temple of God, and the "temple of the Holy Ghost" too, it is manifest that the Holy Ghost inhabiting us, as his temple, is God, as well as the Father. 66 The Exposition goes on to elude several other texts, observing that" the miracles which our Lord himself worked, during the "course of his ministry, are ascribed sometimes to the Father, "which dwelt in him; and sometimes to the Spirit, which God gave not by measure to him," p. 68. Yes; it is more than once intimated in Scripture that the Father himself constantly dwelled in Christ, and did the works which Christ did. Now I should be glad to know of those that make the Holy Ghost a creature, what occasion there could be for any other invisible agent to work miracles, when the Father himself, who could do infinitely more, and who really worked all, was there working. And what sense is there in God's giving the Spirit, a creature, without measure, as if any creature could be infinite, or, as if the Father himself, working at the same time, might not infinitely supersede all creaturely assistance. Our blessed Lord somewherea says, "If any man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we (the Father and he) will come unto him, and make our abode with him." In the same chapter he speaks also of the Holy Ghost, as of another Comforter, to abide with the same for everb. Three Persons in all, all abiding, all comforting invisibly, and all inhabiting the same temple. But what occasion could there be for either the second or third, if they be creatures? Or what comfort in them, while the first alone, the God of all comfort, both could and would supply every thing, and the other two, in reality, nothing? These and other the like Scripture texts are easily accounted for, upon the principles of the Christian Church: but what to make of them on any other principles I see not. If it be said, that God may employ what agents, or what instruments he pleases, angels or men, and need not always act immediately in person, that is true, but not pertinent to the point in hand: for in the cases I have been speaking of, God the Father is supposed to be present in person, and to act immediately by himself, and yet others are represented as assisting and acting with him. We may now take leave of these two articles of the Creed, z John x. 38. xiv. 10, 11, 20. xvii. 21. 23. a John xiv. 23. b John xiv. 16, 26. and of the Creed itself. For as to other articles of slighter moment, the Exposition, I think, has done justice to them, and may be read with instruction and pleasure. Yet for fear of imbibing false doctrines along with true, it would be the safer way to read Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the same Creed, which is sound, learned, and judicious quite through, and one of the best books in our language. And as to those who have less time to spare, or who may desire to be competently instructed in the Creed at an easier and cheaper rate, I would particularly recommend to them Dr. Bishop's very useful Abridgment of Bishop Pearson, now lately published, for the benefit of common readers. IV. The Exposition passes on from the Creed to the Ten Commandments. And under Commandment the first, he observes, p. 150, "that it supposes it as a thing known by the light of na"ture and reason, that there is but one God, one eternal, omni"present, self-sufficient Being,-who in the New Testament is "set forth to us under this still more particular character, that "he is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Here very distinct things are, by too artificial a confusedness, mixed and blended together. That there is a God, is certainly known by the light of nature and reason: that there is but one God, is probably argued from reason and ancient tradition, and is certainly proved from Scripture. But that the one God is the Father only, exclusive of all other Persons, is not known by the light of nature to be true, but is known by the light of Scripture to be false; and is by all the ancient churches accounted heresy. It is Judaizing, after Praxeas, Noëtus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Arius, and Eunomius; and is not Christian doctrine. Reason tells us there is a God, without saying who is: Scripture determines it to the Jehovah: and the same Scripture abundantly declares that the Jehovah is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The knowledge of this we owe to revelation only, which contradicts Judaicæ fidei ista res, sic unum Deum credere, ut Filium annumerare ei nolis, et post Filium, Spiritum. Quid enim erit inter nos et illos nisi differentia ista? Quid opus Evangelii, quæ est substantia Novi Testamenti statuens legem et prophetas usque ad Johannem, si non exinde Pater, et d See my First Defence, vol. i. p. 479, 481, &c. Second Defence, vol. ii. p. 718, &c. not reason, but advances beyond it, and makes much larger discoveries. The light of nature and reason can go but a very little way in divine things, with any certainty. The Bible is our best metaphysics, and what alone can give us any reasonable satisfaction about the object of our faith or worship. Had we no revelation to go to, we might be allowed to sit down and guess, and might guess as wide as the ancient Pagans did. But to advance natural light, that is, Pagan darkness, in opposition to Scripture evidence, is setting up human conjectures against divine truths; lighting up a candle in the face of the sun. The introducing false maxims of philosophy into religion has done infinite mischief to the Church of Gode. It is making Scripture bend to human inventions, and is contriving a kind of motley religion, part Pagan and part Christian, instead of the religion of Christ. If any man imagines he can by natural light (which in this respect is no light) determine the question about the plurality of Persons in the Godhead, he will be widely mistaken. Scripture alone, with proper helps to understand Scripture, must decide this great question. All wisdom here, going above what is written, or what is evidently deduced from it, is vain wisdom, and will prove no better than an illusion or an infatuation to every man that trusts to it. But I pass on. 66 He concludes what he had more to say under