if he had said there have been thirty Opinions in this Matter But tho' this be inartificial enough if no more yet that which is more grievously suspicious is that he calls the Catholick Faith but a meer Opinion and Perswasion of a Party * P. 31. The third Opinion saith his Lordship is that the Godhead by the Eternal Word the Second in the blessed Three dwelt in and was so inwardly united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ that by Virtue of it God and Man were truly one Person as our Soul and Body make one Man And that the Eternal Word was truly God and as such is worshipped and adored as the proper Object of Divine Adoration By those of this Perswasion the Term Person became applied to the Three which the Scripture only calls by the Name of Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost on design to discover those who thought that these Three were only different Names of the same Thing But by Person is not meant such a Being as we commonly understand by that Word a complete intelligent Being but only that every one of that Blessed Three has a peculiar distinction in himself by which he is truly different from the other two So again †P. 32 33. This in general is the Sump of the received Doctrine That as there is but One God so in that undivided Essence there are Three that are really different from one another and are more than three Names or three outward Oeconomies * P. 42. or Modes and that the Second of these was in a most intimate and unconceivable manner united to a perfect Man so that from the Humane and Divine Nature thus united there did result the Person of Christ § 3. And now perhaps some may wonder what Exceptions lie against this but there are indeed several and those of great Importance First That he calls it an Opinion only like that of the Socinian and Arian while yet he intimates it to be the Doctrine of the Church The truth is as his Lordship has stated it it has many meer Opinions in it but they are such as are not in the Faith and so ought not to have been represented as the Doctrine of the Church But if his Lordship had taken it for the Christian Faith either as it is or ought to have been stated by him he ought not to have set it out as a meer Opinion or Perswasion of a third Party For a meer partial Opinion cannot be a Divine or Catholick Faith whether we take Opinion for the Act or Object of Opinion For the Act is meer Humane Conjecture without certain grounds and objectively Opinions are Propositions that have no certain but only probable appearance which therefore no Man is bound in Conscience to assert or stand by for want of certain Evidence and Authority But Catholick Faith objectively taken consists of certain Principles made certainly evident by Divine Revelation to the Holy Catholick Church and thereupon to be relied on and asserted against all temptations in hopes of Life Eternal Now these Principles thus received were the Faith of the Universal Church not the Opinion of any Party in the beginning and therefore the contrary Parties and Opinions arising since of what Cut or Size soever pertain not to this Holy Body in which the Faith of the Trinity truly stated is as essential as the Faith of the Unity and as fundamental in the Christian Professions Now would it not be very Theological to say That all the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles the whole Synagogue of the Jews and Church of Christ were ever of this Opinion That there is one God only the Creator and Governour of all things That the Apostles and all Christians are of Opinion that Jesus is the Christ That it is our Opinion That he came down and dwelt among us died rose again and ascended into Heaven and shall come to Judgment at the general Resurrection Just so absurd it is to call the Catholick Faith of God's Church the Opinion or Perswasion of a Party 'T is true indeed his Lordship sometimes calls it Doctrine but this term is equivocal and agrees as usually to the Opinions of the Philosophers But what I require is that the Catholick Doctrine be asserted as a Rule of Faith which the Church is bound to adhere to on the certain Authority of Divine Revelation this Revelation appearing real not only to particular Men's private Opinions but originally committed to the Charge and Custody of the whole Church by the Apostles and so preserved by their Successors throughout the whole diffusive Body Whereas his Lordship only lays down this Notion or form of Faith †P. 26. See Discour 3. That we believe points of Doctrine because we are perswaded that they are revealed to us in Scripture which is so languid and unsafe a Rule that it will resolve Faith into every Man's private fancies and contradictory Opinions since each Man's Faith is his Perswasion that what he believes for a Doctrine is revealed in Scripture Whereas the Act of a Christian Faith believes such Doctrine to be true and fundamental in Christianity from the certain Evidence thereof in the Scriptures acknowledged by all Churches not led by