Page images
PDF
EPUB

from the texts before laid down; and might be more amply set forth by other evidence, were any needful in so clear a case.

The truth of the whole matter is, the title of Oròs, being understood in the same sense with Auródeos, was, as it ought to be, generally reserved to the Father, as the distinguishing personal character of the first Person of the Holy Trinity. And this amounts to no more than the acknowledgment of the Father's prerogative, as Father. But as it might also signify any Person who is truly and essentially God, it might properly be applied to the Son too and it is so applied sometimes, though not so often as it is to the Father. However, it is hardly worth the while to dispute this point. The sum and substance of all is, that the Father is absolutely and eminently styled ¿ sòs, as the fountain of all; the Son, Osòs, God of God; which is sufficient to our purpose. You observe, (p. 42.) that the LXXII have Oeds without the article, wherever mention is made of God, in what you call the subordinate sense. The inference I should draw from thence is, that when Os has the article prefixed, the supreme God is meant thereby. By this rule, if the concurrent sense of the Ante-Nicene writers be of any force or weight with you, our dispute would be at an end. For they apply innumerable texts, wherein Oos occurs with the article, to our Saviour Christ. But if you slight their authorities, yet I presume you will be concluded by the inspired writers, who apply some texts of the Old Testament, which have Oeds with the article, to our blessed Lord. Compare

Numb. xxi. 5, 6, 7.
Isa. xlv. 22, 23.

I Cor. x. 9.

e Rom. xiv. 11. Phil. ii. 10.

I had almost forgot to take notice of one pretence more you have, for the subordinate sense of Osòs, in John

d See this more fully explained and illustrated in Dr. Fiddes's Body of Divinity, vol. i. p. 383, &c. and 397, &c.

• Vid. Surenhus. Conciliation. p. 511.

i. 1. You word it thus, (p. 41.) "He who is God, and at the same time is with God who begat Him, must "needs be God in a different meaning; unless the same "God could be with himself," &c. To this it is readily answered, that being with God is the same as being with the Father, (compare 1 John i. 2.) who is God, and eminently so styled, as being first in order f. If he were not always with him, and inseparable from him, he could not be God in a proper sense. God and God, or God of God, supposes two Persons; and therefore there is no foundation for the objection of the Son's being with himself. Having thus endeavoured to obviate your exceptions, I now proceed in the proof of my position. The Word is here (John i. 1.) said to have been God in the beginning; that is, before the creation; from whence it is farther probable, that he is God in the strict and proper sense. This circumstance may at least be sufficient to convince you, that the relative sense, which you contend for, is not applicable. He could have no relation to the creatures before they were made; no dominion over them when they were not: and therefore could not be God in the sense of dominion or office. But what most of all demonstrates the Word to be here called God in the proper sense is, that the creation of all things is ascribed to him. Creation is an indisputable mark of the one true God; the distinguishing character by which he was to be known, and for which he was to be reverenced above all Gods; and on h account of which he claims to himself all homage, worship, and adoration. But of this I shall have occasion to say more hereafter, and therefore shall dis

There is no inconsistency in admitting a priority of order, and yet denying the Son to be God in a subordinate or improper sense. There was a priority of order in respect of Adam and Seth; and yet Seth was not man in a subordinate sense, but in the same sense as Adam was. I use not the similitude, as if it would answer in other respects; but it may serve so far to illustrate my meaning; which is sufficient. See Exposit. Fid. attributed to Justin. Mart. p. 293. Sylb. ed.

[blocks in formation]

miss it for the present. I must not forget to add, that, besides what I have here urged, by virtue also of what hath been proved under Query the first, I may come at my conclusion. For no question can be made but that the Word is called God, by St. John, in a higher sense than any nominal God can pretend to. And therefore, since he is not excluded with the nominal Gods, he is included and comprehended in the one Supreme God; and consequently is coeternal and coessential with the Father. Enough hath been said in vindication of the argument contained in this Query; and so now I return it upon you, standing in full force, and expecting a more complete and more satisfactory answer.

QUERY IV.

Whether, supposing the Scripture-notion of God to be no more than that of the Author and Governor of the universe, or whatever it be, the admitting of another to be Author and Governor of the universe, be not admitting another God, contrary to the texts before cited from Isaiah, and also to Is. xlii. 8. xlviii. 11. where he declares, he will not give his glory to another?

