Page images
PDF
EPUB

Fountain of all Power, Pre eminence, Dignity, &c. acting in His Name, executing His Will, and representing His Perfon. (I and my Father are one, Joh. 10. 30. He that hath feen me, bath feen the Father, Joh. 14 9. I can of my own self do nothing, Joh. 5. 30.) And yet whatever is faid of Chrift, is to be understood of Him in his own Perfon; and not of the Father only, whom He represented. In fine, it is not neceffary that every one who acts in the Name, or by the Authority, or in the Perfon of another, fhould ufurp the Stile of that other, and speak in the firft Perfon; e.g. A Viceroy, or an Ambassador speaks in the King's Name, and by his Authority, and represents his Perfon: But does not Perfonate the King, in the strictest Senfe; does not pretend to fay, I am the King. And therefore you can draw no certain Conclufion from the two Paffages of Theophilus and Tertullian. On the contrary, I have shown you from the whole Drift, Tenor, and Tendency, as well as from particular Teftimonies of the primitive Writings, that they are far from favouring your pretences in this Cafe, but are a perfect Contradiction to them. From what hath been faid, thefe three Things are very plain and evident.

1. That, according to the Mind of the Antients, the Son was God, and fo called in his own Perfon.

2. That He was God in his own Perfon, as being God's Son.

E 3

3. That

3. That He was God's Son, as having the divine Subftance communicated from the Fa

ther.

These three Confiderations intirely take off the force of whatever either You or Dr. Clarke hath offer'd to perplex and puzzle a very clear and manifest Truth.

I have infifted chiefly on the first Particular, as was proper in this place; though I have, in paffing, hinted enough of the two latter alfo; efpecially confidering that they will often be glanced at again, in the process of our Difpute.

Thus, I hope, I have fufficiently vindicated the Argument of this Second Query, having fhown from plain Scripture Texts, that Christ is not excluded from being the one Supreme God in Conjunction with the Father; and taken off your Exceptions: And left this fhould feem infufficient, I have confirm'd it farther, from the unanimous confent of all Antiquity, before the Council of Nice; which is what your felf appeal to in the Cafe. This Article indeed has hereby been drawn out into a difproportionate Length: But the Importance of it is a fufficient Apology. Were you able Satisfactorily to anfwer the following Queries; This one, while it ftands unanswered, would be enough for all. But I proceed.

...

QUERY

QUERY III.

Whether the Word (God) in Scripture, can reasonably be fuppofed to carry an ambiguous meaning, or to be used in a different Senfe, when applied to the Father and Son, in the Same Scripture, and even in the fame Verfe? See Joh. 1. 1.

[ocr errors]

ERE you make Anfwer; that the Word (God) in Scripture hath a relative Signification, and is used in a fupreme and a fubordinate Senfe. And you appeal you appeal to Exod. 7. 1. I have made Thee a God to Pharaoh; and to Pfal. 82. 1. God ftandeth in the Assem bly of Gods; judgeth among Gods; and you defire that Joh. 10 34, 35. may be compared; Is it not written in your Law, 1 faid ye are Gods, &c. You are impatient, I perceive, to come to your Diftinction of Supreme and Subordinate; which, you imagine, clears all Difficulties, and you will not ftay to confider what ought to be faid first. The first and most gcneral Diftinction of the Senfes of the Word, God, fhould be into proper and improper; after which it will be foon enough to come to your famed Distinction of Supreme ad Subordinate. Dr. Clarke, indeed, would perfwade us, that the proper Scripture-Notion of God is Dominion; and that therefore any Perfon having Dominion, is, according to the Scripture-No

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

66

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

Qu. III. tion, truly, and properly God. This shall be examined; but it will be convenient here to fet down the Doctor's own Words. "The Word eds, God, has in Scripture, and in all Books "of Morality and Religion, a relative Signification; and not, as in metaphyfical Books, an abfolute one: as is evident from the re"lative Terms, which in moral Writings may always be joined with it. For instance: In "the fame manner as we fay my Father, my King, and the like; fo it is proper alfo to fay, my God, the God of Ifrael, the God of the Univerfe, and the like: Which words "are expreflive of Dominion and Government. But, in the metaphyfical Way, it cannot be faid my Infinite Subftance, the Infinite Subftance of Ifrael, or the like*. He repeats the Obfervation (p. 290.) † And is very positive that the word God, in Scripture, is always a relative Word of Office; giving the fame pretty Reafon for it, as before. This fhall be carefully confidered; and the manner of speaking accounted for, in the fequel.

66

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I fhall only obferve here, by the way, that the Word, Star, is a relative Word, for the fame Reafon with that, which the Doctor gives for the other. For, the Star of your God Remphan, (A&s 7. 43.) is a proper Expreffion : But, in the metaphyfical Way, it cannot be faid, the luminous Subftance of your God Rem* See Dr. Clarke's Reply, p. 284.

+ Compare alfo Script. Doctr. p. 296. alias 264.

phan

phan. So again; Water is a relative Word; For it is proper to say, the Water of Ifrael: But, in the metaphyfical Way, it cannot be said, the fluid Substance of Ifrael; The Expreffion is* improper. By parity of Reason, we may make relative Words, almoft as many as we pleafe. But to proceed: I maintain that Dominion is not the full Import of the word God, in Scripture; that it is but a part of the Idea, and a small part too; and that, if any Perfon be called God, meerly on account of Dominion, He is called fo by way of Figure and Refemblance only; and is not properly God, according to the Scripture-Notion of it. We may call any one, a King, who lives free and independent, fubject to no Man's Will. He is a King fo far, or in fome refpect; tho' in many other refpects, nothing like one; and therefore not properly a King. If by the fame Figure of Speech, by way of Allufion and Refemblance, any thing be called God, because refembling God in one or more Particulars; we are not to conclude, that it is properly, and truly God.

To enlarge fomething farther upon this Head; and to illuftrate the Cafe by a few In

It is very obvious to perceive, where the impropriety of fuch Expreffions lies. The word Subftance, according to the common use of Language, when used in the Singular Number, is fupposed to be intrinfick to the Thing (poken of, whofe Substance it is; and indeed, to be the Thing it felf. My Subftance, is my Self: and the Subflance of Ifrael, is Ifrael. And hence it comes to be improper to join Subftance with the relative Terms, understanding it of any thing extrinfick.

[merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »