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. XVI.

THis Author having hitherto been very unhappy in arguing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, proceeds to try His strength, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. His own Arguments a∣gainst the Deity of Christ being weak and easily baffled, he attempts an an∣swer to other Men's Arguments for it. And here, with a great deal of confi∣dence, he thus tells the World, I will en∣deavour, as briefly as I can, to give them such reasonable answers, as shall make these truths (so he calls his Heretical Opini∣ons) beyond exception. Bravely resolved! but we may say, what was said of Phaeton, magnis tamen excidit ausis; for, how short he comes of his noble design, we shall easily discover in each particular.

1. The first Argument for our Lord's Divinity, to which this Respondent at∣tempts an answer, is this, That Person,

to whom the Scriptures in several pla∣ces do ascribe the Character and Title of God, is God. But our Lord is that Person, to whom the Scriptures do in se∣veral places ascribe the Character and Title of God. Ergo, Our Lord is God; for, were he not God indeed, the Scrip∣tures would not so often call him so.

That the Scriptures do indeed once and again call him God, this Man doth not deny; nay, he confesseth, That a God undoubtedly he is, and a mighty God too: But how, and in what sense is he so? this Man answers that he is such a God, According to the way of expression used in those antient times, in which those were called Gods, who either represented God's Person, or acted in his Name, and by his Authority; but then he adds this bold assertion, Christ is not God Almighty. It seems that this Man allows Christ to be no more than a Titular God, an Equi∣vocal God, a God in Name, but not by Nature, i. e. a God by Office only. But what a false pretence this is, will be evident from these three Considera∣tions;

1. The Scriptures do ascribe to Christ not only the bare Name of God, but with such Adjuncts, as never did, ne∣ver can belong to any Person, who was,

is, or shall be, a God by Office only.

The Evangelical Prophet stiles our Lord, the Mighty God; St. Paul calls him, the Great God; St. John stiles him, the True God: Titles of which no God by Office only was, or ever can be capable.

2. The Scriptures tell us, and so doth Experience too, that Gods by Office only must dye like other Men; and when they dye, their Office, and together with that, their Godship ceaseth for ever.

But now, 'tis not so with our blessed Saviour; for, to him God the Father hath said, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever. His Authority and Godship shall never end.

3. The Scriptures tell us, that our Lord was and will be God, when there neither were, nor shall be, any Gods by Office only.

A God he was before the World be∣gan; for St. John and St. Paul expresly say, By him all things were created; which must needs suppose his own Pre-exi∣stence, Eternity, and Omnipotence; and St. Paul as expresly stiles him, God bles∣sed for ever; which supposeth the dura∣tion of his Godhead, when Gods by Of∣fice shall be no more. And this, I think, is enough to shew this Author's great mistake, and to convince him that

those Texts which ascribe to our Lord, the Name and Title of God, do not mean that he is a God by Office only, but by Nature; and if so, he must needs be God Almighty.

2. The second Argument for the Di∣vinity of Christ, to which this Man pre∣tends to give an answer, is this, If our Lord were not God as well as Man, he could not have been a fit Mediator betwixt God and Man. But our Lord was a fit Me∣diator. Ergo, He was God as well as Man.

That our Lord, according to the minor Proposition, was indeed a fit Me∣diator betwixt God and Man, this Au∣thor doth not deny; but being loath to grant the Conclusion to the major Pro∣position, he thus replieth, Christ being a Man perfectly righteous, was therefore fit to intercede between God and Sinners.