casual Perswasions but by a primitive perpetual universal and unanimous Conviction and Tradition The deviation from which Rule and Notion to private Opinions and Perswasions is the cause of all Heresies and by its consequent Divisions naturally tends to the ruine of the true Christian and Catholick Faith I will not however at present descend into that thicket of Controversie What Rules private Persons are bound to in the learning and professing the Christian Faith but whosoever will arrive to a maturity of Judgment and Knowledge herein must betake him †P. 63. to the exploded Rule of Vincentius Eirineâ—â— and take that for fundamental Doctrine which hath been received for such in all Ages Places and Churches A Rule very practicable and easie since there are sufficient Memorials of the Primitive Antiquity delivering unto us their Creeds and Summaries of the then Catholick Faith which from them has uniformly descended to all Churches of the later Ages 'T is true indeed every single Man can believe no otherwise than he is privately perswaded but he that is not to be perswaded to receive the common and established Systems of the Faith of the Church Catholick upon the Authority on which it hath ever stood and yet stands or shall wantonly coin out other Articles for fundamental upon his own private Opinion belongs not to the Communion of the Church of Christ though he fansies his conceptions revealed in the Scriptures § 4. Secondly His Lordship is not clear in the point of Incarnation for he tells us that this third Opinion is that by the Vnion of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity God and Man truly became one Person Now here first we are not taught whether there were three or any one Person in the
God-head before the Incarnation For this account will admit the Personality of Christ to be founded first †P. 32. in the Humane Nature according to some of his Lordship's Criticks which he dares not contradict who place the foundation of the Sonship in the lower Nature Yea this Description will admit the Patripassian Heresie of but one Person in the Deity For if the Eternal Word were no Person distinct from the Father the Union thereof with the Humanity constitutes the Father an incarnate Person or otherwise by this State of his Lordships Doctrine the Father Son and Holy Ghost may be conceived as one incarnate Person Whereas his Lordship well knows our Faith to be clear That the Eternal Word is personally distinct or a distinct Person from the Father and alone assumed the Humanity into a Personal Union with himself and so alone was the Person of Christ exceptively of the Father and the Holy Ghost from this Personality and Character § 5. Now if a Man would enquire into the Motives of this affected obscurity in his Lordship that leaves open a gap to so many Heresies his Lordship's Words would lead one to a conclusion or at least a fair jealousie that his Lordship does not believe any Distinction really Personal between the Father Word and Holy Spirit but that the true and real Personality of Christ is proper to the Humane Nature For he teacheth us that those whom the Church calleth Persons the Scripture only calls by the Names of Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost Where that artificial Word only derogates from the propriety and fitness of the term Person as if the Scripture terms did not come up to it nor justifie it And if his Lordship will stand by the †P. 45. plain intention of his Words elsewhere he places Christ's Personality only in his Manhood in these words That Divine Person in whom dwelt the Eternal Word So that the Word must be different from the Person in whom it dwelt which must be the Heresie of Sabellius Maâ—… or Nestorius In short while he 〈◊〉 the Canonical term of Person to contain some notion in it not imported in the Scripture terms he seems for that cause to censure it for that the Scripture does not come up so far as to teach three Persons but only Father Son or Word and Holy Ghost But when he says this third Opinion is than by the Incarnation God and Man truly became one Person I would fain know whether the term Person be proper for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no If not the Doctrine is to be blamed that teaches him to be truly one Person since the truth of a Character is the greatest propriety and if it be not true the Doctrine that teaches it is to be cashiered But if to avoid this it be true then I would fain be instructed whether the Church does not use the term Person in the same formal intention concerning the Father Son and Holy Spirit when She calls them three Persons as She does when She calls Christ or the Son of God incarnate a Person For if She uses the term in the same formal intention then if the Christ be a proper Person so are the Father and Holy Spirit two other Persons properly and truly distinct in the sense of the Church but if the Church has one intention in the Term when applied to Christ 〈◊〉 God-man and another when applied to the