« PreviousContinue »
ftinet Worship. But it is sufficient that it was (according to the Sense of the Christian Church) paid to the Perfon appearing, the Per. fon of the Son, and He did not refuse it; which is the very Argument that * some of the Ante-Nicene Writers use in Proof of his Divinity. The Patriarchs worship'd that Person, who appear'd and communed with Them; supposing Him to be the God of the Universe, to whom of right all Worship belongs. Had He not been what They took Him for, He Thould have rejected that Worship, as the † Angel did Manoah's Sacrifice; and as the Angel, in the Revelations, rejected the Worlhip which St. John would have offered Him. In a word; since the Son received that Worship, in his own Person (according to the Antients) it must be said, He was then distinctly worship'd, and in his own Right, as being truly God. However That be, my Argument is still good, that the Son (having been in the Form of God, and God; Creator, Preferver and Sustainer of all Things, from the Beginning) had a Right to Worship, even upon your Principles (much more mine) long before the commencing of his
* Novatian may here speak the sense of all, On Gen. 31. He comments thus: Si Angelus Dei loquitur Hæc ad Jacob, atque Ipse Angelus infert, dicens: Ego fum Deus qui visus sum tibi in loco Dei: non tantummodo Hunc, Angelum, sed & Deum pofitum, sine ulla besitatione confpicimus; Quique Sibi votum refert ab Jacob deftinatum esse, doc. Nullius Alterius Angeli potest hic accipi tanta Austoritas, ut Deum Șe esse fateatur, & yotum sibi factum esse Teftetur, nifi tantummodo Christi 6.27. + Judges 13. 10.
Mediatorial Kingdom : And therefore his Right and Title to Worship was not founded upon the Powers then supposed to have been given Him: Consequently, those Texts which you refer to, for that purpolė, are not pertinently alledged; nor are they of strength lufficient to bear all that stress which you lay upon Them. This Point being screled, I might allow you that, in fome Sense, diftin& Worship commenc'd with the distinct Title of Son, or Redeemer: That is, our B'elled Lord was then first wor. Jhip’d, or commanded to be worihip'd by us, - under that distinct Title or Character; having
before had no other Title or Character peculiar and proper to Himself, but only what was * common to the Father and Him too. Tho Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all jointly concero'd in Creation, Redemption, and SanEtification; yet it may seem good to Infinite Wisdom, for great Ends and Reasons, to attribure each respectively to one Person, rather than Another; so that the Father may be emphatically Creator, the Son Redeemer, the Holy Ghost San&tifier: And upon the commencing of these Titles respectively, the distinct Worship of each (amongst Men) might accordingly commence also. Excellent are the Words of * Bishop Bull to this purpose; which I have thrown into the Margin. I shall only add that while you endeavor to found Christ's Right and Title to worship solely upon the Powers fupposed to be given Him after his Resurrection, you fall much below the generality of the Antient Arians (whom yet you would be thought to exceed) and are running into the Socinian Scheme, not very consistently with your own. Thus you seem to be fluctuating and wavering between Two, (ar the same time verbally condemning Both) certain in Nothing, but in opposing the Catholick Doctrine; which when you haye left, you scarce know where to fix, or how to make your Principles hang together. To explain this a little farther: I found the Son's Title to worship upon the Dignity of his Person; his creative Powers declared in Joh. 1. and elfewhere; his being Oeds from the Beginning; and
* Sic Deus voluit novare Sacramentum, ur sove Unus crederetur per Filinin & Spiritum, ut Coram jam Deus in fuis propriis Nominibus & Perfonis cognosceretur, qui & retro per Filiun & Spiritum prædicatus con intelligebatura Tertall. Contr. Prix Ca 324
* Profecto admiranda mihi videtur divinarum Personarum in Sacrosanctisima Triade oixovopice, qua Unaquæque Persona diftincte quali Tirulo humanum imprimis genus imperio suo divino obstrinxerit, Titulo illi respondente etiam distincta uniuscujusque imperä patefactione. Parrem Colimus sub Titulo Creatoris hujus Universi, qui & ab ipsa Mundi Creatione hominibus innotuerit; Filium adoramus fub Titulo Redemptoris ac Servatoris noftri, cujus idcirco divina gloria atque imperium non nili post peractum in terris hu. manz Redemptionis ac Salutis negotium fuerit patefactum; Spiritum denique Sanétum veneramur sub Titulo Paracleti, Illumina. toris, ac Sanctificatoris noftri, cujus adeo divina Majestas demum post descensum ejus in Apostolos primosque Christianos donorum omne genus copiosissima largitione illustrissimum, clarius emicuerit. Nimirum tum demum Apostoli, idque ex Christi mandato, Gentes baptizabant in Plenam atque adunatam Trinitatem (ut cum Cypriano loquar) h. e. in nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti. Bull. Prim. Trad. p. 142.
his preserving, and upholding all Things (according to Colof 1.16, 17. and Heb. 1.) antecedently to his mediatorial Kingdom: You, on the other Hand, found it intirely upon the Powers given Him after his Humiliation (alledg. ing such * Texts as these, Matt. 28. 18. Joh. 5.22, 23. Phil. 2. 10,11. Rev. 1. 5,6. Řev. 5. 8, 9, 10.) as if He had no just Claim or Title to worship at all, before that Time: For, tho' you put in the equivocal Word, distinct, (very ingeniously) yet your Meaning really is, and the Tendency of your Argument requires it, that no Worship, distinct or otherwise, was due to Him, till He received those full Powers. This prerence, I say, might come decently and properly from a Socinian, or a Sabellian, who either makes Creation Metaphorical, or interprets such Texrs as Job. 1. 1. Col. 1. 16, 17, and the like, of the Reason or Wisdom of the Father, that is, the Father, indwelling in the Man Christ Jesus. But in you it must appear very improper; and very inconsistent with your other Principles: Wherefore I must again desire you to be more consistent; and to keep to one constant Scheme. Take either Arian, Sabel. lian, or Socinian, and abide by it ; and then I may know what I have to do: But do not prerend to hold Two Schemes, at a time, utterly repugnant to each other.
As to Scripture's seeming, in some places, to found Christ's Title to Worship, not so much * Sve Dr. Clarke's Reply, p. 239. 249
upon what He is in Himself, as upon what He has done for us; a very good Reason may be given for it, if it be well considered by what Springs and Movements moral Agents are actuated, and that we love even God Himself, with reference to our Selves, * because He first Loved us. Abstracted Reasons of Esteem, Honour, and Regard are unaffecting, without a mixture of something relative to Us, which our Selves have a near concern in. The ef sential Dignity of Christ's Person is really the Ground and Foundation of Honour, and Esteem (and consequently of Worship, the highest Expression of Both) which ought always to bear proportion to the intrinsick Excellency of the Object: Bur his Offices, relative to Us, are the moving Reasons, which principally affect our Wills, and without which we should want the strongest Incitement to pay that Honour and Worship, which the effential Excellency of his Person demands. Scripture has sufficiently apprized us of Both, discovering at once both his absolute, and relative Dignity; thar so we being instructed as well concerning what He is in Himself, as what He is in respect to Us, might understand what Honour juftly belongs to Him, and want no motive to pay it accordingly. Add to this, that Christ's Office, relative to us, naturally leads us back to the antecedent Excellency and Perfection of that person, who was able to do so great and so astonishing Things
* 1 Job 4.19.