplicity, and Godly Sincerity \ the Wiles aud Artifices, Diiiimulation and Difguifes, by which it was at firfl promoted and propagared, and without which it cannot any where iubfift. To this very Day, the Patrons of it have r\p other way left, but to conceal and cover i|-s- Deformity as much as po.fiible; ftifliog of Evidences that make againft it, mifie- prefentiBg the Truth of Hiftory, taking ajdvaniage of ambiguous Tqrms, keeping qff m Scrm.VllI. from the Form ofBaptifm. 33^ in generals, nor daring fo ranch as to bw'ni the cerrain and inevitable Cojijeqitences of their Principles, hardly the 'Frimi^les themfelves ; not trufling Either, to a fair, open, and regular Examination, but flirink- ing always from the very Point in Qucfti- on ; Oppofing, Objecting, Cavilling per- petually againu the Orthodox Scheme, but raking little or no care, cither to an/wer, or fo much as to mention, the main Difficul- ties and 'nconfiftencies vifible in their Own, For the Truth 5f this, I appeal to all who have been any thing Curious obfervers of the Rife, and Progrefs. and preftnt State of this Herefy, amongfl: us. They mud not blame us for calling Their DodJrine/Ti?- rejy, which it really is. when they have the Face fo often to call Ours new Scholajiick Hypothefes, which it really is not. Names of Reproach might have been fpared on Both fjdes, had not they began , and fee us an Example. Had they been contented Modeftly to propofe their Doubts, with their Reafbns for Them ; Had they fairly and ingenuoufiy fer forth the Arguments on our fide of the Qucftion, in their full Strength, and then brought their own to fet againft them and ballance them; Had they been willing to acknowledge (what is ucdoubtedly true} that we have many and great 334 Chrift's Diyinity J?roved Serm.VIIL great Reafons, luch as muft weigh even with Wife and Good Men, for what we believe and profeis; Much from Scripture, Much from Antiquity , and countenanc'd* now many Centuries, by the fober and think- ing part of the Chriftian World ; Had they freely own'd this, giving at the fame time their Reafons on the other fide, and leav- ing impartial Men, after a fair and full hear- ing, to judge which fliould out-weigh: I Jay, Had they took this reafonable and In- genuous method, like modeji Inquirers after Truth, I know not whether any fair and candid Man would have condemned, or not have commended them for it. But when no- thing lefs will ferve the Turn but mifrepre- fenting us, as following only 7iew Schola- fiick Hy-pothefes ; when Antiquity is fearch- ed only to pick out (uch PafTages as Jeem to make for one fide, and much Art uied even to make them feem fo ; when our main ftrength from Scripture and from An- tiquity, is, in a manner, totally concealed and dilguifed, and the Principal Objcd:ions and Difficulties of their own Scheme pals'd over in filence ; The Orthodox, all the while* being reprefented as a parcel of Men over- run with prejudice and Bigottry, preferring Humane and Modern decijions, the IVords of Men, before the infalhble Word of God, full Scmi.VIlI. from the Form ivme Ho- nour, which has been hitherto, ( and we doubt nor, jujilyy ) paid ro Each of them. To the fame moft Holy undivided Trinity-, God the father^ Son-i and Holy-Ghoft^ be all Honour and Glory ^ Adoration and IVor- Jhip^ in all Churches of the Saints^ now *md for evermore. Amen. TEXTS INDEX of TEXTS EXPLAIN'D, or REFERR'D To. Genesis. Ch. V. Pag. XV. 2. 179 Ck. V. Pag. XX. 2. 177.205- I. 25. 5p.i23 3- '77 III. 8. '^3 207 XXXIV. 34- '93 12. ii3 Numbers. VI. 37- 144 IX. 14. 120 VIII. 2 1. 144 XIV. 21. 22S ly. 6. 144 XXII. 5. 145 XI. 7- '^3 6. ibid. XII. 2. 3- 143 ibtd. XXI I 1. 9- tbid. XIII. 17- ibid. Deuteronomy. XV. 7- 176 I. 21. '43 XVIII, i8. »45 3»- ibid. XX. '3- , '^3 III. 24. 18 XXI. ^^' 18 IV. ^7* 18. 123 xxvm. ^3- 20^- 9- '4? XXXV. 7« ^^3 10. ibid. XL. If. 163 VI. 4. 74. iif. 122 XLVIIl. 19. 145 VII. 19. I? 20; ibid. VIII. 3» 144 XLIX. 4. ibid. X. »7- 18 8. ibid. XI. XVIII. If. 2. 143 tbid. Exodus. XXXII. 39- 18.138 XXXI II, *7- iS 1 II. 14. ic). 10s VI. 7- 177 J S H U A 13. XI 1. 12. 