Eternal Trinity let this be made out by just Authority and I have done § 6. But the Order of his Lordship's Discourse obliges me to break off a little from this Disquisition till the next Section where we must resume it For he tells us if we will believe him that the term Person by those of our Perswasion came to be applied to the three to discover those who thought that these three were different names of the same thing which were for the most part and were generally called Patripassians and were expelled as Hereticks from the Church Now wherein lay their Heresie Why in this That the Father Son and Holy Ghost were not three co-essential Persons really distinct which was the Catholick Faith instead of which they coined this pretence That those Names had not three distinct subjects of which they were predicates or denominations but only were three titles of God the Father who became incarnate and suffered for us Now hence it appears that their Heresie consisted in the denial of what was ever before received in the Church That the Father Son and Holy Ghost were three Persons And if so then is his Lordship's insinuation false and injurious that the term Person had its rise and occasion from Patripassianism and consequently is of a later Date that by this fraudulent Hypochronism the term and the sense of it may be taken for not Primitive and Traditional but a mere later and artificial invention Now to prove what I say to be true I am to produce authentick Testimonies Now in the Latin World the first I ever have read of that taught Patripassianism was Praxeas against whose Heresie herein Tertullian wrote and charged in for denying the Eternal Word to be a * Tert. ad Praxeam Non vis enim eum substantiâ—um habere in re per substantiae proprietatem ut res persona quaedam videri possit substantial and real Person which Tertullian though then a Montanist then asserted with the Church though his †Tert. ibid. Itaque Sophiam quoque exaudi ut secundam Personam conditam Sic Filius in suâ personâ profitetur Patrem in nomine Sophiae Novatian de Trinit secundam Personam efficiens terms and senses were sometimes very singularly odd concerning the production of the second Person In the Eastern Church several lapsed into the like Error the most famous of which was Sabellius from whom the Heresie was entitled Sabellianism which denied what that Church also had ever asserted That the Father Son and Holy Spirit were three Persons instead whereof they asserted them to be but one Person For the truth hereof I shall recite the Words †Athan. con Sabell Greg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of St. Athanasius as beyond all Exception valid From whence it appears that the Sabellians asserted but one Person against that Plurality of Persons fore-acknowledged in the Church And now I leave it to his Lordship to explain how the denial of three Persons could be Apostasie as this Father calls it had not the Faith of them been before expresly avowed and received For Heresie is an opposition of true received Faith and Apostasie must be from an antecedent Profession So that the Doctrine of a Personal Trinity was not later than Patripassianism but the Original Faith Nor does his Lordship seem candid in concealing this which was the substance of that Heresie while he mentions only their teaching three Names of one thing or Person which was a Conâ—ectary or at least a Colour added to
their Heresie against the Trinity of real Persons 'T is true a Man may innocently say That the term Person was used against Patripassians while he contends for the proper truth of their Personality as the Defender of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of a Trinity in Unity †P. 25. Ubi citatur Facund pro defensione triâ—â— capit c. 1. p. 19. cites Facundus's Saying that these Words Person and Subsistence were used by the Fathers in opposition to the Sabellian Heresie but to throw out such Expressions with a Design to deny the Primitive Antiquity of this Faith of Three proper Persons or Personalities is extremely perfidious of which this is a certain Sign when Men avoid the use of these Terms as a stock of Offence as his Lordship appears industriously to do in his State of the Doctrine I have not Facundus by me and so cannot so well judge of the convenience of his Words But as to the Term Hypostasis or Subsistence tho' it was in use long before Sabellianism and used of the Person of the Father * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1.2 yet was that use promiscuous for Essence and Subsistence long after Sabellianism and the determinate use thereof for the distinct Persons was later than the Sardican Council and was indeed at last so fixed to denote their substantial Personality or personal Subsistence against the Sabellians who asserted the Word and Holy Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non-subsistent that is not distinctly subsistent from the Person of the Father in the Unity of Essence but the Term Person both in the Eastern