66

"both. So that the word God, though of the fingular number, is of a plural comprehenfion. “And thus I find it to have been taken by some "of the most eminent writers before the council "of Nice; Plafmatus in initio bomo per manus DEI, id "eft, FILII et SPIRITUS, fays Irenæus; putting "the fingular name of God for the two perfons of "the Son and Spirit. And the fame word, in the

language of Origen, (if we are allowed to take "the verfion of Ruffinus as genuine,) includes the "whole three perfons: igitur de DEO, id eft, de "PATRE, et FILIO, et SPIRITU SANCTO. And our "excellent church has ufed the word God in the "fame comprehenfive fenfe; as in the Blessing "after the communion fervice, GOD ALMIGHTY, "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft."

I am afraid this is not fo full an answer to the above affertion as was to be wifhed; and that it is not abfolutely fufficient for the "overthrow of the whole doctrine of Arianifm." In the firft place, Dr. Clarke's profelytes will be apt to infist, that the whole doctrine of Arianifm does not depend upon this one affertion; and in the next place, that, if it did, Mr. Jones has advanced nothing here forcible enough to overthrow it. It is true, they will fay, God was in Chrift; but in what fenfe? why, by his grace, his influence, and spiritual communications; as he is likewife faid to be in us; and as Chrift is faid to be in us; and as we are faid to

be in God, and to be in Chrift, by the purity of our hearts and affections. This, they will tell us, is plain fimple theory, without any wanton refinement, or imaginary diftinction of " agent and patient, &c." And with regard to the authorities of Irenæus, Origen, and the Blessing in the Communion fervice, they will add, that they cannot admit either a private fentiment, or a public doctrine to be the standard of true Chistianity.

As this is fpecious enough, it may be proper to difencumber ourselves from the weight of this fame Arian affertion, by other confiderations. Hac non fucceffit, alia progrediamur via.

First then let it be obferved, that though the English word God be " of the fingular number,” yet the Hebrew word Elohim, of which it is the tranflation, is confeffedly "of a plural comprehenfion." Accordingly it has been demonstrated over and over again, that the ancient Jews held a plurality of fome kind in the Deity. (Vid. Supr.)

But, fecondly, we may recur to confiderations ftill more internal, and indifputable. If it has been abundantly made to appear, that the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, as properly and truly as the Father is God, the term God muft unavoidably be acknowleged to include, or to "fignify a complex notion of more perfons than one," in many places of holy writ. It will fuffice to pro

duce

duce a few inftances. The Father is faid to be in us, 1 John. 4. 13. or to dwell in us, or abide with us, and the Son is faid to be in us, &c, Rom. 8. v. 10. and the Holy Ghost is said to be in us; and, in a cafe which he mentions, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, it would be reported, that God was in them of a truth. 1 Cor. 14. 25. Now can any man affign a tolerable reason why the word God in this paffage fhould not be regarded as inclufive of the whole bleffed Trinity? Another Scripture faith, every one of us fhall give account of himself to God; Rom. 14. 12. but if in the term, God, Jefus Christ is not comprehended, what will become of the text which affures us we must all appear before HIS judgment-feat? 2 Cor. 5. 10. The great Apostle of the Gentiles puts the Elders of the Church of Ephefus in mind, that he had not shunned to declare unto them all the counfel of God: and if he who purchased this Church with his own blood, and he who appointed overfeers over it, are to be confidered as parties in this counfel, (and furely they are to be fo confidered,) the word, God, has manifeftly a complex fignification here, and means more than one person only. Acts 20. 27, 28. The Kingdom of God is a phrafe which, in most places where it occurs, will, I prefume, not barely admit but require the fame latitude of application. The Word of God may be regarded in the fame light. Lastly I fhall clofe these examples with one which is the more eligible, because

A a 4

because it is contained in a text which has already undergone examination, and to which our adverfaries are for ever putting in their claim. I mean v. 28th. of the 15th. Chapter of St. Paul's first Epift. to the Cor. When all things fhall be fubdued unto him, then shall the Son alfo himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God, i. e. the complement of the Deity, the Trinity in Unity, may be all in all. Every critical eye fees clearly that, in this paffage, for the complex word -God—we muft read the fingle term Father, before we can with any fort of propriety accommodate it to the purpose of the anti-trinitarians. In this cafe indeed, there would be an obvious fense, and a natural antithefis, and both in their favour.

The other text-I am in the Father, and the Father in me, John 14. 11., which Mr. J. produces as fynonomifing with the preceding, may be explained away by fimilar means. The Arian has the following paffages to oppofe to them. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they alfo may be one in us; that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in me, &c. John 17. 21, 22, 23. I am far from faying, or even infinuating, that there is any real difficulty in all this; or that the orthodox conftruction of

*See Difc. 6. fub fin.

the

the paffages adduced by Mr. J. does not fairly and properly belong to them. I only take leave to obferve, and have an obvious view in obferving, that, with regard to the defence of Chriftian doctrine in general, and particularly to the confutation of the affertion above-mentioned, this truly refpectable author might have felected texts lefs equivocal, lefs liable to prevarication.

It is obfervable, Dr. I. Watts makes the texts I am in the FATHER and the FATHER IN ME, &c, fubfervient to his doctrine of the inherency, or indwelling of the Father, i. e. of the godhead in the MAN Christ Jesus..

It has been remarked, that by a small alteration in the punctuation, the 3d. v. of the 17th. Chap. of St. John, that they might know thee the only true God, &c, may be thus rendered, that they might know thee, and fefus Chrift, whom thou haft fent, to be the only true God. This reading is fupported by the authorities of Novatian, St. Auftin, and St. Ambrofe. But it will be prudent, I believe, to wave these authorities. Thefe Fathers feem to have been in

great fear, where no fear was. We may safely abide by the sense of the text before us in its present state: Were we really in diftrefs, it might be worth our while to appeal to these early opinions in our favour.

See Difcourfe 6th fub. fin. Dr. WATTS's Laft Sentiments. p. 76,77. See the passage in IRENEUS cited