33 XVII. l^-- 143 XIII, 7- H3 ibid. XXIV. 19. 123 9- ibid. I Samuel. 11. ibid. XV. 3- U3 13' ibid. XVI. 7. '44 II Sam- Index of Texts Explain' d, &c. II Samuel. ci. V. Pag. Ch. V. Pag. LXXXVII. ^• 280 XXII. 47. '79 LXXXIX. I I. 12. 95- ibid. 1 Kings- xc. a. 24* VIII. 39. I 3o.2;6 ?• 144. XCIH, 2. 18.240 11 Kings. xcvi. f. 94 XIX. ij". 18.94 CM. 2^. 63. 9i I Chron. 17- '8 8. ibid, MaL ^4* i3Q'^4i- XLV. f. 95 6. 95"- 54- 111. 1. 204 6. i8.34«i53 7. 18.34 Matth. 12. 9S 14. 14 » '• ^3/ IS- 18. i« »v 21. 34 ^' 2.01 i^W. .III. 16. 186 I. 192 U5 SLVIII. 12. 233 VI. 24- 32 f'"^/- Jeremiah. 3^- . ^^!f; ^ 273 31 122 12. 18.96 xvni. 20. XVII. lOo 2j6 XIX. >Ksiii. 23» J^ XXII. 44 24- xxxii. %j. 34 ibid. XXIV. 6. ^^3 36. 269 37- Daniel. 39 II. 20. ibid, ibtd. M ARK. 18 XXV. 31. 31 VI. 7. 47 P^^/- XXV T. II. 2.70 ^ ^' '^ ^ XXVI, I. Tp. 192.286 Hose A. ^°- ^71.274 ir. 7. ior If, 23. . »93 zu 9. Uy »x. 13. 22. MicAH. X. 43 V. 2. 239 viJ. 18. 141 ^9 36. Habb. sin. 7 lo I a. 240 163 ibid, ibid^ X.J. 22. n4 ibid. 122 l6:> 20. 24. Index of Texts Explatiid, &c. Cb. V. Pag. Ch. V. Pag. 24. i^iJ. XIV. 9- 196 26. 2(^9 10. 196.260 3»' 268 »3- 271 34- 2^9 XVI. 7. 165 XIV. . 29. 163 «3' 187 36. ibid. 14. ibid, 186.23$ LUKB. 30. 131.255 1 , 16. 2C2 XVI I. /• ^1.196. J 17- tbid. 10, 196 • 76. 204. 280 II. 270 ']• f*- 271 XIX. 34. »3» •i 4. 203 37- 32.232 p. I. 192 XX. 28* 204 / 4« '^■^ JfXI, »7- ifS 14, 187 , . IX. 26. 3t Acts, XVI. ?«•■ 163 I. 2, 192 XVI I I. 4. i4f 24. 131.256 XXI. 9- 163 II. 4' 33- 187. 192 190 John. 38. 5 189.290.291 I. 1. I .139.257- 45-. 192 3. 11. 41.81.239 46. ibid. 8. II II 1. ^7. 289 lo. 12.49 V. 3' 192.193 14. 12.263 4. ibid »f* 263 9« 187 i5. ibid. VII. 47. 163 30, 60 f>- 192 5^- 192 VIII. 12. 317 II. 24. 131.256 16. 289 2f. 2S6 29. J 87 11 1. 8. 1S7 37. 317 34- 192 39- 1S7 V. 17. 56 XI. If 193 19. fCigiiCj. X. 19. .87 2i ,23. 4i-/"'^/- 38. 192 VII. 59. 187 48. 289 VII I. 28. 266 XI I I. 2. 193 X. 11. 205 XIV. 1 1. ^'>pref. 30. 196 12. ib.pref XI. 11. . 163 ly- 296 Id. tbid. tv. 8. 250 kii. 4»J 2:9.231 XVI. '^ Index of Texts E^pUiffd, &c. Ch. V. Pag. Ch. V. F^g. XVI. 7- 187 VIII, 6. 48 'S^*—^^ XIX, f- «89 pref. XXII. 16. i^V. 16. 239 ^XVIII. ^r- IP3 IX. 12. 163 26. i^?/'^. XII. 4. !92,193 ibid. Rom ♦ 6. 7- ibid, ibid. H. • V 221 8. 192 4. ibid. II. ibid. io. ij2 XIV. 2. ibid. ^y- $6.2^^296 42 z-/-^/. XV. 27a 224 V. 13- 14. 163 ibid. II Corinth. VI. 3' 289 III. 5. 1 85 VIII. 9- i8<5,i87 17. 187.193 14. 186 18. 187 »x. ipi jv. 4. 28.- -39/'^*^' 4. 5-4 V. 16. •163 5-. j'4.211.280 VI I. (5. ibid^ 49 f^^/. XI. 31- 221 XJ» 34- f4 XII. 16. 163 3f- ibid. XIII. 14. 192 36. 48'j'4-:r9 xJv; 9' 17') Galat. xy. 19. 186.192 jv» 6. 187 30. .87 8. 43 /'^'/ I C< OR 1 NTH. Ephes. lU 2. 129 IK 21. jr92 4. 192 22. ibid. 5- ibid. III. 9. f6 8. 232 14. 186 10. 186.192 16. i6id. II. 118.2&6.192 IV. 6. *»3 14. 186 jo- 18$ wi. 16. iS6. 192 VI. 1 1. 19. 18^ 192 Phil. ao. '75" 1. 19. i?7 Tl,U Z2. ibid. JS. 5— n. 1-50 H- md. ^— iX. Index of Texts Explained, 8cc COLOS. Ch. V. Pag^ Ch. V. Pag. 10. 48.6} I. 15, 58.153.159 11* 63 224.259 12. ihi4^ 16. 58.84.159 in. 4' 9« 114.239. 15-9 6, ibid. 17. 5-8. 214.259 17. 12. 131.25-6 ^'^^ »5- 2^6 18. 259 VII. 3- 248 19. i&iit XII. 21 Mi "• 3. 257 XIII. 8. 2^C 5. 163 10. ^ipref. 9. 259.262 21. ^gpref. I Thess. James IV. 8. 145 I« n- ^n II Thess. I Pet. ir. 8. 215 I. 11. iS? 19. 175 I Tim. 1!I. 21. 317 I. 16. Ida IV. If. 49 ;r^/. 11. 5-. 145 14. 186 in. 16. 262 VI. 14. 215 II Pet. 15- 232 in. 14. i6i 18. 49 pref II Tim. I. 10. 215 I J OH J* 12* 163 1. 2. I0.20tf 57. I. 215 7. lo. ibid. S. i^n/. 11. ibid. 12. 211 tiTi M- ibid, n. 13- 214 20. io4 111. 4- 145 Rev. Hebr. J. 1. 158 y. 2. 57.62.154 4- 192.228 3. 62. If4. 248 T- 192 6. 274 T> 6. 45^^!/: i: 84.2^-0 49 ;>;-^/, 1 1 . IJO 7- 227 12. 2>-o.if4 8. 227, •»33'»37 r. 2id; 12. 2S7 XXI. 6. 228.233 16. ibid. 22. 136 ^3- 1S6 ^3- ibid. til. 14. S^^li XXll. I. 136 IV. 8. 231 12. 20f V. 8. 274 »3- 228.229 12. 