« AnteriorContinua »
and subordinate to the Father, and that the Fa: ther alone is the supreme God.
Thus I have considered some of the principal texts which are urged in the present case; and have shewn that not any thing can fairly be concluded from them, in prejudice of the arguments before laid down. I will conclude this discourse, with recommending to all christians the practice of forbearance and bratherly love, under their different apprehensions with respect to this, and every other point: such behaviour being what the chriftian religion requires, and calls for from us, and is what is highly ornamental to it. For as the treating ill the persons, or characters of others, is a very improper way of recommending truth to those persons; so such a behaviour is very improper to recommend any person to the love and fayour of God. God is love.
God is love. And as his giving revelation to mankind was the effect and produce of that love; so it was kindly intended to excite and promote in us that divine principle, and not to be a bar to it. And therefore, when the chriftian revelation stirs us up to love and good works, and engages us to set forward the present and fu. ture happiness of the rest of our fellow-creatures, then its great end is answered upon us, God is honoured, and we are rendered pleasing and acceptable to him. But when the christian revelation becomes an occasion of wrath and resentment to us, and we are stirred up by it to burt and injure our fellow-creatures, then its great end is manifestly perverted, God is dishonoured, and we are ren, dered the more vile and displeasing in his fight,
Supremacy of the FATHER
VIN DICA T E D:
Obfervations on Mr. Claggett's book, entitled,
Arianism anatomized. Wherein is shewn, that what Mr. Claggett, and others, call Christ's divine nature, is so far from being the real and very Son of God, that on the contrary, it is the very Father of God's Son.
IRST, I observe, that as Mr. Claggett has undertaken to confute my arguments, so he hath profecuted this design, in a very in
becoming, and unchristian manner; by representing me, as the vilest of creatures, and by laying an heavy charge upon me, which he can by no means prove, viz. he represents me as one, who, by boly and pious pretencës, would not only introduce real popery ; but would make us (by which I suppose he means protestants) ten times more antichristian, than the worst of papists themselves. One, who by hypocritical Aatteries endeavours to beguile unwary readers, into a good opinion of (what he is pleaied to call) herefy. These, with many other beinous crimes, he' is pleased to lay to my charge. But as he is wholly unable to prove what he io freely accuses me of, and there. fore must be guilty of sander and false accusation, whether I am guilty or not: so that God, who knows all things, knows that I am innocent in
burden of reproach upon me alone, but he brings in some body else, no body knows who, one bebind the curtain, to feel the weight of his heavy hand; but I assure him, there is no body behind the cura tain ; and therefore if my book is so bad, as he represents it to be, I think, I ought in justice, to let the foame reft only where it is due. He insinuates of me, as in his title page, that I take a liberty to speak wickedly for God. Whether I am guilty or not, I will leave to be determined by the righteous Judge of all the earth.
And as I know it is a thing impossible for him to prove ; so it may
proper for him to consider, whether in this particular, he is not guilty himfelf in many inftances. Thus for example, in page 14. he represents me as affirming Chrift's divine nature to be a created nature : which is a direct falbood; because I never made such an affirmation, and I appeal to my book in the case ; and I challenge Mr. Claggett" to fhew any such affirmation in it. If it should be replied in his behalf, that it may be inferred from what I have faid. I answer, I have declared that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God; and therefore such inference cannot be just, except begetting and creating are one and the same thing; and if they are, then this charge will fall equally as heavy upon the scriptures, as upon me; because he is there declared to be the only begotten Son of God. I answer farther, fupposing such an inference to be just, yet that makes no alteration in the case; because as affirmations and inferences are two things, fo I cannot, with any colour of truthy be said to affirm that which in fact is no more than the inference of another man. Suppose Mr. Claggett should affirm, that God hath fore-ordained every thing which cometh to pass; and if I should infer froin
this principle, and thomy inference would be just; yet I could not, with any colour of justice or honesty, in this case, say, that Mr. Claggett affirmed God is or was the author of sin, because he made no such affirmation. And though, by base infinuations, falsbood, and Nander, he hath given occafion for the raising of mens anger against me; yet I shall pursue him with no other revenge, than barely to remind him of his faults, and desire God to give him repentance, and a better mind. Whether he will reflect upon, and repent of all that groundless censure, and uncharitablenefs, which he hath shewed himself to be guilty of, I know not; but this I know, that it is a matter of the greatest concern to him. And if he should be under a strong persuasion, that he is of the number of God's elect, and that God fees not fin in his people, and so should think himself fecure from danger, how contrary soever he acts to the gospel rule ; yet, I fear, such a persuasion will be but a weak security at the day of judgment. Again,
I observe, that as I have asserted, and under. taken to prove, by eight scripture-arguments, that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; is. & Being inferiour and subordinate to his God and Fa ther, and that the God and Father of our Lord Fesus Christ, is only, and alone, the supreme God; fo by the term son, in this affertion, I meant only that Being which the scriptures call the Son, and the only begotten Son of God, and which Being himself calls God bis Father: I fay, I meant this person or Being, and him only, and not any thing else that men may be pleased to call the Son, which in reality, and in fact, is not fo. I farther observé, that as Mr. Claggett undertook to confute my arguments; so he hath been pleased to fubstitute
true and real Son of God, which my arguments re-
is the only begotton Son of God, I verily believe ; and fo in this point, I. fuppose, Mr. Claggett and I are agreed. “And if I can prove, that what he calls the divine nature is so far from being, in fact, the Son of God, that on the contrary it is the Father of God's Son, then it will follow, by an unavoidable consequence, that the Son of God, which he pleades for, is but an imaginary Son; and that what he calls the human nature, is the true, and whole, and all that is the Son of God. I shall not take notice of all the definitions which he hath given of this Son, but only of that which is most plain and easy to be understood. He faith, that the Son is the fubftantial wisdom of the Father; and that Christ is the powerof God, and the wisdom of God essentially, by the Father's communicating his effence to the Son, and that God hath not qualities, every thing in God is his esience, &c. page 14. Here I obferve, power and wisdom, as