grant such a conception allowable that there may be three that may have a diversity of Operations as well as Oeconomies For if he be no Tritheist in allowing this Conception why does he reflect on it as Tritheite in the Fathers And yet his Lordship diversifies the Operations much more exclusively each of other Person than any Fathers do and in such a manner as inferrs a Tetrad in the Deity in which according to his Lordship the Father must be a second Principle For his words run thus †P. 42. In the Divine Essence which is the simplest and perfectest Vnity there may be three that may have a diversity of Operations as well as Oeconomies By the first God may be supposed to have made and to govern all things by the second to have actuated and been most perfectly united to the Humanity of Christ and by the third to have inspired the Penmen of the Scriptures and the Workers of Miracles and still to renew and purifie all good Minds all which notwithstanding we firmly believe there is but one God Now whatsoever acts by another is distinct from that other by which it acts and prior in the Agency by the order of Reason If then God acts by the first which is the Father that God is in Nature and Subsistence antecedent to the Father and the first hath a former and if God who acts by three be distinct from those three by which he acts there are then four Distincts and Distinctions in the Deity or else the three are not essential in the Deity but only operant and unsubstantial Powers and Qualities Yet is it against Faith to say that God acts or creates by the Father because it makes him secondary by an unallowable conception the Canonical Faith herein being that God original or God the Father acts by his Son and Holy Spirit But whether we make the Father primary or secundary if we attribute the Creation to him exclusively of the Logos and Holy Spirit and the Inspirations to the Spirit exclusively of the Father and the Son and the Divine Operations in the Union of our Nature with the Logos to the Logos only exclusively of the Father and Holy Spirit according to his Lordship's scheme of conceptions we rove from truth from Scripture from Catholick Tradition which ascribes these to the single Persons by a peculiar respect of Oeconomick Order but not by an exclusive propriety of Operation And yet though his Lordship recommends this conception of such a separate Agency in his three Divine Anonymities yet can he find no such incongruities in the received Doctrines of those his despised Fathers But 't is time to take breath and consider what reformation following extinguished this Tritheism in the Catholick Church and Faith Why Others therefore laid another foundation in one numerical Deity or Being Now what is this but to insinuate nay openly to assert that the former Fathers that believed Emanations and Foecundity and argued from the specifick Homoousion with the respective Operations did not fundamentally own one individual Deity And yet how could they that stuck to the Nicene Creed deny the fundamental Article of one God which yet all the taxed Fathers defended as the Faith of all the former Fathers who made the Monarchy a fundamental Principle against Gentilism and were herein exactly and professedly followed by all their Successors Nay the feature of his Lordship's reflexion seems to attaint all Antiquity of Tritheism till after the Doctors of the specifick Homoousion and distinct Operations ceased as not holding the Unity of the Godhead for his conjunction therefore makes this Unity a post-nate Principle taken up upon the apprehension that the former Doctrines of the Church were Tritheite according to his Lordship's general Imputation § 14. And now it seems high time to observe upon what fancies for they are represented as such these Tritheite Principles were reformed by these over seri patrum nepotes * They then observed †P. 32. that the Sun besides its own Globe had an Emanation of Light and another of Heat which had different Operations and all from the same Essence And that the Soul of Man had both Intallection and Love which flowed from its Essence So they conceived that the Primary Act of the Divine Essence was its Wisdom by which it saw all things and in which as in an Eternal Word it designed all things This they thought might be called the Son as being the generation of the Eternal Mind while from the fountain Principle together with the inward Word there did arise a Love that was to issue forth and that was to be the Soul of the Creation and was more particularly to animate the Church and in this Love all things were to have life and favour This was rested on and was afterwards dressed up with a great deal of dark nicety by the Schools and grew to be the universally received explanation So that it seems these conceptions these reforming conceptions are very novel and the Doctrine derived from them became not universal but by the Definitions of the Schools § 15. But before we come to justifie their due Antiquity let us consider whether as his Lordship represents them the Tritheism of the former Fathers were really amended by them For in this Simile here are two Emanations from the Globe of the Sun Light and Heat which have different Operations which if they represent different Operations of the different Persons in the Deity this reduces that Tritheism which the Simile was designed to avoid So unhappy were these Theological Tinkers in mending the former Theories § 16. But however let us see whether these Theories had not really a more early Original and Reception in the Universal Church I begin with the Simile of the Sun †Apolog c. 21. sup citat §. 