4j- ;re/. »3^>233 INDEX Of Principal Matters. ALmighty, a Divine Title gi- ven to Chriji in Scripture 227—232 ^Ipha and Omega y a Divine Title given to Chriji in Scripture 252 Angels , their Creation an Ar- gument of Chrift's Divini- ty Apoftles Creed, fee Creed of the Apofiles Brians, their Notions of Prcr- fljsp cxamiu'J and confuted Pr, xlii — their Interpretation of the three firft verfes in the Gofpel of St. 7(7/?>: 14 their Trhciple: various and uncertain ^ f» 43 - their Method of ma- naging Controvcrfy p. 3 5 I *Ar^yj/i, or Beginning, in what Senfe Chrifi is fo called 'Rev. 3. 14. and by the An- tienrs 52 AthanafiHSi his Defcription of the Son 1 08 Attributes Divine afcrib'd to Chrijfi in Scripture 23^ (^'C» viz. Eternity 237. c^'C. Immutabdity 249 c^c^ Omnifcience 25* 5* O'C, df?miprefe}jce 273 ^(t. INDEX of Tr'mci^al Matters. Baptifm, the Form of ir fhowii to be an Argument of Chrift's Divinity 286 6 ^• ly?. from the Nature and Reafon of the thine; 293 2dly. From the Tcfti monies of the Anticnts 298 —changed and corrupted by the Hereticks 318 JSapfizing in the Name of Je- fus, how to be underflood 289 — in the Name of the Tri- nity, what it imports 293 * ■■ - a ProfclTion o': Faith al- ways required of Perfons to be Baptiz'd 517 Beginning and Ending, 2 Divine Title given to Chrift in Scripture Ji Catholicks, their Interpretation of the three firft verfes m theGofpel of St.John aflcrt- ed and maintain'd 17 O'C their Principles , in rela- tion ro the Trinity, plain, limple, and confiflent lof their Doctrine the only Security againft a Plurality of Gods 1 1 \ Chhji, in whit Senfe faid to be in the Form of God 1 5 3 •in what Senib highly ex- alted by the Father 170 See Logos. Coequality of Chnft with the Father 151 0c. Creation, prov'd to be an Ar- gument of Chrill's Divinity By Reafon 82. By Scripture 9 1 By Antiquity 98 ——the Abfurdity ef attri- A buting it toa Creature. 105 Creator, the Son proved to b« truly and properly the Cre- ator of all things 4j-. i^c, — — From thcNew Testament 46 • From the Old Tcftamcnr, a» illuftrated by the Antients 96 c^f. Creeds, de^'^gn'd at firfl to be only Hints and Miftutes of the main Credenda of Re- ligion 321 enlarged afterwards, more by the Addition of 2^cw» Ar- ticles than by any further Expofition of the Old one* 323 of what Articles they originally confilied, and up- on what occaiion others were added 324. Creed of the ApoftleSf the Ro~ manCiccd fo call'd,and why 326 —— diametrically oppofirc ro x\\Q Arian Principles 32S Exrth, the Creation of it an Ar- gument of Chrift's Divini- ,y , . S5 Emphatical AppeiUtions, how to be interpreted Pr. xxxiv li Equality of the Son with the Father l^l Eternity, a Divine Attribute af- crib'd to Chrtfl in Scrip- ture 2^7 Exaltation of Chrijl by God the Father, in what Scnfc mentioned by St. Paul, Phil. 2. 9- ^7=» Excliifrje Terms in Scripture a not INDEX of Trincij?al Matters. not to be interpreted with too much Rigour p 1 17 F Father J fee Go J the lAther. Tather and Son one God, Pr. xxyviji Tirft and Laft, a Divme Title given to Chriji in Scripture 232 Tir/i Bom of every Creature , the Son in what Senfe ib caird Colof. 1. If. 5-9 Tffrm of Godt what it means G God, The Scripture Idea of a Perfon that is truly and really God 18 -^ what Notions the An- tient Chriftians had of the fgrce 20 O'c. a Title given to Chnji in Scripture 198 God the father, in whit Senle, and under what RePtridli- ons He is aflerted as the one Cod 1 29 God the Son, not excluded by thole Texts which afTert the Tather to be the One Cod 129 God ths Holy Ghofty See Holy Ghofl. God roitb us, a Divine Title given to Chrift in Scripture 201 God over all, bleffed for ever, X Divine Title given to Chrift in Scripture 221 Great God, a Title of Chrifl in Scripture 214, H Heavens, The Creation of them an Argument of Chrift^s Di- vinity 87 Uoly-Ghojl, what the Scripture teaches of his Terfon, Cha- racier and Offices 191 0-c. ——— h\s]Operations, Gifts, and Graces' afcribM to Chrift 190 Honours, to be proportionate to the Excellency of the Obje(5l Ir, xlvii Jehovah, denotes an Eternal^ Immutable, Necejfary Exift- ence 93 — the Lo^os or IVord aflerted by St. John to be the true Jehovah 29 — — a Divine Title given to Chrift in Scripture 224 Immutability, a Divine Attri- bute afcrib'd