such consequences were pleaded, by admitting a supremacy of order, which is natural, and a supremacy of office, which is economical. The consequences, on the other hand, which we draw against them, as destroying the equality, (so manifestly taught through the whole Scripture and by the primitive churches,) they have never answered, nor can they answer them: which they are so sensible of, that they do not care to have them mentioned, but perpetually disguise, conceal, dissemble them, and keep them out of sight. I must therefore, in my turn, now tell the objector, that he is the blasphemer, upon the avowed principles of the Ante-Nicene churches; in making God the Father naturally sovereign Lord and Ruler over God the Son and God the Holy Ghost; in reducing both the divine Persons to the condition of creatures, or precarious beings; brought into existence at pleasure, and reducible to non-existence again at pleasure. This is not the doctrine of Scripture or Fathers, but diametrically repugnant to both; is derived from ancient heresies, and is false, wicked, and detestable. There may be some difficulties objected to the Church's way of reconciling (the Church's way I call it, for such it is, not mine) the equality and supremacy together: but no greater difficulties than what occur in almost every other controversy. They that have seen into the heart of the controversy between Jews and Christians, or between Atheists and Theists, or between Papists and Protestants in some points, or between Calvinists and Arminians, must acknowledge the same thing in every one of them which is owing to this, that human capacity is finite, and our ignorance of wider compass than our knowledge; and that therefore it is much easier to raise doubts and difficulties, than it is to solve them. But difficulties are one thing, and demonstrations another: and it very ill becomes this gentleman, when he has such large scores of his own, and while he bends under the weight of many insuperable objections, to grow so exceeding flippant, and above measure assuming, upon the strength only of two or three stale cavils, borrowed from ancient heresies. I should take notice of his wording the charge, about the natural and necessary supremacy of dominion. He gives it out that I have totally disowned and denied that the Father has any, asserting that he has none at all. I think there is a great deal of difference between saying, that the Father has a natural and necessary dominion over the creatures in common with the Son and Holy Ghost, and saying, that he has no natural supremacy of dominion at all. And this writer could not be ignorant with what iniquity he thus worded the thing, to leave room for a false construction, and to shock and astonish every careless and ignorant reader. However, thus much may be said, that, in strictness, no supremacy of dominion can be natural and necessary, in such a full sense as God's attributes are natural and necessary, eternally and constantly residing in him. All supremacy of dominion supposes an inferior, and commences with the existence of that inferior; and is therefore so far, and so much voluntary, as the creating of an inferior is. But upon the inferior's coming into being, then indeed commences the supremacy; which is an extrinsic relation, no essential attribute: only, thus far it may be called natural and necessary, as being necessary ex hypothesi, or, upon that supposition, as being a relation founded upon the natural and necessary perfections of the Godhead, which set it above the creatures, and make an infinite disparity of nature between that and them. So that, after all, this superabundant eagerness and vehemence for a natural supremacy over God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, is only contending, in other words, for a disparity or inferiority of nature in those two Persons and this is the sole meaning of appointing them a governor. The blasphemy I am charged with, is only the denying that they have naturally any ruler and governor. I venture once and again to repeat, that they have not, nor ever could have: and this I maintain upon the clear and undoubted principles of all the ancient and modern churches. This gentleman may call it, if he pleases, (words are free,) my wonderful fiction, p. 7. my new and unheard of fiction, p. 23. entirely of my inventing, p. 28. my own invention, p. 46, 52, 100. If he really thinks so, I should advise him to read the ancients; or if that be too much, to read only Bishop Pearson, or Bishop Bull, to inform himself better: or if he does not believe it, and yet says it, I should entreat him to correct that evil habit of romancing, that outrageous method of reviling, and to learn the due government of his mind. I have invented nothing, have coined no new notion, but have plainly and sincerely followed what the ancients, with one voice, have led me into, and the two excellent moderns, just mentioned, have taught and maintained upon the same bottom. Bishop Bull may be consulted at large: I shall quote one passage of Bishop Pearson, because short: The Word, that is, Christ as God, hath the supreme and uni "versal dominion of the worlda." Which is to all intents and purposes denying the Father's supremacy as much as I have ever done. But what a pass are things come to, that the known standing doctrine of all Christian churches, ancient and modern, must be treated as a novelty, as a fiction or invention of mine! If the reader desires a specimen of the ancient doctrine in this point, he may turn to the quotations in my First Defence, (vol. i. p. 442, 443.) which express the Catholic doctrine, and to which all the Fathers are conformable. So much in answer to the charge of blasphemy. Whether this gentleman can ward off that very charge, or prevent its returning on his own head, may deserve his consideration. The good Christians of old would have stopped their ears against such blasphemy as his tenets amount to. All reclaim against it some directly and expressly, as often as they pronounce any two, or the whole three, to be one God, or one substance, of one dominion, of one power or glory: and the rest consequentially, by maintaining the necessary existence, consubstantiality, coeternity, or other divine attributes of the Son or Spirit. I have now done with the first charge; which I have dwelt the longer upon, because it runs in a manner through the book; and the answering it here in the entrance will give light to what follows. II. A second false charge upon me is in these words: "Neg"lecting therefore the reason upon which the Scripture expressly "founds the honour we are to pay to Christ, the Doctor builds "it entirely upon another foundation, on which the Scripture never builds it, viz. on this, that by him God created all things," p. 7. 