7. Vide. Now Tertullian the most ancient of all our Latin Writers used this Simile and says that in respect thereof the Logos was ever backward celebrated under this Title as the Ray of God So * Instit l. 4. c. 29. ille tanquam Sol hic quasi radius à Sole porrectus Lactantius had learned the same Simile from Tertullian or his Church So †In Evan. Joh. c. 5. Tract 20. Si separas candorem Solis à Sole separa Verbum à Patre St. Austin an African likewise had from his Fathers derived the same Example of the Sun The Greek Fathers that lived in and just after the Nicene Council so often so uniformly and canonically use it who yet argued from the specifick Sense of the Homoousion that the citations of them would fill a Volume so this Fancy is not later than these Tritheit Homooufiasts And to let his Lordship see that it was an Ante-Nicene Simile not only the Scripture term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may convince but the express production of it * Theognost ap Athan de Syn. Nic. con Arian Decret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
a Creature St. John's Gospel and first Epistle were expresly written and these were a sort of Un-Christian Judaizers of several Characters from their proper Authors So that his Lordship's Observation though never so well intended is however partly false and partly impertinent And yet allowing this Argument as much force as can be designedly granted it it will amount to no more than this That the Enemies of our Religion could not upbraid us with a professed Worship of a professed Creature because he whom the Christians worshipp'd in our flesh was by them owned to be the Eternal God Yet no doubt the Jews ever did and do at this Day charge us with the Worship of a vile Creature who really as they think had no Deity in him else had they also thought him to be God they had been ipso facto converted to us the want of this Faith being the only Bar to their Conversion and the cause why they execrate both our Lord and us for this very Doctrine So unlucky is his Lordship even in the fairest part of this Discourse as if God had laid this Curse on him that he that had sophistically handled the Christian Faith in most part of it should not have the Glory or Comfort of having served it in any one particular A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum c. PART II. § 1. I Have now I think performed my first undertaking that his Lordship hath ill stated the Doctrines of our Faith A truth so evident to his own Clergy even those that would throw a friendly skirt over these Nudities that they ascribe all or seem willing so to do to haste inconsideration and want of judgment not to any heretical Designs or Contrivances Whether his Lordship will be thankful for these kinds of Excuse I cannot tell but at the best they are but Fig-leaves For can any Candour excuse an heedless or injudicious Lecture in a Bishop or Divinity Professor first uttered to a learned Body and after exposed to the Censure of the World in a matter most fundamental in Christianity most liable to prejudices and this after the most accurate determinations of the Church Universal especially since he so openly upbraids the Fathers and Patrons of this Faith with their unaccuracies and impertinencies and this not in their particular and private conceptions which the Church hath not authorized but in their most Catholick and established Theories Surely such a Cenfor ought to have been accurate above all Men and not to have needed the Candor of a Reader § 2. This dealing with the Fathers is such an indecent sort of immorality that 't is not to be endured in one of his Lordship's Character The Fathers it is true were Men and they have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those slips here and there incident to the infirmities of Humane Nature and if his Lordship had reverently touched upon any of these not with a design to blacken their memory but only to caution his Clergy against such forms or notions he had dealt very commendably But it falls out quite otherwise For he Taxes them for no real obliquities but their Catholick Principles fixes on them such Theories as they never dreamed of and such as are destructive of their own avowed Faith and this without quoting so much as one passage out of them he gives them not so much as one good word but finally presents them to us as a parcel of impertinent and self contradicting Bablers which how it conduces to the encouraging Deism and Heresie I humbly leave to the Censure of my Holy Mother the Church of England Sure I am as this ill office was utterly needless to his Exposition of the Faith so modesty ought to have repressed it if for no other consideration yet for this one reason That they may receive him into their Society with joy at the day when he shall be gathered unto his Fathers § 3. The Business then of this second part is to discuss the truth and justice of his Lordship's Imputations cast upon these Holy Worthies which he introduces thus by telling