to Chrift in Scripture 149 Inferiority, how it differs from Subordination Pr. xvii St. John, the 5 fir ft verfes of his Gofpel how interpreted 9 >7 by the Sabellians how by the Socinians how by the Artans how by the Catholicks IC King of Kings, a Divine Title given to Chrift in Scrip- ture 222 Logos, or Word, a diflinB Per- fon from God the Father 10 ^c, — his Relation to the Father, how far it was underftood by the Antients to bear a Refemblance of Thought or Sfeecb INDEX oi Trinci^al Matters. Spftch to the Mind ^ -T- How that Parallel was a- bus\l by the Sabelllans 7 — — nflerted by St. John to be the trtte God and the true J-ehoveih ii c^f. — — ftri(5l]y and propetly Cre- ator oF all things 46 {^c. See Chrifi, See God the ^on. See Son of God Lord God* Lord of Glory^ Lord of Lords, Divine Titles given to Chrift in Scrip- ture 203, 232 M Man, The Creation of him, an Argument of Chrift's Di- vinity 8+ Mediatorial Office of Chrift, no Ground of Worfhip Pr.xhx Mediatorial Worjhip, not difle- rent from Divine Vr, xliv Mighty God, a Divine Title given to Chrift in Scripture zi8 N l^ecejfary Lxifience, IIow ex- prefs'd by the uimients Fr, XX. and ij^ in the Note ■ afterted of God the Son by the Catholicks I'r. Axi — denied of him by the Arians Vr, xviii Omniprefence, Omnifcience, Di- 'Vine Attributes afcrib'd to Chrift in Scripture 275 I Objedions againft his Omnifcience anfwer'd ^6f One God, In what Senfc to be underftood 119 HxinvK^ecredp, a Divine Title given to Chrift ia Scrip- ture 117 Per/on, and undivided Intelli' gent Agent, not reciprocal Tr. Ii F,olytheifm, What Pr. xxxv Chargeable upon the A- rians Pr. xxxvi Prayer and Thankfgiving, what founded upon it Pr. xlv R Roman Creed, why call'd the Apofiles Creed gi\y 2 Divine Nature 519 Speech, How far, and in what Capacity, the Logos may be refembl'd to it 5- The Error of the Sabel- Hans about That Refem - blance 7 Subordination, How it differs from Inferiority Pr. xvii Thought, How far, and in what Capacity, the Logos may be rcfembrd to it 5* The Error of the SabeU Hans about that Refem - A a 2 blanc INDEX of 'Principal Matters, bliiicc p 7 TitUi Divine given to Chrift in Scripture viz. God • Cjii with us Lord God True God Great God Mighty God '97 198 201 205 206 214 118 God over all Meffed for e- 11 Jehovah ii4 'almighty 217 Lord of Glory 252 King of Kings ibid. Lord of Lords ibid. Alpha and Omega ibid. The Beginning and the End ibid. The Tirfl and the Laft ibid. Objections anrwcr'd 279 Trif7ity of Perfons not inconfi- ftent with the Untty of the Godhead 1 1 4 TrneGodiZ Divine Title given to Chrift in Scripture p 106 Two Gods , and Tno Majler^ , how to be underftood Pr. xxxii U U/jity of the Godhead, not in- conlirtent with a Irinity of Perfons 1 1 5 What to be infcrr'd from the Scripture Declsrations of the Unity in the God- head 14/ W Word, fee L^gos. Worjhip , proves Chrift to be the One God Pr. xxxviii appropriated to the one true God Pr. xl (^c, ■ • Artan Notions of it ex- amined and confuted Pr, xlii O'C- M^'orfhip Mediatorial, not diffe- rent from Divine Pr. xlir /' I N I S. { I J B O OK S printed for Wit.i.tam ^;;^ John Tnnys, at the Prince's Arms at the Wcfl End of St. PaulV. 1720. DIVINITY. I. $. d. ST. Athanafius's Or:4iions, Engl, by Mr. ratker, 2 Vols. R". 080 Bp. Atrerbury'sScrmononTiierdHy inEafter WcckiT'op. 006 Animadveifions on Dr. Sherlock's Defence of the Trumy, 060 Anfvver to FoMtinell's Hiftory of Oracles, 2 Vols. g''. 080 to the Layman's riea for Separation, . 010 Mr. Adam's Sermons publifli'd by Dr. Sachevetell, 056 Mr. Andrews's Aflize-Sermon, 00? Athenagoras's Apologct.cks, Engl, by Mr. Humphreys, 040 Dr. Archer's Chaiity-Sermon at Oxford, Od. 21. 1712 o o j Dr. BilTe's Sermons on the Common Prayer, 020 • his nine Sermons on fcveral Occailons, 029 Mr. Brokesby's Hiftory of Chiirch-Governmwt, 040 - Life of Mr. Dodwell, 2 Vols. 070 Dr. Beimel's Diicourfe of the ever blefled Trinity, 8°. o 4 o — — Difcourle of Schifm, in 5 Parts, . . — — 046 — — — Method of ftudying Divinity, 8°. 