and Western Churches was ever received from the beginning without any variety or ambiguity § 7. Now that my Surmises against his Lordship's Integrity herein are well grounded will appear from his Lordship's explanation of this Term which tho' it be received in the third Party yet he dares not make his own nor allow for proper By Person saith he is only meant that every one of that Blessed Three has a peculiar distinction in himself by which he is truly different from the other Two Here it is plain that by using the Term Three so often without adding Person he shuns the Word as much as he dares at present to do and assigns a distinction which is not any way personal For it being only such a diversity that one is not the other it will as well agree to two or three Tobaco pipes for these are truly different from each other I would therefore ask his Lordship Does the Name of Father as distinct from the Son import no more than that one is not the other or does it import a Personality really Paternal If he will grant only the former part of the disjunction as he grants no more in his Discourse then there really was no God the Father from Eternity till the Creation of Christ which was the first Article of Arianism nor was he who is by all called God the Father even a true Person which yet however all have ever acknowledged But if he ever was a true Person and Father then first as to him the Term is elder than Patripassianism and I demand a good reason why the Eternal Word is not as much and as true a Person also especially if he be the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father For otherwise the Father and the Son will be of Dignities specifically different if one be of a personal and the other of impersonal Character tho' how a real Son can be a thing really impersonal I cannot conceive and then be that allows no more distinction but only this that one is not the other tacitly denying the relative distinction between Father and the Son doth really deny both the Father and the Son When these Words were orally delivered at Warmister I observed them to my self but looked on it as a slip only of an extemporary speaking but when I see it also after the last concoction delivered from the Press I suspect somewhat more than should be I am sure the Dictate is rotten and tacitly imports a renunciation of our Christianity § 8. And yet after all so great is the force of Truth that it will maintain its Evidence even in the Tongues and Pens of its Adversaries For though some part of his Lordship's Doctrines denies the Personality yet others unwittingly concede it For first of all when he calls the Trinity the Blessed Three not daring to say Persons the Character of Blessed doth import a Peal Personality For whether it be taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense of God's essential Happiness or in the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the objects of our religious Praises yet if the Three are either or both ways Blessed they must be Persons For among created Beings none are internally or effectually blessed but what are Personal but if any Man will cavil and say that God in the Creation blessed things Impersonal and promised such Blessings also in the Mosaical Covenants it is enough to reply That these Blessed Three are uncapable of those lower forms of Benediction and must have a Divine Blessedness if they are of a Divine Nature Now his Lordship will not say that these are Three Distinct Blessed Essences and he says they are more than three Names Oeconomies or Modes so that he cannot with consistence call them three Blessed Names Oeconomies or Modes and then what can he or any one else conceive by Three Blessed but Three Blessed Persons For though it may be truly said that the highest Blessedness is that of Essence yet none but a Person or Persons can be essentially Blessed So that his Lordship asserting a Blessed Three must against his will yield them to be three Persons really distinct though not divide And so when he says that every one of that Blessed Three has a peculiar distinction in himself this Pronoun himself is expresly Personal and so either the Personality is Real or his Lordship very unaccurate in attributing a Personal Pronoun to every one of the Three and so is at his choice either unaccurate or self-contradictory or heretical or for the sake of a blessed Comprehension all together § 9. Let us now consider his Lordship's proper Tradition of this third Opinion or perhaps his own under the Colour of that for 't is not easie to find him This saith he is in general the Sum of the Received Doctrine that in God's undivided Essence there are Three really different from each other that are more than three Names Oeconomies or Modes But here is not one word of Persons though asserted by the whole Catholick Church by our own Articles and Liturgies which his Lordship has sworn his unfeigned Assent and Consent to and is by his Station bound to defend and for which he has the great example of his late Metropolitan What latent Ulcer is the Cause of this tergiversation I cannot exactly tell but something there must be at the bottom But since this being matter