66 I shall say nothing here of the absurdity of founding the worship of Christ in the manner this author does, by tacking Socinianism and Arianism together, though entirely repugnant to each other, as I have observed elsewhereb: but as to the charge brought against me, of founding Christ's worship as is here said; I must beg leave to confute it by producing my own words. "I found the Son's title to worship upon the dignity of his "Person; his creative powers declared in John i. and elsewhere; "his being Ocòs from the beginning; and his preserving and upholding all things, (according to Coloss. i. 16, 17. and "Heb. i. c)" 66 a Pearson on the Creed, p. 151. Defence, vol. ii. p. 676. "I say, his honour is founded on the intrinsic excellency and "antecedent dignity of his Person; whereof the power of judg"ment committed is only a further attestation, and a provisional "security for the payment of his due honour. It did not make "him worthy, but found him so: and it was added, that such his “high worth and dignity might appear, &c.d" Is this founding it entirely upon what the author here pretends? As to his pleading, that his way of founding it is scriptural, and mine not scriptural: both the parts of his pretext are abundantly confuted in my First and Second Defence, and in a preface to my Sermons. III. Another false charge is in these words, p. 11. "Here the "Doctor directly corrupts the Apostle's assertion; not allowing "him to say (what he expressly does say) that to us there is one "God, the Father, but only on the reverse, to give the Father "the style or title of the one God." He grounds the charge upon what he finds in my Second Defence, vol. ii. p. 527, 694. In the first I have these words: “Yes, he (the Apostle) tells us, that "the Father, of whom are all things, is the one God, (N. B.) in "opposition to false ones, to nominal gods and lords: and it is plain, that he meant it not in opposition to God the Son, be"cause he reckons him God to us." Rom. ix. 5. 66 Now where, I pray, is the corruption of what the Apostle asserts? Or how do I refuse to allow him to say what he does say? This gentleman, it seems, will shew it by this wise remark; "It is one thing to say, that the one God is the Father, of "whom are all things; and another thing to say, that the "Father (though not the Father only) is the one God. Now it is "evident the Apostle in this text is not reciting the characters "of the Father, and telling us that he may be styled the one "God; but he is declaring to us who the one God is, viz. the "Father." The difference then between us is only this; that I suppose the Apostle to tell us who is the one God, he supposes him to tell us who the one God is. A notable criticism, to found such a charge, of directly corrupting and disallowing Scripture, upon! Especially considering that the Greek words (eis eòs ó Пarp) may bear either construction, (if they be really two constructions,) and either may equally suit with the context. For though the text is not reciting the Father's characters, not all his characters, yet the design was to point out who is the one God; and he fixes that character upon the Person of the Father, as being primarily and eminently, though not exclusively, the one God. I have been considering (longer perhaps than it deserves) where the difference lies between asking who is the one God, and asking, who the one God is: and to me it appears so very small and imperceptible, that I can lay no hold of it. I have tried what I could do in another instance: let it be inquired, Who is the apostle of the Gentiles? The answer is, Paul of Tarsus, &c. Well, but inquire, Who the apostle of the Gentiles is? The answer is still the same, Paul of Tarsus, &c. Put the questions into Latin, we are still never the nearer, they are plainly tantamount: at least the difference to me is undiscernible; unless by who, in the latter case, be meant what: upon which supposition, the text we are concerned with should not be translated, To us there is but one God, the Father; but thus; To us the one God is a Father, &c. Perhaps this ingenious gentleman may be able to clear up the matter to satisfaction: but since he has not yet done it, it is plain he was too hasty in charging me at all, but very injurious in running it up to such an extravagant height. IV. "The doctrine of the Trinity delivered in these words "(Eph. iv. 3, 5, 6.) by the Apostle, is so expressly contradictory "to Dr. Waterland's scheme, and so impossible to be perverted "even into any appearance of consistency with it, that the "Doctor finds himself here obliged even fairly to tell us, that "St. Paul ought not to have writ thus as he did, &c." p. 17. This is a charge so malicious and petulant, and withal so groundless, that I cannot well imagine what could transport the man into such excesses. For supposing I had misinterpreted St. Paul, and very widely too, would it amount to a declaration that the Apostle ought not to have writ what he did write? How hard would it be with commentators, if upon every misconstruction of a text, really such, they were to be thus charged with taking upon them to be wiser than the sacred penmen, and to correct the Spirit of God! After all, if the reader pleases to look into my Defence, he will be surprised to find how innocent the words are, which have been wrought up into this high charge. In my Defence, I say, Ephes. iv. 6. has been generally understood by the ancients of 66 8 Defence, vol. i. p. 280. |