026 Mr. Bragg, on the Miracles of ouc blefled Saviour, 2 Vols. o 10 o • — ■ on the Parables, 2 Vols, • . ■ ■■ o 10 o Mr. Burkit, on the NewTeftament, Totto, .— ,, . ■ i j o Mr. Berkley's Dialogues againft Scepticks aud Deifts, 8° 026 of Pafllve Obedience, ■ ■ — o 1 o Abp. Bancroft's dangerous Fofitions, 8°. o 2 6 Dr. Brett's Vindication of himfelf from Popery, . o i o of the Independency of the Church, o i 5 -—^— Divine Right of Epifcopacy, , 020 of Tradition, o 2 <5 ■ Anfwer to Delaune's Plea, o 3 o Mr. Boys, on the thirty nine Articles, . 090 Mr. Boyle's Theological Works, 3 Vols. 8°. . o 15 o Bp. Blackall's Sermons, 8 Vols. i 16 o Bp. Bull's Works, 5 Vols. 8°. with his Life, o 18 o Bp. Beveridge's Opinion of the Apoftolical Conftitutions, o o 5 Thelaurus Theologicus, 4V0IS. o 16 o Libliotheca Biblica, or a Commentary on the Bible, publilhcd monthly, each Number o o <; Mr. Croflinge, of the great Duty of Prayer, 8°. 034 Dr. Clagett, on St. John, 020 St. Cyprian's Works, Engl, by Dr. MarlTiail, f o/;o, i i ^ Bp. Cofins's Devotions, 12°. ■ 1. 026 Cenfura Temporum for 1708 and 1709. ■ o lo o Chriftian Eloquence in Theory and Praftice, Engl, by Mr. Doylcy, 05^ Calumny no Conviftion j againft Mr. Whifton, - o 1 o Chriftian's beft guide, . ... 035 Catechifm, with finglc Proofs, at 12 i. /'-rr hundred, ■ o o 2 Bp. of Cork, of drinking in Memory of the Dead, , o i 6 ——of healths in general, . 020 his Sermon for the Charity-School, o o ^ Confiderations on the Trinity, 8°. ■ o 1 o Mr. Chillingwoitli'sWoiks, foiifl, ~^- ■ ■ — ^ — o ly » A Chriftian (O ChrlflianPatfern, by Tho. i Kempis, Engl, by Dr. Stanhope, the fame in i\ Tocket Volume, • — dementis Epiftoli, cum Notis Hen. Wotton, S^ Dr. Comber, on the Common Tiayer, «". - Cafes againft the Diflentcrs, 3 Vols. ■ Abp. of Cambray's rious Thoughts, 8°. — ^ — Ciergynuui's Companion, viliting the Sick, 8°. >, ■ ..y Vade-mecum, z Vols. 12". Caftelii Lexicon HePtaglotton, ; Vols, t'ollo^ < :Dr. Delaune's Sermon of Original Sin, Dr. D' Aliigny, againft the Anabaptifts, Sir John Denham's Pfalms, 8' Divine Hymns and Poems, : Dodweli's Cafe in view, and Defences, Drake (Sam.) Concio ad Clernm, j\Ir. Derham's Phylico-Theology, 8°. his Aftro-Theology, 8°. 'Drciincourt, of Death, 8". 'Diffenters reprelented, Mr. Dell's Sermon before the Goldfmiths Company, Eflay againft Ariamfm, . — on tJie Trinity, againft ©r. Clarke, Enc|;uiry concerning a Guardian- Angci, Dr. f iddes's Sermons, Vol. 3. /. S. ^, 4 6 2 6 ■0 7 4 6 15 2 z 6 6 - 4 I 3 1 5 •0 1 6 ci S 4 6 3 6 G • 6 I 6 6 6 I3p. jGaftxelTs Sermorts at Mr. Boyle's Leclures, ,——— —of Ch J iftian Revelation, . — — — J— ——four Sermons-on feveral Occafions, V— — — Chriftian Inftitutes, 12°. • Dr. Grabe's Spicilegium Patrum, 2 Vols. > — Dc Vitiis Septuaginta, -^ — •■-»- - . . -r- j~ ■■- ,"- Epiftola ad MiJhum, . - — r-^r. — — — ,^^, cr ■ ■■ r ■ two Trafts againft Mr. Whifton, nr.c: ^God's Judgment on the A poft:-(tc Church, ^^...j . .. ^Of God's Mercies j an Abfira^ from Scripture, . —r— 15p. Gibibn's Parochial Vilitations, S*^. >•• .: 'Dr. Geddes's Hiftoty of the Chare h of Malabar, i— -JPr. Goodman's Penitent paidon'd, - •>— ———Winter- Evening Conferences, , « ■ ; — oid Religion, - —^— — • ■ " .: o ,.";."•(', .: Mr.rHart's Bulwark ftormM, .iti.Anfwer to DeIaaae,T \? Mr. lloakei's tccleliaftical -Polity, toUo, moijovj Mr.'HoweU's Hiftory ©i the Bible, s Vols. 8°. to'i muhg S IgnatiiEpiftolx, Gr Lat. per D. Smith, 4^ . - — '■ S. Juftini Marty ris Dialogus,..Gr. Lat. per Sam. Jebb,' '-p— Mr.,KcrtJe\j;cirs Wcu:ksi,.Vath.his.Life, 2 Vols. Fo/t'tfy. ,aiiii V of Cliriftiau Obedience, 8°. ■ .— ^ ■>— : — of the Sacrament, s."*. . 1 — of Prof ufenefs, 32''. . - -^ - ■ — his Life, fepaiate, 8°. 4 4 -0 J ^ 2 .0 9 .0 z 6 2 2 . -0 5 6 0.. , z . 6 2- -0 4 -iO 5- 4 3 '6 3 c I I ■?'