66

"cient church, in their creeds or writings, had ever "countenanced it." And if the doctor had not shewn this before, even in the Importance, and more largely still in his Defences, he would not have offered this in the service of his cause. By this, therefore, let the matter be determined: let our author prove what he says, that the doctor has not "so much as an appearance of any evidence from the Fathers on his "side;" till when, the doctor's seventh chapter will be of great service to his cause. The truth is, the doctor has so great an appearance of evidence on his side, that unless this learned gentleman will undeceive us, by examining his testimonies one by one, shewing all along that they do not favour the doctor's principles, but are, at least, consistent with his own; we shall still think that his doctrine is not opposite to, but confirmed by the constant, unanimous, and universal sense of the primitive church. But instead of doing this, our author says, he "will "set before the reader the sense of the ancient "church, with respect to the doctrine of the Tri"nity, in their interpretation of some principal texts "of scripture relating to it." This, I conceive, is dropping the respondent, the part which he should have performed; and only repeating old objections, or reviving old difficulties, which have been often accounted for before. The interpretation is not their interpretation, but his own; all his quotations from the Fathers fall short of his design in producing them, and therefore there is no manner of occasion particularly to discuss them. I shall only attend his motions, while he is interpreting away the sense of these principal texts, and take my leave. He begins with

66

JOHN i. 1, 2, 3.

"Here,” he says, "are indisputably two distinct "divine Agents, two acting Beings." This is indisputably false, according to the common use of language, which always means by two beings, two separate beings, two divided essences, or substances. If therefore Father and Son have one undivided essence, they cannot be called two Beings: two Persons the church teaches them to be, and that's as much as the text requires. But he wants to confound the terms of being, agent, person; and would shelter himself too under Dr. Waterland's authority, who "owns," he says, "that a person is an intelligent agent." Yes, but he never owns that person and intelligent agent are terms reciprocal P, but cautions expressly to the contrary. "Secondly," he says, "it is observable that St. John does not "style the Word God, or say that he is God, but "that in the beginning he was God." What can be the meaning of this? it is to introduce a very wild imagination, that the Word was only God, as he was the Messenger, Word, Angel, and Representative of the most high God, who appeared to Adam, the patriarchs, &c. and therefore thus appearing and acting ministerially in the name and by the authority of the supreme God, he was in the beginning, when he thus appeared and acted ministerially, God, or a divine Person. "When he was made flesh," he laid aside this character; that is, in consequence of this interpretation, he ceased to be God, for he was God in the beginning only as he sustained this

P Second Defence, p. 368.

character; and therefore, when he laid it aside, he was God no longer. Well," but instead of it, he re"ceived a greater, more glorious, and divine name,” &c. so that instead of losing any thing by ceasing to be God, he was a gainer by it. Yes, he was then "declared the only-begotten of the Father, and

66

our Lord and Saviour:" that is, having ceased to be God, which, it seems, is only laying aside a character, he was made a Son. Yes, "this is a more "eminent character" (what is this but a character too?) "than being merely the Word of God," &c. Wonderful account this! let us see how it squares with the scriptures. They represent the Word's being made flesh as a very great humiliation and abasement; but this account of the matter makes it a high advancement and exaltation. St. Paul says he humbled, emptied, made himself of no reputation; but, according to our author's comment, it was by "advancing, replenishing himself, assuming a more "eminent and glorious character." What a noble idea does this inspire of the love of Christ to mankind, who thus condescended to receive " a greater,

66

66

66

more glorious and divine name" for their sakes! and how much is Christianity beholden to such restorers of it! "After his resurrection from the dead,"-well, what became of him then?" he "was then made Lord over all, which implied his being God in a far higher sense than he was in the beginning." So that having lost his Godship for about thirty years, he now begun to be God again, a greater God than ever he was before. Can any mortal read such divinity as this without some emotions either of mirth or anger? and I am al

66

most apt to think, that the man who is capable either of writing or believing it is not a proper object of the latter.

Nescio an Anticyram ratio illis destinet omnem.

As for the Fathers, whom he here cites in his margin, they speak not up to his purpose, but are only an instance of the truth of what I said before, that his quotations fall short of his design in alleging them. The Fathers (and modern divines do the same) only vouch for the fact, viz. that it was the Logos who all along appeared to Adam and the patriarchs, &c. in the name and person of the Father, or of God. But his conclusion, that he was God in the beginning only in this sense, they leave him to prove by himself. This is the pinch of the question, and here he is left entirely destitute of evidence. This interpretation, so absurd in itself, and so utterly unsupported with any appearance of proof, would he substitute in the room of one which deserves a quite different character; as the reader will see if he pleases to consult the references 9. His preposition (his dia, through) we have had before, and we shall have again, and there will be no end of it. Tertullian's remark is worth fifty such, "fecit "enim et ipse quæ facta sunt per illum." If we will be guided either by scripture or common sense, God

Dr. Waterland's Defence, p. 66; Sermons, p. 1; Second Defence, p. 33, 178, 179. The sentiments of the ancients, with regard to Christ's appearing, &c. to Adam, &c. may be seen, Defence, p. 34, &c. 432; Sermons, p. 158; Second Defence, p. 163, &c. For the exaltation of Christ after his resurrection, see Sermon V.: and for Tertullian and Theophilus, First Defence, p. 41, &c.; Second Defence, p. 137.

-Hæc decies repetita.

See Sermons, p. 45-48.

Almighty neither uses nor wants any instruments or ministerial agents when he creates: he maketh all things, stretcheth forth the heavens alone, and spreadeth abroad the earth by himself. So that if the Son be not the one God with the Father, he certainly could have no hand in the creation. But he asks, "who can find out from the words of the apostle, "that the Word who was with God, and by whom "all things were made, is the same God with the "Father?" Any body can find this out, that can but make a syllogism; the Word is here characterized as God in the beginning, and Maker of every creature that was made; according to the whole tenor of scripture there is but one God and one Maker of all things; pray, who cannot find out the consequence? "Stale exploded pretence" this, says he, "that if he is not the same God with the Fa"ther, he must be another God, and in consequence "there must be two Gods." Explode this pretence who will, it is no more than maintaining that dangerous position, that one and one are two. If the Son be God at all, and not "the same God with the "Father," he must be "another God," (must he not?) "and so in consequence there must be two Gods." No such thing, says our author, no such thing; "two "Gods are two unoriginated, two coordinate, two "equal, two supreme Gods." P. 74, 86. Ah! now the secret's out; and what a pity it is that reason, scripture, antiquity, all reclaim . "Two equally su"preme Gods!" why, never man was so silly as to believe any such absurdity: the very nations that

"See Sermons, pref. p. xxxi. &c; Second Defence, p. 29, 194, 201, &c.; First Defence, p. 337.