against this is that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed the common translation for Jehovah yet sometimes it is put for other Hebrew words both Elohim and Adonai and that in the New Testament it is used rather in opposition or more properly in subordination to the name of God which seems to be stated very plainly by St. Paul †1 Cor. 8.5 8. when he says there were many that were called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as there were Gods many and Lords many In opposition to all which he asserts that to Christians there is but one God the Father of whom were all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus by whom were all things and we by him From hence it seems that the true Notion of this according to St. Paul is that as the Heathen Nations believed some supreme Deities and other deputed or lower Deities that watched over particular Nations so we Christians do own one only Eternal God the Creator and Conserver of all and one Lord to whom he has given the Government of all things So that this as it favours the Notion of one exalted to Divine Authority and Honour does take away quite the whole force of this Argument Now let us see how his Lordship solves this The sum of what at large he tells us is †P. 37 38. that he that is at large the God of the Universe was also the federal God and Lord of the Jews and his federal name was Jehova rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Heathens also were supposedly under the Dominion of some of their Supreme Deities So here St. Paul sets one God for us who is also our federal God Lord or Jehovah by his dwelling in the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ But certainly 't is hazardous to hang so weighty a point of Faith on so thin a Cob-web For what first of all if a Man should deny Jehovah to be a Name restrictively and relatively federal to one People how will his Lordship convince him It is for the most part put by it self seldom with any Genitive never that I have yet observed with a Genitive of that People And being put simply it is a name of pure and absolute Essence or Existence and altogether irrelative even to the whole World as properly belonging to his Eternal Being before all Worlds And yet it may consequently import a negative reflexion on the Non-existence of all other Heathen Gods It seems indeed †Exod. 15.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prefixed to the relative and federal Name which was the God of their Fathers the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob declared unto Moses * Ibid. v. 6.13 before the name Jehovah was given But it is plain that he was long before the federal God of their Fathers under the mystical name of Elohim Adonai and Elschaddai before ever Moses was But till the appearance in the Bush God was not known to the Fathers by the name * Exod. 6.3 Jehovah though he was their federal God of Old So that this name Jehovah when added is added as a name of Essence to the federal Titles of the God of their Fathers the God of Israel which were set so relatively to that People in opposition to those relative Titles and local Denominations which the Heathen gave their tutelar and respective Deities And this I take for a certain Rule that an Absolute name of God is set alone and a federal name always with a Genitive Case or Suffix Nay Moses expresly uses the name Jehovah without this federal relation in the Story of Balaam * Num 22.8.13 23.3 8 12 26. 24.6.13 23.17 24.11 whom with Balak also Moses makes to call God Jehovah And if it shall be pretended that they used this as the known federal Name for that Balaam said of Israel †Numb 23.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb 22.18 Jehovah his God is with him it is to be observed that the same Mesopotamian Diviner calls him by the same Term * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah my God And the same Moses or whosoever gave us the Book of Job in Hebrew names the God of Job * Job Ch. 1. Ch. 2. Ch. 38. Ch. 40. Ch. 42. Jehovah and †Ch. 1. v. 21. brings in Job calling him by that name though neither Job nor probably the Original Author of that Book was of the Children of Israel nor within their especial Covenant Nay God himself discharges this name from all federal restriction Behold I am Jehovah the Lord God of all flesh And in those numerous places wherein he is relatively called Jehovah Isebaoth the Lord of Hosts the Hosts of Heaven are denoted not the Armies of Israel though sometimes †1 Sam. 17.45 these two Titles the Jehovah or Lord of Hosts and God of the Armies of Israel are joyned together of which however the latter only is federal to that People And infinite other * Psal 144.15 Zech. 13.19 Texts there are to shew Jehovah to be a name unlimited and in its natural signification antecedent to that of the God