■ o 7' :>o 2 2 6 4 r e 6 m. ( 3 ) Dr. Lucas*s Enquiry a<"cer Happlnefs, : Vols. Sermons, z Vols. 8". - Pruaicai ClirilHanity, S' ■ Duty of Servants, (to/, per (Jozen) PUiu Mail's Guide (los. per hundred) -Cluillian Tliou';I\ts, i: Mr. Lowth s Comnicntaty upon the Prophcr ll^iiah, on the Prophecy and 'L^mrntntions of Jeremiah, two Sermons at Wiiitou-Aflizes, ■■ - Mr. Lamb's Vindicufon of Dr. Sachcvcrell, ■'■ Mr. L'Eftrange's Alliance of Divine Offices, FoU", , Lay Bautifm invalid, with the reft of the Author's Works.: Vols. S". — — Sicerdotal Powers, c~c Separate • ■ -— — Diflenters Baptifm null and void, ■Iccond part of Lay b:!ptirm invalid, -Supplement to the fiift and fccond Parts, Mr. Lawrence's Chriftian iMorals, 8' Mr. Law's three Letters to the Bifliop of Bangor, X>r. Mangey's Difcourfes on the Lord's Prayer, s". his Defence of the BiChop of London, 8°. . his Anfwcr to Toland'.s Nazarenus, his Sern-.on on the jo"' of January, t:'I9-'jo • his four Sermons on feveral Occaiions, — LU. Mailden's Remarks o:i the Bifliop of Bangor, Miracles works above and contrary to Nature, Bp. More's Sermons, 2 Vols. Pr. Marshall's penitential Difcipline, S". Defence of the Conftitution, . Sermon on the Queen's Death, - ' on Mr. Blondell's, Letter to a Count rey Clergyman, about the Oaths, — Mr. Morer's Difcourfe of the Lord's D:^y, lit. Martin's Cr;t. Difiertat. onj^-. 5 of S 'John's Epift. \. — . Second Diflertation in defence of Jolephus Examination of Mr. Emlyn's Aiilwer, — . Difcourfe of Natural Religion, New Manual of Devotions, in 3 Parts, 12". Mr. Nellon of the Feafts and Fafts of the Church, 8' I Addrefs to rcrfons of Qiiality, S°, , No Agreement between Scriptuie and Popery, Mr. Newcome's Oidinarion Sermon at St. Paul's, /. s. rf. 10 C — -0 4 6 6 12 12 (f $ 6 6 -0 4 6 6 4 4 6 C 6 6 6 4 Mr, Ockley's Account of the A.rabick .MS. in the Bodl. Lib. 006 Bp. Patrick's Devout Chrifliaii, ■ * 030 Chriftian Sacrihce, « o 3 6 ———Advice to a Friend, ^__— — o r 6 Help to your>g Beginners, » • o o g Dr. Patrick's Pfalms, 12". o i 6 Principles of Deifm, • o i 6 Paraphrafe on the Book of Pfalms, - o 1 6 Palclial Cycla.and other Tables ufed by the Church, 020 Bp. Parker's Letter to King James, 006 Pfalms in WelHi, — - o i o Parochiil Clergvmau's Duty. s"*. ■ ■- o z 6 A z Mr. (4) Mr. Quarles Divine Emblems, Robertfoni (Guil.) Thefaurus Lingux Sanftx, 4' Mr. Ray's rcrfualivc to a Holy Life, 8*. Wifdom of God in the Creation, 8°, .-Phylico-Theological Difcourfes, 8' Remarks on Dr. Clark's Scripture DoCt. of the Trinity, — Reflexions on Mens Prejudices againft Religion, Mr. Robertfon's DilTenters felf condemned, 8°. .— — Dr. Sacheverers Sermons and Trafts, Bp. Smaldridge's z Sermons, — . Oiationes dux, ■■ Mr. Stcbbing's 3 Pieces againft the Bp. of Bangor, . his Young Chriftian inftrufted, ————of the Operations of the Holy Spirit, 8°. ■ Mr. Smith's Confiderat. on the Bp. of Bangor's Prefervat. Sanderlbni Prxleftiones de Confcientia, 8°. Bp. Taylor's Rules for Holy Living and Dying, 8°. . ■ Golden Grove, or Manual of Devotions, 12°. • ——Life of Chrift, with 100 Copper Plates, in the Prefs, True Churchman and loyal Subject, Mr. Trebeck's Sermons, 8". Mi.Trapp's Prefervat, againft Want of Principles in Religion, •^ liis 5 Sermons on feveral Occaflons, Teftamentum Novum Polyglotton, Folio. Mr. Wheatley, of the Book of Common Prayer, Folio, — » — ——of bidding Prayer, ■ ■■ Dr. Well's Trafts sgainft the Diflenters, Dr. Waterland's Sermons on the Divinity of our Saviour, Mr. Waple on the Revelations, 4". A MISCELLANIES. Greeable Variety, 8' Art of Speaking, by MefT. de Port Royal, 12' Antiquities of Palmyra, by Mr. Seller, Mr. Black-.vall's Introduftion to the Clafficks, Xord Bacon's EfTays, S°. Mr. Boyer's Diftionary, French andEnglifli, 8°. /. s. d. 3 6 18 2 4 6 6 I 6 3 6 z 6 3 I 6 0. z 6 4 4 I 4 6 S I 2 6 4 6 4 I 6 I 10 18 I 4 4 6 6 /. s. d. 4 3 6 S 2 6 3 7 6 > ^ Mr. Chamberlain's State of Great Britain, 8". Loid Clarendon's Hiftory of the Rebellion, 6 Vols, large Paper, 2 Dr. Dawfon's Memoirs of the Order of the Garter, 8°. 040 Mr. Echard's Hiftory of England, ■ 1 15 o Dr. Fiddes's Letter to Dr. Swift about Pope's Homer, — o i o Familiar EfTays, by a Lady, - — 016 Fruit-Walls improved by D. Nic.Fatio, F. R. S. — — 060 Gentleman inftrufted, t'\ Mr. Hutchinfon's Computations of the Tublick Debts, — — o 1 o —Confide- (f ) Confiderations of the fame ' 006 EftimatL', &c. . 