But this Answer will not do; for no mere Man, how righteous soever, was fit to undertake, because not able to per∣form this great and difficult Work; for, here was an Infinite Justice to be satis∣fied, an Infinite Guilt to be removed, an Infinite Happiness to be procured, which things no mere Man could do. For had our Lord been a Man, a Creature, and no more, being made under the Law, he

had been obliged to obey all the Com∣mands of God for himself; and certain∣ly where all any Man's Acts of Obedi∣ence are due for himself, none can be meritorious for other Men. Nor was it possible for any mere Man to have satis∣fied the Justice of God for the sin of the whole World; the blood of Sheep and Lambs being innocent Creatures might as well have done it as the blood of a mere righteous Man. And there∣fore St. Paul tells us, God hath purchased his Church with his own blood. Indeed, God hath no blood; but the Man who had blood, was God too; and with such or none, could his Church be purchased. So then, should we allow that a mere righteous Man might have been a fit Mediatour of Intercession, which yet we do not grant; yet a fit Mediatour of Satisfaction he could not be. And since our case required both, no mere Man could have been sufficient for us. But more of this under another head.

3. The third Argument for the Divi∣nity of Christ, to which this Man at∣tempts an answer, is this, That Person who is One with God the Father, is and must be God. But Christ is a Person who is One with God the Father. Ergo, Christ is and must be God.

The Truth of the minor Proposition this Author dares not question, because our Lord himself hath plainly said, I and my Father are one; and St. John hath said, There are three that bear record in Heaven, and these three are one. These two Texts do so gall our Socinians, that they would willingly expunge and blot the latter quite out of the Canon; but since they can not do that, they endea∣vour to evacuate the force of both by a Distinction.

To that purpose this Man tells us, that this Oneness, which is said to be betwixt our Lord and his Father, is not Natural but Moral; an Oneness not of Essence, but of Consent, Love and Affe∣ction; and indeed such an Oneness as this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Identity of Will, there is betwixt all the three Persons of the Godhead. But since this kind of Unity is common to Saints and Angels, we have reason to think, that it is another sort of Unity, an Unity of Nature, peculiar to these glorious Persons, which is intend∣ed in both these Texts.

And so was it understood by those Jews, who heard our Lord say, I and my Father are one: For why else did they immediately take up stones to kill him? For which they gave him this only

reason, Because thou being a Man makest thy self God. They took this Expres∣sion, I and my Father are one; to be an evidence, and so it is that our Lord owned a natural Unity betwixt himself and his Father, and thereby made him∣self God.

But when they who heard this Speech and knew the occasion of it, told our Lord, Thou makest thy self God; this Au∣thor plainly saith, They belyed him; But doth not this Man belye them in saying so? For can we think, that if the Jews had mistook our Saviour's meaning, he would not have explained himself and undeceived them, when by such a misapprehension of his meaning, his Life, before his time was come, was in so much danger? But our Lord was so far from excusing his own expression, or denying the meaning of it to be what the Jews supposed; that he rather owned and confirmed it by asserting himself to be the Son of God, which vertually con∣tains the same truth, since he is not on∣ly a Son, but the only begotten Son, and consequently one in Nature, Essence and Substance with his Father.

And that the same natural Unity is intended in that other Text, which saith, There are Three that bear record in

Heaven, and these Three are One, is very probable; for, whereas 'tis said of the three Witnesses, that bear record on Earth, they agree in One; 'tis said of the three Witnesses, that bear record in Heaven, these Three are One. Here seems to be a plain Antithesis betwixt these two Ex∣pressions, They Are one, and, They A∣gree in one; and if so, they cannot sig∣nify the same thing; but the one must import primarily an Unity of Nature, and consequently an Unity of Consent; but the other an Unity of Consent only.

That these Texts are thus to be un∣derstood, and no otherwise; I have al∣ready in the Twelfth Section of this Tract, produced the Authorities of many learned Men, with whom this Au∣thor is not worthy to be named; for if we shall put them and him into an equal balance, their Judgment will as much outweigh his, as Bow-bell or Great Tom of Lincoln or Christ-Church in Oxford, would outweigh the least Bell in any of this Man's Clocks.

Notes

• Esa. 9.6. Tit. 2.13. 1 Joh. 5.20.
• Heb. 1.••.
• Joh. 1.3.
• Col. 1.16.
• Rom. 9.5.
• Act. 30.28.