of Israel * Zech. 14 9. and to be acknowledged by all Nations in their general Conversion But further if the Septuagint used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a federal Name in the rendring the Hebrew Jehovah yet does it not follow that they took Jehovah for a federal Name For where-ever they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I believe they do every where there they according to the custom of their Nation read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Adonai according as they have since pointed it for that way of reading a religious first and at last a superstitious fear restraining the People from the common pronunciation of that greatest Name And hence it will follow that the Septuagint might take Adonai for a federal Name of God as their tutelar Lord in opposition to the Baalim or Lords adored by the bordering Nations So that whereas his Lordship throws up not only Elohim but Adonai too to the Objection he has undermined his own foundation for the federal signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially since in the 110th Psal God the Father is called * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah and God the Son Adonai the chiefest Text cited out of the Old Testament in the New for the Dominion of Christ over his People and consequently an argument that the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came from the Septuagint as reading Adonai How then shall the Apostles sense be cleared so that it may not establish two adorable Lords and Gods nor make Christ a Lord only by Advancement and Oeconomy And hereunto first let it be noted that this was written not to Aliens or Infidels and Strangers to our Faith for to such I confess it had not been so perfectly clear and intelligible but to a Christian Church who all from
the highest to the lowest had been taught the mystery of the Trinity in Unity and to these St. Paul's words are as intelligible in their truth as the Apostles Creed or any other which an uninitiated Heathen might easily misunderstand either to conclude our Lord not to be God as being not called God in the Apostles Creed which Hereticks and Latitudinarians lay hold of to their evil Ends or another God because in other formularies he is called God of God But this fundamental Institution that we have no other God nor Lord than the Jews had and that Lord of the Jews being only one God Almighty we cannot err in understanding this Creed of St. Paul or any other to believe that Christ is a Lord in nature different from God the Father Almighty To exhibit this more clearly I will set these words of St. Paul and those of the Nicene Creed that are most apposite to them and liable to an Heathen misconstruction St. Paul's Creed To us there is one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things The Nicene Creed We believe in one God the Father Almighty Maker of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God very God of very God by whom all things were made Now to shew the most designed intention of St. Paul's words and that they do not at all give any colour to the Socinian notion of one advanced to Divine Honour but make him with God the Father Creator of all things I shall digest them into a due Paraphrase thus For though the Heathen Worshippers of Idols have many celestial and terrestrial Gods as they call them which they Worship by their Idols their Superstition to their falsly so called Gods arising from this truth that God hath set Presidential and Tutelary Powers over us who are therefore by Office though not by Nature Gods and Lords as the Angelical Princes of Greece and Persia and here on Earth the Kings and Rulers of the World yet we Christians have but one Almighty God the Father from whom all things originally are and we are in him or for him and one only Tutelar Lord next God the Father Jesus Christ by whom we were created and by whom we subsist for the Object of our Adoration By this Paraphrase it appears that the Father is called God and Christ Lord but the Creation attributed to both in this form of distinction that all things are of or from God the Father as the first Original and by the Lord Christ because by him the Father created all things and hence it follows that the Lord Christ in that nature which created all things is uncreated and if uncreated then of the same Deity of the Father who by him created all things and hence adorable with the Father whereas the Heathen Gods and all other Gods by deputation or advancement are not adorable as not being Authors of our Creation and Being nor uncreated in themselves Whatsoever Hebrew word therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place may be referred to yet our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Lord Jesus being as our Lord and Creator the Object of our Adoration is vindicated from the reproach of a Creature advanced to the Honour of Divine Adoration by the very context it self And to this sense the words were fully clear to the