A divine antidote against a devilish poyson, or, A scriptural answer to an anti-scriptural and heretical pamphlet entituled A designed end to the Socinian controversie, written by John Smith answered by Francis Gregory, D.D. and rector of Hambleden in the county of Bucks.

SECT. XV.

IT is evident that this Author will by no means allow our Saviour to be the true God; but at length he is so kind to him, as to grant that he is, though a mere, yet not a Common Man; but a Man advanced above the highest An∣gels; as appears from his Discourse, which bears this Title, Of the Transcen∣dent Dignity of Jesus Christ. But then in his next page he gives us this Cauti∣on, though our Lord be indeed a per∣son of the highest dignity: Yet, saith he, it is not justifiable to honour Christ falsly. But is it not far less justifiable to dishonor Christ falsly, as every Man doth, who denieth him, that dignity of the

Deity, which, if we may believe the Scriptures, doth justly belong unto him?

And here, to prevent an objection, which might be raised against him, this Author names, and gives an answer, such as it is, to that Text, which saith, That we should honour the Son, As we honour the Father; But, saith he, this, As, doth here import no more Equality of Honour, than that Text imports an equality of Ho∣liness, which saith, Be ye holy, As he, who hath called you, is holy, So thinks this Author.

But let him tell me, whether this Par∣ticle As doth never import an Equality in any other Texts; it is true, when we are commanded to be holy, merciful, and Perfect, as God is; the thing then re∣quired is a Resemblance and imitation, pro modulo nostro, of these Excellencies, which are in God, but not an Equality, for of that we are utterly uncapable. But when St. Paul gives us these com∣mands, Be ye followers of me, As I am of Christ, and again, Walk, As ye have us for an Example; did St. Paul mean, that we should only in some degree imi∣tate his Pattern, and not fully come up to and match his Example in the Ver∣tues of our Lives and Conversations?

Though St. Paul himself could not ex∣actly reach the Example of Christ, yet 'tis possible for us quite to reach the Example of St. Paul; and since 'tis pos∣sible, 'tis that, I think, which he re∣quires from us. And so we may the ra∣ther conclude from that Speech of his to King Agrippa, I would to God that Thou, and all that hear me, were not Al∣most, but Altogether, such as I am; full as Religious, and quite every way as Gracious.

Now, 'tis very reasonable to believe that St Paul meant as much by his As in the other Texts, as by his Altogether in this; which imports that he would have us not only to imiate his Graces, but even to equal them too. And if this little Particle, As, doth imply an equa∣lity in other Texts, why not in this, which saith, That we should honour the Son, as we honour the Father; for, are we not able to pay the same honour to the one, which we do pay to the other? Or is the Son of God an unfit object to receive the same honour with his Fa∣ther? he himself hath told us, I and my Father are one; and St. Paul saith, He thought it no robbery to be equal with God; and his Father himself calls him, The Man which is my Fellow. And if our

Lord be indeed his Father's Fellow, e∣qual to him in all the transcendent Ex∣cellencies of the Divine Nature, as cer∣tainly he is, why he should not have an equal share of Honour, let this trifling Scribler tell us, when he shall be at lei∣sure to study this Point yet better.

Theophylact justly blames the Arians, for honouring the Son, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as a Creature only, and saith that they do thereby, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dishonour the Father, because the same honour is due to both. Accordingly St. Chrysostom tells us, that the Son doth deserve and expect, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an equality of ho∣nour; and for that he gives this reason, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what∣soever the Father is, Paternity and Filia∣tion being excepted, the Son is the same. And therefore saith Maldonate, Eadem in utroque honoris ratio est, eadem natura, ea∣dem potentia, eadem dignitas, there is in both the same Foundation of honour, the same Nature, Power, and Dignity. So thought Athanasius, who stiles the whole Trinity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, equal∣ly honourable, as being consubstantial.

So then, according to the Doctrine of other Texts, and the judgment of learn∣ed Men, we may conclude, that con∣trary

to the Opinion of this Author, these words of Christ, That all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father, do import and require an equality of ho∣nour; and if so, 'tis enough to prove that the Son is God.

Notes

• Joh. 5.23.
• 1 Cor. 11.1. Phil. 3.17.
• Act. 26.29.
• Theoph. & Chrys. in Joan. c. 5. v. 33.
• Mald. in Joan. c. 8. v. 23.
• Athan. in disputat. adv. Ari∣um p. 147.