the first Commandment, with some reflections upon idolatry. And in p. 154. he speaks of some that have "taught men to apply themselves "to angels-and to the blessed Virgin, whom, (as he says,) by a profane ambiguity, they affect to style the mother of God." Had he levelled his rebuke against the Romish abuses of that style and title, and against the extravagant honours thereupon paid to the blessed Virgin, all had been right. But he has so worded his censure, as to charge the title itself with a profane ambiguity, and so through the sides of the Romanists, as I conceive, reflects unhandsomely upon all the churches of Christ. His quarrel is with the very name and title of OcOTÓKos, mother of God, which accordingly he changes, p. 70, into kupioтókos, mother of Lord; for no reason that I can see, except it be that he had rather Christ should be called Lord, than God; interpreting Lord in a low and puny sense, as observed above. However, as to leorókos, or mother of God, (which he is pleased to charge with e See Dr. Berriman's Sermons, p. 93, &c. My First Defence, vol. i. p. 464, &c. profane ambiguity,) he should have considered that it is no piece of Popery, but much older, being indeed pure and primitive Christianity. It is expressive of a very great and important truth, that Christ who is Son of God in one nature, is Son of Mary also in another, and is both God and man, while one Christ. The phrase itself, of mother of God, or word coтókos, thus applied, was the common language of the Church about the middle of the fourth century: and it may be run up higher by Eusebius, and Alexander of Alexandria, and Origen, to the year 245, or the middle of the third age. And equivalent expressions may be carried up through ancient writers to the Gospel times. Irenæus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was scholar to the Apostles, scruples not to say of the Virgin, that she bare God' within her, which is as strong an expression as mother of God. And Ignatius, St. John's disciple, says plainly, "Jesus Christ "our God was conceived of Marys," which is tantamount. But Isaiah and St. Matthew were before them all, in affirming that the Virgin should bring forth Emmanuel, that is, God with us, God incarnate; which comes to the same with calling her mother of God, and is cited for that purpose by Eusebius', where he gives her that title. Attempts have been made to elude the true and ancient meaning of these texts, but to little purpose. The same sense may most probably be assigned to Luke i. 43. as Bishop Bull has observed'. For mother of Lord there may mean mother of God, since the title of Lord belongs to Christ chiefly as he is our God; and so St. Thomas joined both together. In short, I see no reason why any one should be offended at the title of mother of God, unless he be offended also at calling Christ God, for that implies it. Julian indeed was pleased to deride the Christians for using it. But then, very consistently, he blamed them as much for believing in and speaking of Christ as God. I observe, that the author of the Exposition studiously avoids giving the name of God to Christ, substituting divine Person every where", where he should have said God according to the text. If he was afraid of committing a profane ambiguity in f Portaret Deum. Iren. lib. v. cap. 19. p. 316. 0 Deòs quov 'Inσoûs ó Xpioròs ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας. Ignat. ad Ephes. cap. xviii. p. 18. h Isa. vii. 14. Matt. i. 23. k See Pearson, art. ii. p. 130. Vitring. in Isa. vii. 14. My Sermons, vol. ii. p. 127. Dr. Knight's Sermons, p. 150. 1 Bull. Oper. Posth. p. 156. i Euseb. de vit. Constant. lib. iii. 276. edit. Lips. cap. 43. n Page 59, 64, 65. calling Christ God, I should not wonder at it: his own good sense might lead him to think, that it would be profaning the high name to call any one God in such a manner, and to mean no more by it than his principles allowed him to do. But if this was his thought, as is not improbable, I cannot but admire still, that the same good sense did not lead him to reflect, that the holy Prophet Isaiah, St. John, and St. Paul, (men of excellent sense, and inspired too,) had very solemnly called Christ God, and would have been as much afraid of any profane ambiguity as others can be. Wherefore I may have leave to conclude, that they really understood Christ to be God in the same high sense that the Father himself is. But this by the way. I meet with nothing further that wants a remark, till I come to p. 293. of the Exposition, where the author lays down his sentiments of the solemn form of Baptism, " in the name of the "Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" not in the name God, and Christ, and the Spirit, as if God belonged to one only. "By this form," says the Expositor," we dedicate ourselves "solemnly to the service and worship of God our Father, who "created us." Why not God the Father, as the form itself directs, to shew the relation Father has to Son presently following? But this is slight. What is more material, since he owns Baptism to be the dedicating ourselves to the service and worship of one of the Persons, why so partial, as not to admit the same meaning and significancy of the same rite in respect of the other two Persons joined with him? Certainly, our blessed Lord, who was always exceedingly tender of his Father's honour, could and would have made such a distinction as this author does, had there been ground for it, or had he not intended that "all men "should honour the Son even as they honour the Father;" not excluding the third Person from the like honour, being the Spirit of both, and with whom they are as intimate as man with his own mind. Why should we separate what God has not separated? And why should we distinguish where our Lord has not distinguished? The Exposition adds: "to the obedience and "imitation of Christ the Son of God who redeemed us: and to "the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which sanctifies "us." Low and lame: truth so far, but not the whole truth. What follows is a mistake. "And accordingly all the ancient baptismal • Rom. viii. 9. Gal. iv. 6. 1 Pet. i. 11. Act. xvi. 7. Phil. i. 19. PI Cor. ii. 10, II. |