Christian Church who knew St. Paul both as a Jew and Christian an utter Adversary to all Creature-worship But however I note here that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of Christ answers not to the Hebrew Jehovah for being set opposite to the many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must answer to a word in Hebrew that is capable of a plural number which Jehovah is not for there cannot be a plurality of Jehovahs But what shall be done to convince an Arian who will confess our Lord a Sub-Creator of all things beside under the Father and so their Lord on the Title of that Creation though himself was created by God the Father Why this place must be interpreted by others such as that he is God the true God God over all blessed for ever that he was ever in the form of God and equal with God the Father and one with him all which will bear weight while the federal whimsie vanishes into soft air And therefore after all his critical trisling he wisely †P. 38.40 comes to this way of interpretation and says a great many Good and Orthodox truths on this Article so far as that that Christ was God who manifested himself in our flesh which being so dissonant to all his former Modes of expression and avowed Notions seem to have dropp'd from him either unawares or for a colour of defence against a foreseen charge of Heresie or perhaps the singular Providence of God might so over-rule the madness of the Prophet to make him speak that for the Christian Faith which he had no mind to that his manifest inconsistencies might render him of no Authority for the use of Hereticks either in present or suture Ages § 16. His Lordship's last Argument for the Deity of Christ is †P. 39 40. that the Jews and Apostates from Christianity never charged the Apostles nor the Church with Idolatry or Creature-Worship which they would certainly have done had the Christian Principles been Arian or Socinian And had there been any such Objection we should have had the Apologies of the Apostles against it For so we find them vindicating themselves against the Charge of the Jews for quitting the Mosaical Ordinances and calling the Gentiles things of less prejudice than the worshipping and Deifying a Creature Now for my part I believe it was the common opprobrium both of Jews and Gentiles and perfect Apostates that the Christians adored a mere Malefactor and that surely is an imputation of Creature Worship and though we find it not in the Acts or Epistles of the Apostles expresly charged yet many passages asserting his Deity seem directly set in opposition to such calumnies In the Acts of the Apostles the recorded disputes with the Jews are whether our Jesus was the true Messias for on concession of this all the other Doctrines of Christianity were to have been admitted without scruple and so the questions of his Deity and Adoration came not into course with the Jews while they denied this Truth that was first to be proved in order to their conviction that he was the Christ And all that is written against Judaism in the Epistles is against Judaizing Christians or Semi-Christian Judaizers that adhered to the Levitical Institutes as necessary to all Christians Now these not making Christ an Idol or a mere Creature there was no need of a Vindication of us with them against an Idolatry that they charged us not with but against those Hereticks that made Jesus a mere Man and consequently would impeach us for the Worship of
Unity and cannot be applied to innumerable particulars that are only of one Original For all particular Men cannot be said to be one and the self same Man which performs all humane actions that are because all Men originally descend from one Father Adam Nor can all the Israelites be said to be one and the self same Israelite that destroyed the Canaanites because they all descended from one Father Israel Nor can all the Socinians be called one and the self same Socinian that wriggles himself into a thousand tricks and turnings because they all descended from one Doctor or Father Faustus for I will not meddle with Laelius But in truth if there had been a vast number of the Holy Spirits of God and these but mere Qualities to which Personal Names Pronouns and Predicates are so often attributed in the singular number of one Holy Spirit on the score of a mere generical or originary Unity why do we never plurally read of many such Holy Spirits of God so personated according to this invention with an open acknowledgment of their Plurality and sometimes of their Impersonality but only of one such Holy Spirit under such Personal Titles and Descriptions Or why had not the Article of the Holy Spirit in the Greeds been always taught and professed according to this pretty novel interpretation Since the Church ought to have been taught and dealt with plainly and not tricked into mazes or impieties by Figures Fetches and Sophistries more ambiguous and involved than the Devil's Oracles Nor will the seven Spirits of God in the Revelation help