his Clergy that †P. 31. he will not pretend to inform them how this Mystery is to be understood and in what respect these Persons which he calls so according to custom not his own sense are believed to be one and in what respects they are Three By explaining a Mystery can only be meant the shewing how it is laid down and revealed in Scripture for to pretend to give any other Account of it is to take away its mysteriousness when the manner how it is in it self is offered to be made intelligible Now what doth this prima facie intimate but that it is not laid down in the Scripture in what respect the Persons are one nor in what respect they are Three But first in the Doctrine of Unity I think the Scriptures do sufficiently teach that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are one in respect of Essence notwithstanding all the wriggles of Hereticks not only in that passage of St. John 1 Ep. 5.7 which his Lordship has exposed * Letter I from Zurich for doubted but in many others And if his Lordship dares deny this respect of Essence to be taught by the Scriptures concerning the Unity I will adventure the proof of it But if his Lordship be not so hardy then let him recant this Impeachment of the Scriptures that they have not taught us in what respect the Persons are One I am however content that Men of Candour take this only for an heedless slip not a designed Artifice Let it be so yet is it a dangerous one and used by the Men of the broad way that leadeth to destruction to the service of heretical Comprehensions The Antapologist to Dr. Sherlock owns the forequoted Text of St. John for undoubted There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Spirit and these Three are One. This saith he is Scripture * Antap. p. 5. but how they are one the Scripture teacheth not What is this fetch for but that we may not press the Heretick's to own an essential Unity but whatsoever else will serve their several Turns and deliver them from the Canon of the Faith But secondly his Lordship ought to have instructed his Clergy in what respects they are Three according to the Scriptures which do instruct us herein with certain notions and respects by which they are distinguished from each other in the Unity of Essence For are not Father and Son Personal Characters and founded on a substantial generation the Father being the Person Generant as such and the Son the Person generated as such And is not the Logos the substantial Issue of the Eternal Mind and as such distinguished from its Parent The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son and does the personal Offices of a Paraclete by mission from the Father and
cum Tryph. Clem. Alex. Protrep Tertull Praesc adv Jud. con Marcion l. 2. con Prax. Novatian de Trinit Euseb Praep. Ev. l. 7. c. 15. con Marcell l. 2.17 Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 2. Panegyrista Paulini ap Eus Eccl. Hist l. 10. Constant ad Sanctor Caetum ap Euseb c. 9. Pastor Hermae l. 3. Similit 9. Athenag Legat. Theoph. ad Autolyc Orig. con Cels l. 1. l. 2. l. 3. l. 4. l. 5. l. 6. l. 7. de Princip l. c. 2. Cypr. de Idol Vanit Basil con Eunom l. 5. Serm. in Princip Naz. de sacr Pasch Prudent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Roman Martyr in Apotheof Greg. Thaumat ad Origen Athan. ubique Pseudo-Ambros de fide con Arian Aug. con 5. Haeres in Evan. Joh. c. 1. Tract 1 2. de Tempor Ser. 190. infinities plura reperies ejusdem generis apud omnes Primitive as well as suceeding Ages to be sealed with their Blood and Sufferings and was not a mere upstart project to supply the former Tritheism taught in the more ancient Church Now if according to the common and universal Senses and Notions of all Men the Mind is the Parent and Original of all actual Reason in it then if the Divine Reason be the truest and most Essential Reason the Parent Principle thereof must be the truest and most Essential Mind which Principle of this Reason the Scripture having owned Paternal it follows that God the Father is an Eternal Mind having a coessential Reason for its coessential Issue the perfect Image and Character of its Parent § 22. In the next place let us see whether the Character of the Holy Spirit agrees well to the Substantial Love of God according to the Doctrine of the traduced Ancients Let it then be noted that that Mind in which a vital and consubstantial reason perfectly subsists doth by that reason in one clear intuitive luminous and Archetypal Idea discern all possible Forms Essences Habitudes Powers and Reasons of things and therefore very particularly all the distinctive forms and differences of good and evil From whence there must proceed in such a Mind and Reason a vital and essential Spirit which we in our Language would perhaps call a Principle of Holiness to wit an essential Love of all the Forms and Reasons of Good and therein an essential aversation of all the kinds and degrees of Evil this being but one and the same Spirit having different aspects on different objects Now without such a Spirit of Love and Holiness no being can be perfectly good or happy since perfect goodness as well as happiness consists essentially in love and purity Now the goodness of things must be the proper object of such Love and must be discerned by that actual Reason that contains in it the Idea's of all things