YOUR answer is, (p. 42.) "Supposing the revealed "sense of the word God, to imply dominion, and that "he is the Author and Governor of the universe, the ad"mitting a second Person, distinct from the one supreme "God, to be Author and Governor, doth by no means "contradict the passages cited from Isaiah, or any other,

[ocr errors]

or introduce two Gods, viz. two supreme Beings or "Persons." Give me leave to produce the texts of Isaiah once more, and to place others in an opposite column to them, only mutatis mutandis, putting Author and Governor of the universe instead of the word God; which, with you, amounts to the same.

I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no Author and Governor of the universe beside me, Is. xlv. 5.

The Word was Author and Governor of the universe, John i. 1.

Is there an Author and Governor of the universe beside me? yea, there is no Author, &c. Isa. xliv. 8.

Christ came, who is over all Author and Governor of the universe, blessed for ever, Rom. ix. 5.

I hope you see plainly how the texts in the two opposite columns confront and contradict each other; and that two Authors and Governors of the universe, whom you suppose two distinct separate Beings, are as plainly two Gods, as if it were said so in terms. For indeed there is no difference more than that of putting the definition for the thing defined. But you have an evasion after, that they are not two supreme Beings. And what if they are not? Are they not still two Authors and Governors of the universe? And is not every such Author and Governor, by your own account, a God? This pretence then comes too late. Or admitting that supreme must be added to Author and Governor, to make a true definition of God, then Author and Governor of the universe, without supreme, is not sufficient to denominate a person God; and so you ungod the second Person; and what you gave with one hand, you take away with the other.

What you should have said is, (for it is what you really mean,) that there are two Gods; one supreme, and the other subordinate: which being a proposition utterly repugnant to the texts of Isaiah, and to the whole tenor of Scripture, and to all antiquity, you do not, I suppose, care to speak it at length. I have before endeavoured to expose this notion of two Gods, one supreme, and the other inferior; and have shown it to be unreasonable and unscriptural. I may add, that if there really be two Gods (supreme and inferior) in the proper scriptural sense of the word, the good Fathers of the three first centuries. argued against the heathen Polytheism upon a very false principle, and died martyrs for an error; the angel in the Revelations may seem to have imposed upon St. John with an erroneous maxim, Rev. xix. 10. our Saviour's answer to the devil to have been defective, and not pertinent, Luke iv. 8. and the many declarations of the

Unity, scattered through the Old Testament, to be unintelligible and insignificant. But this shall be more distinctly explained when I come to the argument concerning worship.

Here let me only ask you, where does the Scripture give you the least intimation of two true Gods? Where does it furnish you with any ground for the distinction of a sovereign and an inferior Deity? What foundation can you find for adding supreme wherever the Scripture says absolutely there is but one God? You are apt to complain of us for adding to the text, and for pretending to speak plainer than the Holy Spirit has dictated; why do you add here, without any warrant? If the sacred writers intended to limit the sense by supreme, why could not they, in one place at least among many, have said so, and have told it us as plainly as Dr. Clarke and you do? I argue indeed here ad hominem only; and let it have just as much force with you, as the same way of arguing, when you take it up in your turn, ought to have with us. But farther; what account can you give of your leaving room for inferior Deities, when the reason of the thing, the drift, scope, and design of the Scripture seems plainly to have been to exclude not other Supremes only, or other independent Deities, (which few have been weak enough to suppose,) but other lesser, inferior, and dependent Divinities? Besides, God has declared that "he "will not give his glory to another," Is. xlii. 8. xlviii. 11. This you say "has no difficulty." How so, I beseech you? It seems to me a very great difficulty in your Scheme. You add, that "his glory is, his being the one "supreme independent cause and original of all things or "beings." Now I thought it was his peculiar glory to be truly God, and to be acknowledged as such, exclusive of other Gods. This, I am sure, is what the one God inculcates and insists upon very particularly in the Old Testament. He discovers himself to be a jealous God, and looks upon it as the highest indignity to have any admitted as partners and sharers with him. All acts of

« PreviousContinue »