he saw his glory, and spake of him." Now St. John is evidently speaking of Christ. Therefore we have the evidence of an inspired Evangelist, that the words, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory," apply to Christ. But we leave it to any one to say, whether such terms, particularly the words, "Lord of Hosts," can apply to any but God. Therefore we conclude, that Christ is God".

6thly. Thus again, the word God is used in two senses; the one applicable to the great Jehovah, the only true God: the other referring to the heathen deities, or the sons of men. As in St. Paul, " Though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many), to us there is but one God." Now it is evident, that Christ cannot be numbered with any of the many gods here mentioned, for he is set at the right hand of the Most High" in the heavenly places, far

John xii. 40, 41.

Waterland brings forward Eusebius, Hilary, Basil, Jerome, &c. concurring in this reasoning. Christ's Divinity, Serm. I. P. 18.

Exod. xxii. 20. 28. Judges xi. 24. Psal. lxxxii. 6. 2 Corin. iv. 4. Philipp. iii. 19.

above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come1."

When therefore it is said, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," and the "Word was God "," in both which passages Christ is called in God, it must follow that he is so called in the most exalted sense, as one with the Father, the Lord of all ".

7thly. Again, St. Paul says, "Of whom (viz. the Israelites) as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen "." Here Christ is called " God blessed for ever," and is said to be "over all." Which expressions are so decisive, that one of two things must follow; either Christ is God, and one with God, or Scripture is not to be believed.

8thly. In St. John it is written, "We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life "." That

1 Eph. i. 20, 21.

m Heb. i. 8. John i. 1.

• See Waterland's Qu. xvi. and xvii. in which he proves Christ to be God, because divine worship and adoration are due to him. Vindication of Christ's Divinity. See also Bp. Horne's Sermon, title "Christ adored, and therefore God." P 1 John v. 20.

Rom, ix. 5.

there is but one true God, none will deny. Therefore Christ is the one true God, i. e. Christ is partaker with God of one and the same divine

essence P.

Q. In several arguments you have taken the passage in St. John, In the beginning was the word," to mean, in the beginning was Christ. Prove this?

A. The context proves it. St. John says, verse 3, "All things were made by the word, and without him was not any thing made that was made." But we have already brought Scripture to prove that Christ made the world. Therefore the word is Christ.

Again, St. John says expressly, verse 14, "The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." The only begotten of the Father, who was made flesh, and dwelt among us, we have shewn to be Christ. Therefore also the word is Christ.

Q. How can Christ be God, and one with the Father, when it is acknowledged, at the very same time, that his personality is distinct? A. The difficulty here consists in not suffi-. ciently considering the meaning of the word

P See Irenæus, lib. iii. cap. 6.

per

sonality. It is not, as in common conversation, used to express a difference in substance'. If we allowed that the substance of the Godhead was divided, it would follow that there were three Gods, which we deny, as equally repugnant to common sense and revelation. The fact is this. Some terni was necessary to express our idea of a distinction in operations, which appeared to exist between the Father and the Son. And our language supplying no adequate expression, we adopted that which appeared as unexceptionable as any. Archbishop Tillotson, in his Sermon

• Mistaken notions as to the personality of the Son were at the root of the Sabellian heresy. Waterland, Serm. i. on Christ's Divinity, vol. ii. p. 3.

The acts of a mind prove the existence of a mind: and in whatever a mind resides, is a person. The seat of intellect is a person. We have no authority to limit the properties of mind to any particular corporeal form, or to any particular circumscription of space. Paley's Natural Theology, c. xxiii. p. 445.

• Si interrogatus fueris de Deo, cur dicatur Pater? Relativè responde, quia habet Filium. Ita de Filio, responde relativè, ideo esse Filium quia habet Patrem. Si ergo dictum de Deo fuerit, quomodo pater hoc est quod Filius, aut Filius hoc est quod Pater? Responde, secundum substantiam hoc est Filius quod Pater, quia unus est Deus, et una substantia Pater et Filius. Ad se enim Deus substantialitèr dicitur; ad patrem Filius, vel Pater ad Filius relativè dicitur. Juxta personæ proprietatem non est Pater qui Filius, nec Filius qui Pater, juxta substantiæ imitatem, hoc Pater quod Filius, id est, Deus unus omnipotens. Augustin, tom. x. Appendix de Diversis. Serm. xxx.

concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature, Serm. xlviii. sect. iii. says, "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are spoken of in Scripture with as much distinction from one another, as we use to speak of three several persons. So that, though the word person be not in Scripture expressly applied to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet it will be very hard to find a more convenient word, whereby to express the distinction of these three. For which reason I could never yet see any just cause to quarrel at this term."

Q. What is the distinction of the three persons in the Trinity?

A. The distinction as touching the operations of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, have been already in part, and will be further explained as we advance. The distinction as touching the personality of the Triune Godhead, meaning by personality the same as essence with a particular manner of subsistence, which the Greek fathers call hypostasis, has also been in part, and will be further examined. If by the question any thing further is meant, touching the distinction which the communication of the Godhead by the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost occasions; we answer, that the sublime mystery of a Trinity in the Godhead is, in this respect,