« ZurückWeiter »
« the Father, the holiness of the only begotten “ Son, and of the Holy Ghost *.” And that the Seraphim did really celebrate all the three persons of the Godhead upon this occasion, is no conjecture; but a point capable of the clearest demonstration.
The Prophet tells us, v. 1. he saw the Lord fitting upon a throne; and at v. 5. that his eyes had seen the king, the Lord of Hofts. Now if there be any phrase in the bible to distinguish the true God, it is this of the Lord of Hosts. I never saw it disputed by any Arian writer. The author of an Esay on Spirit confesses it"; and Dr. Clarke supposes the name Lord of Sabaoth (Jam. 5. 4.) proper to the Father only. So that in this Lord of Hosts, fitting upon his Throne, there was the presence of God the Father.
That there was also the presence of God the Son, appears from John 12.41. These things said Efaias, when he saw his (Christs) Glory, and spake of him. of
a Non eis fufficit femel clamare fanctus, neque bis ; sed perfectum numerum Trinitatis affumunt, ut multitudinem fanctitatis Dei manifestent; quæ est trinæ sanctitatis repetita communitas ; fanctitas patris, sanctitas unigeniti filii, & fpiritus fancti. Orig. Hom. in loc. i b P.65.
+ It is written at v. 3 — Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of HIS GLORY. This St. John has affirmed
And that there was the presence of God the Holy Ghost, is determined by Acts 28.25. Well spake the Holy Ghost by Efaias the Prophet unto our Fathers, saying, &c. then follow the words which the prophet affirms to have been spoken by the Lord of Hosts.
The text of John 12. 41, which being compared with this of Isaiah proves the second person of the Trinity to be the Lord of hoffs, is evaded by Dr. Clarke in the following manner. « The Glory which Isaias faw, Efai. 6. 1. is « plainly the glory of God the Father ; whence “ the followers of Sabellius conclude, because “St. John here calls it the glory of Christ, that « therefore the Father and the Son are one and
to be the glory of Christ : but it was the glory of the Lord of Hofts; Therefore Christ is the Lord of Hofts. And if the parallel passage of Rev. 4. 8. be compared with this, it will appear (as it hath already Chap.I. Art. XXIII.) that he is the God Almighty spoken of in that book. The Greek version of the LXX has it thus,
67405, 6710s, agros Kueros on bouwt. In Rev. 4. 8. it is, agros, eglos, agios Kveros o Jeos o Traytox@gtas. whence it evidently appears, that xvera o go o TaiTox@gmag is equivalent in the language of heaven to Febovah Sabaoth : therefore, as Christ is the Lord of Hosts of the old Testament, he is thereby proved ipso facto to be the God Almighty of the new. Which shews the weakness of those frequent remarks Dr. Clarke has bestowed upon the word navtoxgTwe, as the great term of distinction between the person of Christ and that of God the Father.
“the “ the same individual person.” It is concluded by the Orthodox of the Church of England, that the person of Christ, and the person of God the Father, are not one and the same individual perfon, but one and the same Lord of bosts ; because the Scripture, thus compared, hath affirmed them so to be; and THIS is the concluson Dr. Clarke should have answered. But inftead of this, he has produced the monstrous and impossible doctrine of Sabellius, that they are one and the fame individual person, and answered that: which to be sure is easily done, and is quite foreign to the purpose. The other conclusion, which is the only true and natural one, is kept out of sight, because it cannot be answered: and this of Sabellius is slurred upon his credulous Readers, as the doctrine of the orthodox, who disclaim and abhor it. This is no slander; for let any perfon read his book with a little circumspection, and he will soon find who and what he would mean by the followers and do&trine of Sabellius. And let me give the reader the following caution, which he will find to be of great service in detecting the fallacious answers of the Arian writers in their controverfies with the orthodox. Always be careful to examine whether they have replied to the proof itself, or to something
else in the place of it. For when you have obtained any clear evidence from the Scripture, that two or more persons are one God, one Lord &c. they will give a new face to your conclusion, by changing the terms God or Lord, which are name of a nature, for that of person, which can belong only to an individual. And then they shout for victory. O, say they, this man is a Sabellian! he believes three perfons to be one person! But on the other hand, if you make it appear that in the Unity of the one God or Lord there are more persons than one, then they change the word persons for that of Gods : so that you are confuted this way also; and they cry you up for a Tritheist, a maintainer of three Gods! By the help of this artifice, Dr. Clarke attempted to deal with the Scripture ; and the Author of an Essay on Spirit with the Creeds and Liturgy of the Church. And, though it be a matter scarce worth mentioning, thus also the Authors of a monthly Review have attempted to deal with myself. Some time ago I published a full answer to the Essay on Spirit, which has since been reprinted in Ireland, and I humbly hope may have done some little service. But when these Gentlemen had deliberated with themselves upon it for three or four months, it was retailed from their scandalous Shop as a system
of Tritheism, Sabellianism, and what not? I hope God will forgive them! and this is all the answer I shall ever make to such men and such writers.
If there be any diversity of nature, or any efsential subordination in the persons of the Godhead, it must be revealed to us either in their names, or their attributes, or their acts; for it is by these only that they are or can possibly be made known to us in this Life. If the Scripture has made no difference in any of these, farther than that of a personal distinction (which we all allow) we are no longer to doubt that there is a natural or essential Unity in the three Persons of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, It shall therefore be shewn in this Chapter, by a fort of proof more comprehensive than what has gone before, that these Persons have the same Names, the fame attributes, the same counsel or