for they are waiting Ministers at the Throne of God not Qualities inspired into us and they are but seven neither a number far too small for the kinds or numbers of inspired Graces We see then that the Wit of Man cannot bear up against the Truth and Wisdom of God And herein our Country-man Biddle was so convinced of * Bid. of the Holy Spirit the errors of his Socinian Fathers that he even scouts them and roundly falls off to the Elder Enemies of the Holy Spirit with whom he passed for a created Person § 31. Hoping then that this may help to convince his Lordship of the Personality of the Holy Spirit of Divine Love I will a little for the sake of others endeavour also to prove the Holy Spirit not to be a created Person This will appear first from all those places in which he is said †Didym de Sp. S. l. 1. ex version Hieron Ipsum quoque Effusionis nomen increatam Spiritus Sancti substantiam probat Neque enim Deus cum Angelum mittit aut aliam creaturam effundam dicit de Angelo meo aut throno aut dominatione to be put or poured out upon Men which is no where spoken of Angels which yet are Spirits ministring to the Heirs of Salvation which argument convinced the Socinians of the Macedonian Error But a Divine Virtue though in its Energies it recede not from God yet because of those influences is it self said and in a manner seems to be poured out upon and communicated to divinely-inspired Souls into which a connatural congenial or consimilar Virtue is thereby infused So the Spirit of God poured out upon all Flesh Joel 2.28 29. is a Virtue substantially intrinsical to the Deity which yet St. Peter testifies to be the same Spirit which acted the Apostles at the Feast of Pentecost Act. 2. and which is celebrated with Personal Titles Pronouns and Attributes Joh. c. 14. c. 15. c. 16. And herein also is asserted his omnipresence as also by the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon ch 1. v. 7. The Spirit of the Lord filleth the World and by the Psalmist Psal 139.7 Whither shall I go then from thy Spirit or whither shall I flee from thy presence Here the Spirit of God cannot be a middle Virtue inspiring David since this he had no reason to dread or shun and yet all Men by sinning especially by knavery and doubling shun and fly from this Grace too easily Nor are the acts of Divine Vengeance ever called the Spirit of God in the Patient Neither is this Spirit of God here a created Spirit whose Presence cannot be escaped since the Psalmist here only speaks of God's Presence and Power See onward to v. 17. And further * Didym de Sp. S. l. 1. Demonstratur Angelica Virtus ab hoc prorfus aliena Angelus quippe qui aderat verbi gratia Apostolo in Asia oranti non poterat simul eodem tempore adesse aliis in caeteris partibus constitutis Vid. praeced seq praed Athanas omnino Disp con Arium though one created Angel can follow one single or more sociated Men wheresoever we can suppose one way for their flight yet one single Angel cannot at once follow or be present to all Men in all their Dispersions which omnipresence however all Men ought to own in the Spirit of God Now if any Man shall urge that the Words thy Spirit are put for thee as my Spirit for I Gen. 6.3 The same Psalmist's same words in a full literal intention Psal 51.11 Cast me not away from thy presence and take not thy Holy Spirit from me must interpret our present Text without a circumlocution as many others will that of Gen. 6.3 And yet admitting a Figure or Trope it represents the Spirit of God as God which is what I contend for as being internal to the Divine Mind Esa 40.13 14. With this Omnipresence he hath also a Divine Empire by which he distributes all the Divine Graces to whom and as he will every where 1 Cor. 12.11 All which put together doth more fully set forth the Singularity Omnipresence and Supremacy of the Holy Spirit than those mere forms of Speech which as they are attributed to the Holy Spirit in the Kingdom of God are also attributed to the Prince of Devils in the Kingdom of Darkness which is Biddle's grand Evasion from our Arguments taken from such sayings that the Spirit dwells in us teaches us c. for these and such like expressions are uttered of the Devil that he deceives the World blinds the Souls of Unbelievers Captivates Impenitents takes away the Word out of the hearts of the Hearers became a lying Spirit in Four Hundred Prophets c. which sayings do not indeed denote the Devil 's Personal Omnipresence to all at once but only that he thus reacheth Men by his Ministers which Biddle would perswade us of the Holy Spirit also but they had certainly denoted a terrestrial Omnipresence if it had been added that there is but one only Evil Spirit and that he alone by his own Personal Operations had thus acted on all wicked Men and that no mortal Man can avoid his Presence and Power none of which is expressed of the Devil and yet if it had his exclusion out of Heaven is asserted also where yet the Holy Spirit of God dwells and shines in essential Glory not to