« PreviousContinue »
V. 4, 5. is about Idols, and nominal Gods and Lords, which have no claim or title to religious Worship. These the Father and Son are Both equally distinguished from: which may insinuate, at least, to us; That the Texts of the Old or New Testament, declaring the Unity and excluding others, do not exclude the Son, by whom are all Things : So that here again you have unfortunately quoted a Passage, which instead of making for you, fecms rather against you. You have another, which is Eph. 4. 6. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and irl you all. A famous Pallage, which has generally been understood by the * Aptients of the whole Trinity. Above all as Father, through all, by the Word, and in all by the Holy Ghost. However that be, this is certain, that the Father may be reasonably called the one, or only God, without the Jealt Diminution of the Son's real Divinity: a fuller Account of which Martcr you may please to fee in Dr. Fiddes's Body of Divinity, Vol. 1. p. 383. &c. As to the remaining Texts cited by you, fcmc are meant of Christ as Man, or as Mediator: And those which certainly refpect him in a higher Capacity, may be accounted for on this Principle, that we reserve, with the Antients, a Priority of Order to the Father, the First of the Blefled Three.
* lienens i. 5. c. 18. p. 315. Ed. Bened. Hippolysses Contr. Nocte C.14.p. 16. Fabric. Ed. Atharefius Ep.ad Scrap. p.676. Marins Victorin. s. . Tom. 4. p. 258. Hieror, . Tom, 4. pil.p. 362. Ed. Benedi.
This may serve for a general Key to explain the Texts mention'd, or others of like imporr. I cannot, in this place, descend to Particulars, without running too far into the Defensive; and leading the Reader off from what we began with. Had you pleas’d to observe the rules of strict method in dispute, you should not here have brought Texts to ballance mine; but Thould have reserved them for another place. All you had to do, was to examine the Texts I had ser down in the second Column; and to give such a Sense of them as might comport with your own Hypothefis, or might be unserviceable to mine. You should have shown that Job. 1. 1. Heb. 1. 8. and Rom. g. 5. may fairly be understood of a nominal God oply'; one that stands excluded, by the Texts of the first Column, from all Prerence, or Title, to religious Homage and Adoration : For, as I have before observed, He must either be intirely excluded, or not at all: and if He be not excluded, He is comprehended in the one Supreme God, and is One with Him: or, at least, you should have set before the Reader your Interpretation of those Texts, and have shown it to be consistent with the Texts of Ifaiah. For example, take Joh. 1. 1.
“ In the Beginning was the Word; and " the WORD was with the ONĖ SUPREME " God, and the Word was ANOTHER God inferior to Him, a CREATUR E of the
.GRÉ À T
" Great GOD: All Things were CREATED by this CREATURE, &c.
This Interpretation, which is really yours, as thall be shown in the Sequel, is what you should have fairly own'd, and reconciled, if possible, with the Texts of Isaiah, (purposely design'd to exclude all inferior, as well as co-ordinate Gods) and particularly with Isaiah 46. 9. Before me there was no God form’d, neither shall there be AFTER ME: Words very full and expressive against any Creature-Gods. But, instead of this, you tell us, God could not be with Himself, as if any of us faid, or thought, That was St. John's meaning. Thus you industriously run from the Point, misrepresent our Sense, and artfully conceal your own. In this flight manner, you pass over the three first Texts already mention'd; but you think you have some Ad. vantage of the Querift, in respect of Phil. 2. 6. and Heb. 1. 3. and not content to say, that they come not up to the point ; you are very positive, that they prove the direct con trary to that for which they are alledg’d; and express your wonder that they mould be offer'd. Whether you really wonder at a Thing, which no Man who is at all acquainted with Books and Learning can wonder at; or whether only you affect that way of talking, I determine not; but proceed to consider what you have to offer against my Sense of the two Texts.
Upon Phil. 2. 6. you press me with the Authority of Novatian; whom, I do assure you, I very much respect, as I do all the primitive Writers. As to Novatian's Interpretation of Phil. 2. 6. it shall be consider'd presently; only, in the first place, let me observe to you, that as to the main of my Argument, built upon rhar and other Texts, He was certainly on my Side. He * cites Ifa. 45. 5. and understands it of God the Father; not so as to exclude the Son from being comprehended in the one God, but in opposition to false Gods only. He proves the Divinity of Christ from his receiving Worship of the Church, and his being every where present, † besides many other Topicks; and makes Him | Consubftantial with God the Father. This is as much as I mean by his being one with the Supreme God; and therefore I have nothing to fear from this Writer, who agrees so well with me in the main, and cannot be brought to bear Evi. dence against me, upless, at the same time, He be found to contradict Himself. This being
* Ego Deus, & non est præter me. Qui per eundem Prophetam refert: Quoniam majeftatem meam non dabo alteri, ut omnes cum suis Figmentis Ethnicos excludat & Hæreticos. C. 3. p. 708. See also the Citation above p. 9.
y si Homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo adelt ubique invocarus, cum hæc hominis natura non fit, fed Dei, ut adeile omni loco poffit? C. 14. p. 715
$ Unus Deus oftenditur verus & æternus Pater, a quo folo hec vis Divinitatis emissa etiam in Filium tradita & directa rursum per Substantia Communionem ad Patrem revolvitur. Father is here filed emphatically the one God, but still comprehending, not exclud. ing the Son, consubstancial with Him. Ch. 31. p. 730.
premnis'd, let us now see what He says to the Text above mention'd, Phil. 2. 6. He saith of the Son (I ule your own Words, p. 35.) that tho' He was in the form of God, yet He ne. ver compared Himself with God bis Father. You have translated the last Words as if they had run thus; Deo; patri fuo. The Words are, Nunquam fe Deo Patri aut comparavit, - aut contulit. Never compared Himself with God the Father. The Reason follows, Memor fé effe ex suo Patre: Remembring He was from his Father; That is, that He was be. gotten, and not unbegotten. He never pretended to an y with the Father, in re
spect of his Original, knowing Himself to be · second only in Order, not the first Person of
the ever Blessed Trinity. You may see the like Expressions in * Hilary and t Phabadius ; who can neither of them be fufpected of Arianizing in that point. You afterwards cite faine other Expressions of Novatian, particu. larly this: Duo æquales inventi duos Deos merito reddidisent. Which you might have sender’d thus: Had they Both been equal (in respect of Origival, Both unbegotten) They had undoubtedly been two Gods.
Şce the whole Passage as it lies in the Au.
+ Hilary Trin. I. 3. C. 4. p. 8:0. Ed. Bened.
# Si enim naius non fuisset, innatus comparatus cum eo qui eller innatus, æquatione in utroque ostensa, duos faceret innatos, & idco duos faceret Deos. Si non genitus esler, collatus cum co (qui) genitus non cilet & æquales inventi, duos Deos merito reddi