possible Whence this Love is as essential to the Deity as Reason and thereupon the Apostle faith †1 Joh. 4.8 that God is Love the suum of which truth is nobly celebrated * Const ad Sanct. Caet ap Eus c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the great Constantine as the Doctrine which he had been taught by the Christian Fathers herein according with the perpetual Theology of God's People who ever acknowledge this Holiness of the Divine Wisdom and Spirit from its constant indication For * Sap. Sal. 1 3 4 5. froward thoughts separate from God and into a malicious Soul Wisdom will not enter nor dwell in the Body that is subject unto sin For the Holy Spirit of Discipline will fly deceit and remove from thoughts that are without understanding and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in for Wisdom is a loving Spirit c. § 23. But here again a fresh difficulty arises from the homonymy of terms For St. Paul calling our Lord †1 Cor. 1.24 the Wisdom of God the generality and the exactest of the Fathers follow him in that style and make the Wisdom and Logos to be the same subsistence distinct from the Holy Spirit Some of the Ancients as great as any speaking distinctly * Iren. Theoph. Antiochen p. 81. c. 108.114 distinguish the Logos from the Sophia and make the Sophia the Person of the Holy Spirit and yet again at other times †Theoph. Antioch p. 81. confound the Logos and Sophia for the same second Person the Son * Theoph. p. 81. Tertull whom also they call the Spirit of God the Father Wherefore 't is necessary to our Theory that we remove this Cloud And here we are to distinguish Wisdom into speculative and practical for which distinction there is apparent authority in the Scripture and ground in our own inner Experience Now the Reason of any Spiritual Nature is its formal proper speculative Wisdom but an Holy Spirit and temper of Mind is the practical In this latter sense the forequoted place out of the Apochryphal Wisdom calls the loving Spirit of God or his Spirit of Discipline Wisdom but †Sap. Sal. 7.22 c. elsewhere the same Author Preaches that in Wisdom which is the Artificer of all things there is a Spirit which among other attributes is Holy and loves the thing that is good and is Almighty where the in-existence of the Holy Spirit of Love in that Wisdom the Artificer of all things puts a distinction between this Spirit and Wisdom and so hereby Wisdom in this place as well as by its Character must be the Archetypal Logos or Architectonick Reason of God the Father And hence these ambiguous Fathers seem to have copied their Theories and Language sometimes calling the Logos Wisdom to wit the intuitive sometime the Holy Spirit as the practical Wisdom of God the Father And so there are learned Men that ground the alledged homonymy of the Word Spirit in some forms of Scripture But I that think the Scripture as a Rule for Canonick Theology thinking it unsafe to fix any exorbitant Senses on the Terms expressive of the Trinity without absolute necessity am apt to think those Fathers called the Logos the Spirit of God sometimes through some Scriptures by them so mistaken or appearing in that sense to them under a loose and general Notion that whatsoever issues from the Essence of God the Father so issues by a Spiritual Efflux or else is of a Spiritual Substance as the Father is and so as Tertullian calls the Logos Spirit of Spirit and God of God But since all these Fathers expresly own a Trinity of Persons the third of which is signally characterized by the appropriate Title of Holy Spirit there can be no doubt of the consonancy of their Faith to the Catholick Doctrine and to this Theory of it in the Holy Spirit which to serve his Lordship I am here to illustrate § 24. These Bars being thus removed we shall proceed to examine on what ground this Substantial Love of God is called by the name of Spirit Now this
word though so very variously significant is however used either absolutely as when it 's said God is a Spirit or Angels are ministring Spirits a Spirit hath not Flesh and Blood and other sayings of the same formal intention in the Word or else relatively and attributively to something whose Spirit it is or is called Of this latter form is the characteristick Title of the Spirit of God or Holy Spirit of God and Christ c. And the Word Spirit thus relatively attributed to Beings simply immaterial denotes an active Principle Power or Virtue in them and this either Potential or Moral Thus it is mentioned as a potential Principle Josh 5.1 Esa 19.3 Luk. 1.17 as a moral Principle Ezr. 1.1 5. Psal 32.2 and 34.18 and 51.10 17. Esa 57.15 Ezek. 11.19 and 36.26 Matth. 5.3 Luke 9.55 Joh. 4.23 24. Rom. 8.15 16. 1 Cor. 4.21 Eph. 4.23 1 pet 3 4. and so in infinite other places So likewise the Spirit of God seems oft to denote in him what we commonly call a Principle acting potentially but chiefly and most especially in the sanctifical Operations of all which the Holy Spirit is the proper and immediate Spring and Original Hence the Works of the Creation as attributed to the Spirit of God Job 26.13 and 33.4 where I see no reason to depart from the ordinary and canonical and characteristick sense of the Term. From which places in my opinion we may best interpret Gen. 1.2 where it is said that the Spirit of God moved or hovered upon the face of the Waters In this potential way of Operation the Spirit of God acted the Prophets Judges and other Worthies of Israel in their mighty Words and Works that exceeded the Power of Humane Nature as may be seen in very many Texts of Scripture Thus the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin Mary and the Power of the most High did over-shadow her Luke 1.35 For I here preferr the Catholick Interpretation of the Creeds which teach this to be the supervention of the Holy Spirit from other like Texts and Universal Tradition before the sense of * Ad Autolyc p. 81. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theophilus Antiochenus who applies them to the Logos as speaking by the Prophets though the †Symb. Constantinop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catholick Church hath determined the Divine Spirit that spake by them to be the third Person Which Spirit acting Elias was feared by Obadiah that it would carry the Prophet out of all discovery 1 King 18.12 And according to this potential notation we call all subtle and vigorous Powers in Nature Spirits as also the courage and activity of any animal I know the Rabbins Crellius and others make this potential Spirit to be a created effluent Virtue but the permanency of it in God with its other properties and descriptions every where exhibited in the Scriptures do evince the contrary reason it self also witnessing that God never was without an omnipotent Spirit of Holiness which may very properly consist in the essential Love of God than which what can be more vigorous active influential and productive We see how strong the Spring and Spirit of an ardent love is toward the most mighty adventures and how infinitely more must it be in the Divine Nature from which it gave Life and Spirit to universal Nature and blessed every thing according to its order and cherishes all things by a lively and penetrating Providence and drives on all the Motions and Springs of the whole Creation by a perpetual and constant impulse and at times exerted miraculous Operations to the manifestation of its transcendent Power Goodness and Holiness and thereby to the conversion of Men to the Living God But this Principle if I may so call it without offence as I design without error more exhibits its own appropriate celebrated Character of Holy to our Conceptions by actual Inspirations of Sanctity into all sanctified Minds And such is the sense of the Catholick Antiquity For being * Orig. Hom. 11. in Numer 18. de Princip l. 1. c. 8. Greg. Thaumat in Symbol Revelat. Athan con Arium Disp Dial. de Trinit Naz. de Heron Philosoph Basil con Eunom l. 5. de Sp. S. Episcop Philosopho in Concil Nicen. ap Socr. Eccl. Hist l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pseudo-Chrys in Matth. 7. Hom. 18. Aug. de verb. Dom. in Evan. Matth. c. 12. Ser. 11. Faustin ad Flaccil Imperat. de fide con Arian original Holiness it self it 's most connatural and consimilar Operation is the sanctifical for which cause it is signally called Holy as the substantial immediate Principle of all communications of Sanctity and Goodness to the Creatures And as a †Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christiani 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good and holy temper in the Soul of Man is called a good and holy Spirit which therefore acts accordingly and gives us thereby a Theory of the Holy Spirit of God So the essential Spirit of Holiness in God is if my infirmities may be permitted to speak my sense as it were the very temper of his Nature called often also his Heart and Soul under the same connotation which the impious Man is said to grieve Esa 63.10 Eph. 4.30 as being an internal and essential Principle offended by those Wits to which it bears an eternal and unalterable aversion which is also very strong and potential being †Ambr. de dignit hum condit c. 2. Greg. Nyssen de homin Opisic c. 5. Aug. in Ep. Job Tract 6. in Evang. Job c. 2. Tract 9. in c. 17. Tract 105. expresly called by some Fathers the substantial Love of God from the Authority of St. John From this property of Love Goodness and Holiness it is called by St. Paul the Spirit of Holiness Rom. 1.4 for I see no reason to recede from the canonical propriety and by Nehemias and David the good Spirit of God teaching and leading Men unto righteousness Neh. 19.20 Psal 143.10 And the Psalmist describes the Holy Spirit of God and a right Spirit in Man as consimilar Principles of moral Goodness the one as the temper of the Divine the other as the Temper of an Humane Mind Psal 51.10 11. which being by Sanctification likened to the Spirit of God is said to communicate of the Holy Spirit 2 Cor. 13.13 Philip. 2.1 whereby we are said to be one Spirit with God 1 Cor. 6.7 by being herein transformed into his Image 2 Cor. 3.18 and purified in obeying the Truth by the Spirit unto an unfeigned love of the Brethren 1 Pet. 1.22 And when St. Paul asserts the fruits of the Spirit to be Love Joy Peace Long-suffering Gentleness Goodness Faith Meekness Charity Righteousness and Truth Gal. 5.22 Eph. 5.9 by the Fruit he shews the nature of the Root and Principle viz. that the Spirit of God is by Nature Loving Good and Holy and by Grace endearing and sanctifical And this Character of
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