« AnteriorContinuar »
and wisdom of the Father, which are the veryFather; because the Father can, in no respect, be faid to go out from himself, and return to himself; so it will follow, that they must be applied to the real Son of the Father, which Mr. Claggett calls the human nature. And as they must be applied to him, I think, with submission, it must signify one or other of these two things, either his coming into the world at his birth, or else at his entring upon his ministry. If the former, then his rational spirit must be in a state of existence antecedent to that time: and if so, I think I faid truly, that he debased himself in his taking human nature upon him, or in his becoming a man, which is what I meant by that expression. But if his coming forth from the Father implies no more than his entring upon his ministry, as John the Baptist was faid to be a man sent from God, and if his rational part did not exist antecedent to his coming into the world at his nativity, then I acknowledge, I have err'd: which error I am ready to retract, when it shall be made appear to me, as I faid before. I have faid farther, upon this argument, that this is one essential character of the supreme God,. viz. that he is eternally and unchangeably the fame, without any addition to, or diminution of his persection and glory: wherefore, if the Son has passed thro' such a change as to be either lcslen'd or encreas'd in his persection and glory, the consequence is clear, that he is not the supreme God. Now, if the glory of the Son was either lessen'd or encreas'd, (for either of these is sufficient for my purpose) then it will follow, that he is not the supreme God. But the glory of the Son was encreas'd, which Mr. Claggett allows with respect to Christ's human nature, which human nature is t'ie whole and on'y begotten Son of K 2 God;
God i and so the strength of my argument is still! remaining.
The sum of the matter is this I have asserted and proved, by eight arguments, that the Son (by which I mean the real and only begotten Son of" God) is inseriour and subordinate to the Father \ by which Father, I mean the Father of this Son. Mr. Claggett opposeth me with an imaginary son, viz, the substantial power and wisdom of the Father; which are so far from being the Son, that on the contrary, they are the very Father of God's Son, about which I have asserted nothing, or as Mr. Claggett truly faith, against which I opposed nothing, as mpage 23. And therefore so far as what he hath to fay in his book respects this imaginary son, so far he is beside the question, with respect to my arguments; and if this be substracted from the rest, as it ought to be, I suppose himself will allow, that the strength of my argument is still remaining.
Lastly, I observe, that as Mr. Claggett calls me idolater, blasphemer, one in sheeps cloathing (which implies a wolf) a robber, the old serpent, and the like, without any provocation ( for as to my calling those rude and base, which should object against me, as Mr. Claggett faith, this is not true) I fay, as he hath thus abused, and evil treated me, without any provocation given; so I would desire him seriously to consider, whether these weapons of his warfare are spiritual, as a christian's should be, or whether they are not carnal and diabolical. St. Paul advised the prosessing christians at Corinth, 2 Cor, j^iii. 5'. To examine themselves whether they were in the faitb. Know ye not ( faith he ) that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates. And he faith, Rom. viii. 9. If any man hath not the spirit of Christ, he is none of bis. What use Mr. Claggett will make of this, or whether he will have any more to fay of me, or to me, I know not. He may if he pleases go on, and sport himself and his readers, by laughing at and bantering that which is wholly out of his power to confute. He may go on to reproach and revile me. And tho' he has been pleased to fit in judgment upon me, and condemn me, yet I can see no just ground for uneasiness upon this account; because as he is not commended, whom men commend; but whom the Lord commendeth, so neither is he condemn'd, whom men condemn, but whom the Lord condemneth.
Being an enquiry concerning t^ie personal character of the Sen of God, and what is necessary to bj3 believed concerning him; and likewise into the sense and meaning of our Lord's words, viz. Except ye believe that I am be. , ye shall die in your Jim; as in John viii. 24.
AS the personal character of the Sex of God has been of late a subject of controversy amongst us, so it becomes a question with some, if the Son be equal to the Father, and is himself the supreme God; whether all that believe him to be inseriour and subordinate to the Father, are not in a damnable slate? because they rest upon him for justification and falvation as upon a creature, and exercise their faith and hope upon him as such; and seeing our Lord himself has declared, that except ye believe that - I em he (viz. the supreme God, as they understand it) ye shall die in your fins.
For a clear and full answer to this enquiry I observe, first, that if the name creature be properly applied, when applied, to every derived being, then in that fense the Son is consessedly a creature, because the scriptures declare that he derived his being from the Father. See John iii. 16. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, &c. John vi, 57. As the living Father sent me, and I live by the Father ; so he that eateth me, even he /hall live by me. In these texts it is as plainly asserted as words can express it, that the Son rxeived or derived his being from the Father, and 'that he dependsupon his Father for his continuing to be; therefore, I fay, as before, if the name creature be properly applied, when applied, to every derived being, then the Son is consessedly a creature; because he derived hjs being from the JFather: but if the name creature, be applicable only to such things, as were produced after any certain particular manner, then the Son may very well be conceived not to be a creature,
Secondly, I observe, that whatever different apprehensions we may have of the Son of God, these apprehensions make no alterations in him, but he still continues to be what he really is, notwithstanding our mistaken notions concerning him: from which it will follow, that if he is the Father's equal, and the supreme God, whosoever trusts jn him, trusts in the Father's equal, and in the supreme God, whatever mistaken notions they may have con* cerning him. All that can be faid in this case is only this, whoever thinks him to be, what he really is not, or that thinks him not to be what he really is, when they make him the object of their faith and trust, have only a mistaken notion concerning him : their faith and trust is the same whatever he is, and he is the same which is the object of that faith and trust, and therefore all the difserence must lie in this, viz. their mistaken notion concerning him, whom they make the object of that faith and trust: and so the question will rest here, whether this mistaken notion, will be a bar to our
For a clear answer to this question, I conceive we must go back to the christian covenant, becaule it is that alone which discovers what is necessary tQ pur justification and falvation; and therefore, I say, if the christian covenant hath made faith in the Son as the Father's equal', and as the supreme God, necessary to our justification and falvation,