006 Half- Pay, 006 Hiftoiy ot Par.idife and F^ll of Man, o i 6 Dr. Hook's Pofthiimous \Vi>rks witli Cur?, Folio, o is o Hiftory of England in 3 Vols. Collected by Dr. Kcnnct, 3 10 o ^of tlic Balcarick Ulands, 8". — — 046 Johnfon's CBen.) Works, 6 Vols. 8". wiih Cuts, i 5 o Johnfon's Crarnatical Commentaries, %"• 050 Noftcs Nottin<;liamicx, 8*". 016 Jeffrey of Monmouth's Britilli Hill, with a Prcf. by A. 'I liompfon, 060 Dr. King's Mifcellanies, 8". ■ •■ ■ - 050 Life of Archbp. Whitgift, by r.lr. Srrype, of Mr. Dodwell, by Mr. Brokesby, z Vols. — ^ Lives of French, Italian, and German Philofophcrs, t°. Life of Mr. Sage Author of the Cyprianick Age, — -of Dr. Field, Mr. Le Neve, 8' Lives of theEnglifliBilliops fince the Reformat, by Mr. Lc Neve, in feveral Vols, at ? s. per Vol. Mr. Lc Neve's Succefllon of the Bifliops and dignitaries, his Monumenta Anglicana, in 5 Vols. • • Mr. Lowthorp's Abridg. of the Philofoph. Tranfaft. 3 Vols. 4*. Mr. Maundrell's Journey from Aleppo to Jcrufalem, Mr. Mead of the Ufe of Maps and Globes, 8". Mr. Maittaire's Englifli Grammar, — — . -». Machiavell's Works, Folio, — — — I I 7 6 I I 6 5 18 I 3 S 5 3 6 18 a 6 Sir John Narbrough's Voyages with Cuts, 8°. ■ Sir ifaac Newton's Opticks, 8°. Mr. Ockley's Hiftory of South- Weft Barbary, 8°. 026 Mr. Phillips's Splendid Shilling, Blenheim, &c. 020 Puffendorff's Law of Nature by Mr, Spavan, 2 Vols. 8". 080 PhiJofophical Tranfaftions compleat, bound, ■ 20 o o moft of the llngle Numbers at i s. each. Mr. Ray's Letters with thofe of Mr. Willoughby and others, 8". o 5 o Mr. Smith's Poems, 8°. Sentiments of the moft c.KCellent Painters, Mr. Trapp's Poem on the Peace < Tables for renewing and purchafing Leales, S". . Voyage to Borneo, 8°. ■■■ — . Sir Edward Walker's hiftorical Difcourfcs, Folio L^riSl MISCELL^NFI. I. Ntonini iterBritanniarum cum Comment. T.& R. Gale, 4". o Afchami {^0%) LpiftoU, 8'. o 5 3 6 I 3 6 rz i. d. 6 5 Ci#cro Cicero de Officiis fx Reccnfionc Tho. Coclcman, — - — Orationcs iVleftx, 12". • . Caftalio (Bal.) de Curiiili five Aulico. exRec Sam. Drake, Cellus (Jul) de Vita &: Rebus Geftis Julii Cxfaris, 12°. Cxfar ex Reccnfione T. Parcel, 12°. « -ex Rccenf. Job. Davifii, 4". » ■ Chronicon Saxonicum ex MSS. Cod. ed. Edm. Gibron,4°. Dionyiius de Situ Orbis Gr. Lat. 8°. Oxon. 1-Halicarn, de ftruftura orationis, Dawfoni Lexicon Novi Teftamenti, 8^ /. s. rf. o • o Xpiftola; Obfcurorum Virorum ad D. M. Ortninum Gratium, o iEpifteti Enchirid. Lat. Verfibus adumbratum per Edv. Ivie, 8°. o Eutropius Gr. Lat. 8". Oxon, o Pranklin (R) O^QoTov/at feu de Lingux Grxcx Tonis, edid. Jac. Richardfon, o o 12 o 12 o 4 o 5 o 4 Gregorii Nomenclatura in ufiim Scholarum, s". HiftorixBritan. Saxon. Anglo-DanicxScriptoresXV.p. T.Gale, 1 i Horatius cum variis ledionibus, Cant. 12''. «_-_____« o 3 Ditto 24\ - •■■ — — o I Homeri Ilias. Grxce, 8°. Oxon. - o 6 Kiell (Joh.) Introdudio ad veram rhyficam, Luciani Dialogi felefti per Edv. Leeds, 8". per Du Gaid, 12°. — Lucretius cum Intcrp. & Notis Tho. Creech. S°. Leland de Scriptoribus Britannicis. 2 Vol. Leufdeni Compendium Novi Teft. Grcec. s**. Mac Lawrin (Col.) Geometria Orgaaica, 4°. Mufx Anglicanx, 2 Vol. 12". — ■■ ' ■ ■ - ■ :Maittiire (Mich.) Gr.-«c<-c Linguae Diale£^i - Marflialli fBen) Tabulx Chronologicx, Folio, .Mewtoni (D. If.) Principia Mathera. . Opt ice, per S.im. Clarke S. T. P. — Analyfis, per D. Guil. Jones, Nepos, S*". Oxon, cum Notis EfiTenii (^Herni.) Nichols de Liteiis Inventis, 8°. Oughtredi (Guil ) Opufcula Mathem«ic4 haftenus inedita, 8°. ?Iutarchus de audiendis Poetis Gr. Lat. %^. Oxon. — — 2 6 7 2 ^ 6 Q S 7 6 12 4 I 6 4 Quinftilian de Inftitutione Oratoriacum Notis Edm. Gibfon, 8°. o 6 Robertfoni (Guil ) Lexicon Hebriacum, ^^ Rohaulti Phylica per S. Clarke, S. T. P. 8" Scheuchzeti (Joh. Jac.) itinera Alpina cum fig. 4". ■— 1- Saluftius cum Notis Variorum pet JoL Wafle ■ Schrevelii (Corn.) Lexicon Gr. Lat. 8°. . 18 7 9 12 7 Sophociis ( 7 ) l. s. i, Sophndis Trng. Antig, ?^ Tra^rhinix Gr. Lat. pcrTho. Johnfon, o j o Synoplis Coniniiiiuuni Locoium ex Poctis Larinis per D. Badger, 026 Sckickaidi Horologiun^ Hebraicum, 8^ — 020 Theociittis Gi Lilt. cum. Scholiis Grxcis, S'. . 