CHRIST. John III. 13. which is in

heaven.

a

Dr. Clarke has a particular Section, wherein he pretends to have set down the Passages that afcribe the highest Titles, Perfections, and Powers, to the fecond Perfon of the Trinity. Yet he has wholly omitted the latter of these verses; though by a rule of his own making, it allows to Chrift an higher title than any other in the whole Scripture. It is this fame Author, who has laid fo great a ftrefs upon the word as, one, which he has infifted upon it can fignifie nothing elfe, but one Perfon; and the criticism is thought to be of such use and importance to his Scheme, that his book begins with it; and in the course of his work it is repeated three times, nearly in the fame words. But the Paffage now before us, if he had produced it, would have turned his own weapon against himself. For the word,

5, is here an attribute of Chrift; and if we argue from it in this place, as he has done in the other, it must prove, that one perfon only is our Master, and that this perfon is Chrift: which excludes the Perfons of the Father and the Spirit from the honour of that title; and fo redu

ces that learned author's reasoning to a manifest abfurdity.

We are to conclude then, that as the Phrase, one Mafter, cannot be meant to exclude the Father; fo neither does that other -one is good (fuppofing that were the sense of the Greek) or, one is your Father, exclude the person of Chrift. And if the reason of the thing teaches us that it cannot, fo the Scripture affures us in fact that it does not the title of Father, being also ascribed to the second person of the Trinity. For Chrift, the Alpha and Omega, fays of himself — He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I will be HIS GOD, and he shall be MY SON.*

calls him

с

aiah

The Everlafting FATHER.' And again it is written - They are the CHILDREN of GOD, being the children of the RESURRECTION: But, fays Chrift, —I am the RESURRECTION: therefore he is God, and hath us for his Children. If this be the cafe, the word Father cannot always be a name that dif tinguishes God from another perfon of God; but is often to be understood as a term of relation between God and Man: or as a modern Divine of our Church has well expreffed it—“A word "not intended for God the Father only, the First

a Rev, XXI. 7. d John XI. 25.

b IX. 6.

c Luke XX. 36.

perfon

perfon of the Trinity; but as it is referred un"to the Creature, made and conferved by God; "in which sense it appertains to the whole Trinity."

XXXV.

+John XIV. 28. MY FATHER IS GREATER than I.

The two preceeding Articles will fufficiently justify what the Church has afferted with a view to this paffage That Chrift is "inferior "to the Father as touching his Manhood." And the stream of the whole Scripture is against that use the Arians generally make of it; who stand in need to be reminded at every turn, that in the perfon of Chrift, there is an human foul and body, the nature of a man; which as it cannot lay claim to what is spoken of Chrift in unity with the Father, fo it must receive to it's own account whatever seems to degrade and disjoin him from the Father. It is indeed hard to say which of the two herefies is the most unreasonable and unfcriptural; that of the Socinians, which never confiders Chrift as any thing but a mere man; or that of the Arians, who never look upon him as any thing but a fuppofititious God. Between these two grofs errors, lies the true Catholic

Faith; which as it allows him to be perfect God and perfect man, is never offended, or put to its shifts, by any thing the Scripture may have faid about him in either capacity.

XXXVI.

+1 Cor. XI. 3. The HEAD of Chrift is

GOD.

The name Chrift does here ftand, as in other places out of number, for the man Christ; otherwife it must follow, that as Chrift is God, God is the head of himself; which is a contradiction: or that one God is the head of another God; which alfo is a contradiction.

This Text is capable of a good illuftration from Gen. III. 15. where we read, that the heel of the promised feed fhould be bruised: by which, the church has always understood the fufferings of his human nature, metaphorically represented by the inferior part in man. So in this place, his Divinity or fuperior nature is as aptly fignified by the head or fuperior part of the human body.

+Mark XIII.

XXXVII.

32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the

Angels

Angels which are in heaven, neither
THE SON, but THE FATHER.

a

It is declared of Christ in another place, that he increased in wisdom: why should it be incredible then, that during the whole term of his humiliation in the flesh, fomething should still be left, which as man upon earth he did not know? If you suppose him to be ignorant of this matter as God, how is it that St. Peter confeffes him to be omnifcient, without receiving any rebuke for it, or being reminded of any particular exception?— LORD, thou knoweft ALL THINGS.

XXXVIII.

+John I. 18. No man hath SEEN GOD at any time.

Ibid. XIV. 8, 9. Philip faith unto him, Lord SHEW US THE FATHER -haft thou not SEEN ME, Philip? he that hath Jeen ME hath feen THE FA

THER.

"These words (fays Dr. Clarke) do not figni"fy, that he who hath feen the Perfon of Christ

a Luke II. 52.

b John XXI. 17.

"hath