know, says he, that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. After which, in the words now before us, he draws a contrast more at large, between the belief of idolaters, and that of Christians, opposing the one only and true God, to that tribe of celestial and terrestrial deities, which by the Heathens were called Gods, but, in reality, were nothing in the world. The author imagines, that the Apostle here means to draw a comparison between the supreme God, and subordinate angels: for, says he, "the term of God is to be attributed to "the Son, as when we say, there be Gods many." But if we say this in the same sense with St. Paul, as this writer seems to intend we should, we shall then convert the Son of God into an heathen Idol! a nothing in the world! It should here be observed, that when the Scripture speaks of one God, it doth certainly express the unity of the blessed Trinity; and the appellation of the Father, ascribed to the one God, upon which this author and Dr. Clarke lay so great a stress, doth not here mean the person of the Father as distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit; but denotes, as it does in many other places of the Scripture, the fulness of the Godhead which dwelled bodily in the person of Christ. So he himself hath taught us in terms as express as can be desired-the Father that dwelleth in me, he doth the works *. But he carries on this objection in such a manner, that we shall be able to turn his evidence against himself. For this "God the Father, says he, St. Paul "characterizes as that God, who is the blessed and ONLY Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of -66 John xiv. 10. 11 66 ઃઃ Lords, WHO ONLY hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, WHOM NO " MAN HATH SEEN, OR CAN SEE This he allows to be a description of the one only and supreme God; but it is a description of Christ. This is evident, first, from the context; which, when the connection is preserved, runs thus-Keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he (the Lord Jesus Christ himself) shall shew, who (Christ) is the blessed and only Potentate, &c. Secondly, because the appearing of Christ, here spoken of, Christ himself, through the power of the Godhead in him, is to manifest at the end of the world; just as it is said of him after his resurrection, on this wise SHEWED HE HIMSELF t. But thirdly and chiefly, because Christ is dignified with all those very attributes, which are here ascribed to the supreme God; and we may take all the articles separately, and find parallels to them throughout. First, who is the blessed and only Potentate-so of Christ it is elsewhere said, that he is the head of all principality and power ‡. 2. The King of Kings, and Lord of Lords-so-he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS §. 3. Who only hath immortality-so-in him was LIFE. 4. Who dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto-so-the city (the heavenly Jerusalem) had no need of the sun, for the glory of God did lighten it, and THE LAMB IS THE LIGHT THEREOF T. I need not run this parallel through the last article, the invisibility of the Godhead, because it is to be considered in a different capacity, as it furnishes the author with his next objection.. * Eph. i. 3. 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16. ↑ John xxi. 1. Col. ii. 10.. § Rev. xix. 16. VIII. For, as concerning" the one, only invisible "God," he affirms very roundly, "that he cannot POSSIBLY be the same with that God, who was manifested in the flesh." But by this manifestation none have ever been so weak as to imagine, that the Godhead became visible, any farther than by its personal union with the human nature, which was visible for when Christ became incarnate, though we did not see God, yet we saw the person who was God. Without insisting afresh upon that description of the Father, (as he will have it) or, one, only, invisible God, which I have just now proved applicable to Christ; I shall set down two expressions, which at once must silence all cavils and disputes: for Christ affirms of the unbelieving Jews, that they had both SEEN and hated, both him and his FATHER: and again he says to one of his disciples-He that hath seen me, hath SEEN THE FATHER. In both these passages, it is evident to reason and common sense, that the FATHER, or Divine Essence, could become visible only in respect of his union with the visible person of Christ. And this is such a direct demonstration that the divine Essence was actually so united, that Dr. Clarke and his myrmidons§ never have, nor ever will be able to talk sense against it ||. IX. His text argument runs through 16 of his sections, in which he hath collected many texts wherein Christ is mentioned, as receiving power from God-being anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellores, (mankind) being made Lord and Christ-raised *P. 88. 1 Tim. iii. 16. + John xv. 24. & See The Confessional, p. 316. first Edit. John xiv. 2. See Cath. Doctr. chap. i. No. 38, and p. 107. 3d Edit. from the dead-exalted to the right hand of God, &c. all of which relate to the human nature, and cannot possibly afford any evidence for the inferiority of the divine. And let it here be recollected, that the salvation of mankind does not depend upon the exaltation of a God, or of any other being, but of man only, who fell from God by sin, and through the man Christ Jesus, is re-united to him. It must be observed though, that four of the above sections begin with, and as the Jews, in which we are obliged with a repetition of that Rabbinical evidence, which hath already received its answer, at the beginning of this chapter. 66 men, X. "To declare the Father and the Son to be co"equal, and co-eternal, is by no means consistent with the relation that there is between father and son *. With that relation, as it subsists among it is not: but this is no reason, why it should not be so with God; or even, that in all created beings it should be an inconsistency. As for example-Light is the offspring of fire, and yet coeval with it; for it is impossible to conceive a time, when the sun existed without emitting light; and were the sun eternal, light would be co-eternal with it: as was very judiciously observed by Mr. Leslief to the Unitarians, many years ago; and it is not answered yet. XI. "If the substance of the Father be the same * P. 141. + Theolog. Works, fol. vol. I. p. 227. I saw this great writer lately mentioned under the name of that furious high-church bigot Lesliethe value of which epiphets may easily be estimated, if we consider that the vender of them is himself a furious no-church bigotted Socinian for neither the Socinians nor the Quakers could ever bear the name of Mr. Leslie: whose political circumstances being now out of the question, his incomparable skill as a controversialist, acknowledged even by a Bolingbroke, ought to recommend his writings to those who would understand the doctrines and interests of the Church "undivided substance with the Son, and the sub "tance of the Son became incarnate, then it will fol "low that the substance of the Father became incar"nate also*." If the substance of the Father and of the Son were so united as not to be distinguished into two different persons, this consequence would necessarily follow. But as the Scripture doth not teach us, and the church doth not maintain, that the Father and the Son are one person, he hath reasoned upon a false supposition, and the doctrine of the incarnation is not chargeable with any such absurdities as this author bath taken great pains to fix upon it. XII. The last objection I shall take notice of, is drawn from the hypostatical union of the two natures in the person of Christ, and is as follows-" If this "proposition (says he) be taken for granted, which may be found totidem verbis in the Athanasian creed, "that as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God "and man is one Christ; and if this other proposition "be allowed, which is to be found as explicitly in "the Scriptures, that this one Christ suffered for the "sins of mankind; then it must follow, of consequence, that Christ suffered in his godhead, as well as his humanity; since otherwise, it would have "been the man Jesus, and not Jesus the Messiah, or Christ, that suffered for the sins of men t." 66 Hitherto he hath objected as an Arian, and talked about the most ancient of angels, &c. but now, he is changed on a sudden into the character of a Socinian: for this very argument hath ever been advanced and insisted upon by them, to prove that Christ was nothing more than a mere man; because, say they, if of England, in opposition to the Papists on one hand, and Sectarian Enthusiasts on the other. |