050 Taylor (Brook) incrhodus incrcmcntoium, 4*. • . © 4 C) Trapp (Jol") Pialc£tioncs Pocticv, ? Vols, 8°. . . 076 Tafwell (^Guil.) Phylka in Ufum Juv. Acad. S'. o ? o Vooabularium Anglo-Sa.vonicum per The Benfon, 8°. o 6 Voflli Elemeiita Rhetorica, S". Vita Laur. Chadcrtoni, una cum Vita Ja. UiTerii, &c. S", Whhby (Dan.) Ethices Compendium in urum Juv. Acau. «• Wallxi Compendium tthica: - — — Zofimi Hiftoiia: novx Lib. fex Notis illuft. Gr. Lat. 8*. Oxon. o ° .4 A rnrsrcK. BooKiS. /, /. j. Lien (].) Synopfis Medicini Prafticx v.—. o o •(B.) Hiftory of Mineral and Chalybcat Waters, 8°. o z 6 Dr. Baynard's Hiftory of Baths, 8". " 060 Boerhaave*s pra£iical Aphorifms, S''. ■■ ■- 056 Praxis Medica, 12°. ■■ . '- o i .6 Mr. Boyle's Medicinal Receipts, iz°. i o 2. o his Experiments touching the fpring of the Air, 4". o li .0 Mr. Boulton's Surgery, S \ «" ■ 046 Dr. Bellinger of tlie Nutrition of the Foetus, 8° 0.2 © Dr. Blair's Botanick EiTays, with Cuts, < ■ ■ • » 060 " his Table of Difpenfatory Plants, • o i © Crufo (Joh.) MedicamentorumT-oyroV*!' Iheiaurus, 12*. « i S Dr. Cockburn of a Gonorrhoea, 8*. • ■ • — ** 4 o Dr. Drake's Anatomy with ^o <3oppcr Plates, 2 Vols. 8°. o J4 i^o Dale (Sam.) Pharmacologia, five Introduft. ad Materiam Medi- cam. 2 Vols. " ' • — ; — — ■ ■ • jij 8^ pfi Supplemcntura£dlt.-nova (Teparatim) o,!./ ' r^ Freiud (Joh.) Emmenologia, Edit. tertiaj'S". -ayjo. - 036 in Hippociatem de Morb« Popularibus, 8°. o 46 de Purganribus in fecund a variol. confl. Febre, 8'. o 30 Fuller (Tho.) Pharmacopoeia Extemporanea Ed. fexta, 12°. o 3 o — the fame in Englift, 8 ". o « o Sir John Floyer's Treatife of the Afthma, 8^ — — 03^ Grcen6elds Treatife of the Stone and Gravel, with Cuts. 060 Harris (D.Gual.) de Morbis acutis Infantum, Ed. tertia 8". 1720.0 3 6 Dr. James Kiel's EfTays of the Animal OEconomy, 8". o 4 o Lommlus de Curandis Febribuscontinuis, 8°. ■ 036 Dr. Moreton's Treatife of Confumptions, 8". 1720. — 046 Fharmacopocia Bat«ana. Edit, nova, per D. Tho. Fuller, — — 03 € — Londincnfis /. s. d. ».. ■.- — Londlneitfis, per J. Shipton, — — .— — — . 026 Dr. Faxton's Efl'ay on the Cure of nioft Difeafcs, 8°. — 0/^6 PlukenetJi (Leon) 0;.^era omnia Botanica, — Rail (loh.) Hilloria rianrarum, 3 Vols. Fo/.-V, __ _— — j o o ■ — Tomus tcrtius fcparatim, Folto, . ■ 150 — — — Synoplls Animslium Qiudrupedvim, — 040 •— — ... ■■ Stirpium Rritannicarum, — -— ■ 060 — — — • Avium 8c Pifcium cum fig 8". - 056 — — — Methodus Planrarum emendata 8c aufta, 8°. ■ • ■ ■ 040 , Infeftorum, 8". - - - • 006 Sylloge Stirpium extra Britannias nafc. 8**. • • 036 •— — De vviriis Plantarum Methodis, 8°. ■ o i o . Stirpium O^'ersialium Catalog! ttes, 8'^, 006 — Philofoph. Leiters, with thole of Mr. Willoughby, Sec. 8". o 5 o Sanf^orius de Medicina Statica cum Comment. Mart. Lifter, 12'^. o z o Sydenham! Proceilus integri, &c Traft. de Phthiii, 010 Salmon on Dr. Sydenham's Praftice of Phyfick, S'l, — — 060 ———— on Dr. Bates's Difpenfatoiy, S'. 17Z0. 060 Dr. White's new and exafk Obfcrvations on Fevers, 2\ 030 In Ufum SchoU Etonenfis. Decerpta ex Ovidio Hift. 5c Fabellarum Deleftus Llefta Majora ex Ovidio Phxdrus per Johnfon — — ;; — Minora ex Ovidio Willymot's Nouns and Verbs Epigram. Gra:c. per Johnfon —- — — Englil}! Particles Deledus ex Poctis Latlnis ■ . ■. Shorter Examples Am h ores in Ufrm Delphmi^ 8*^. Csfat Nepos Curtius Ovid. Metam. Ciceronis Orat. . ■ Epift. E«tropius ■■■ ■ - Trift. Florus Plinii Pan. Horatius Saluft. Juftin Terence Juvenal ' . Vugil Atithores cum Notis'Tha. Tarnahh. Juvenal & Perfius Ovid. Metam. Lucani Phaifalia Senecx Trag, AutMres turn Notts "Joh. Mmellil. riorus ■ I Triftium Horatius Terentius Ovidii Metam* Virgilius Epiftol^ Curtius ad Modum Mincilli Aui-hores ex recenfione Mic. Mai tt aire. Curtius Lucretius Cxfar Martial Catullus Nepos Conciones 8c Oratloncs Ovidii Opera Eloius Phxdrus Horatius . Saluftius Juvenal 6c Perfius Terentius Juftinus Velleius Paterculus Lucan ' Virgilius. ^11 Sold by WiiLiMM and John Isnys at the Weft-end of St. Paul's, of wham may be hdd mojl of the Book^ printed for Mr, Henry Clements lately dcuafed. M^-