Whether all other beings, besides the one Supreme God, be not excluded by the texts of Isaiah, (to which many more might be added,) and consequently, whether Christ can be God at all, unless he be the same with the Supreme God?

YOUR general answer to this Query is, that the texts of Isaiah expressly and uniformly speak of a Person; and therefore all other persons, besides the He, the I, the Me,

are excluded from being what He, who there speaks, declares himself alone to be. To which I reply, first, that the exclusive terms need not be interpreted with any such rigour and secondly, that they ought not, because such interpretation leads you into absurdities which you have

not been able to answer.

1. I say, exclusive terms are not always to be interpreted with such rigour, as to leave no room for tacit exceptions, such as reason and good sense will easily supply.

Matth. xi. 27. speaking of the Person of the Son, says, "No one knoweth the Father but the Son." Doth it therefore follow, that no Person but the Son, no, not the Father himself, knows the Father?

So, I Cor. ii. II. "The things of God knoweth no one, "but the Spirit of God;" no person but he. Doth it therefore follow, that neither the Father nor the Son knoweth the things of God as much as the Holy Spirit ?

in

Rev. xix. 12. it is said of the Son of God, that he had a name written, that "no one (oudeìs) knew, but he him"self." Doth it therefore follow, that neither the Father nor Holy Ghost knew it? See more instances of like kind my fourth Sermon. I say then, that exclusive terms are not always to be interpreted up to the utmost rigour : and there are many reasons why they should not be so interpreted in this particular case; as I have shown at large in the same Sermon.

2. I am next to observe, that such interpretation, in the present case, has led you into absurdities which you have not been able to answer. For, if the Son be excluded at all, by those texts of Isaiah, and others of like kind, he is entirely excluded. He cannot be another God, all other Gods being excluded by those texts; and you will not admit that he is the same God: since therefore he is not another God, nor the same God, it follows, upon your principles, that he is no God. That the texts exclude not only all other supreme Gods, but absolutely all other Gods, I prove, not barely from the force of the exclusive terms,

but from the scope, drift, and intent of those texts; which was to exclude inferior as well as supreme Deities; and to leave no room for idolatry; which might be consistent with paying sovereign worship (to use your phrase) to the God of Israel. You take a great deal of pains to wind yourself off; or rather, to show how much you can have to say, when you have nothing to reply. You tax me with quibbling in the word beings, as standing in the Query: which is a rebuke that comes late, now you are answering, not my Queries, but my Defence. However, since all other Gods are by me shown to be excluded, and not all other Persons, the expression is just, and no other but what should be. You observe, next, that the Son cannot be the same God with the Father on any but Sabellian principles: which is begging the question. It is sufficient to say, that the Fathers in general (as we shall see hereafter) acknowledged both to be one God, and not one Person. You cite Eusebius a as your voucher, that the words of Isaiah, (" besides me there is no God,") denote one Person. When you look again into Eusebius, you will find that the words are Marcellus's, not Eusebius's: though little depends upon them either way. You have another piece of a quotation from Eusebius, p. 4. where he makes it Sabellianism, to say that the Father and Son are av xai r' autòv, one and the same thing. Add, as Eusebius there does, óvóμaoi pèr diapópois, &c. under different names only; and then I condemn it for SabelLianism, as well as Eusebius. Your quoting Tertullian in this case is very extraordinary; when every body knows that he makes Father and Son one God, in the very same treatise where he is confuting the Sabellians; that is, the Praxeans, men of the same principles with those of Sabellius. Was Tertullian then a Sabellian? Ridiculous! You have a farther shift, (but still in the way of retorting, not answering,) that I myself, when I come to explain, do not in reality make the Son to be the same God, but only

a Euseb. Eccl. Theol. lib. ii. cap. 19. p. 133.

to be in his substance undivided. Add, from the Father as his Head, and consubstantial with him; and then I insist upon it, that he is therefore the same God with the Father, upon the certain and standing principles of all Catholic antiquity.

But what becomes of the difficulty all this while, which it concerned you to answer? You were to tell us, whether the Son (since he is not the same God) be another God, or no God. You say, he is not another God, in that sense wherein the Father is: that is your meaning. But if he be received as an object of worship, he is then God in such a sense, as none but the God of Israel was, and must either be the same God, or another God. By your argument, the Jews might have admitted as many inferior Gods as they pleased, consistent with the first commandment; for that would not have been admitting other Gods, because not Gods in the same sense. So you leave a gap open to all manner of idolatry. You say farther, that the texts do not exclude Moses from being a God unto Pharaoh, nor magistrates, nor angels, from being Gods. But the texts do exclude Moses, and angels, and magistrates, and all creatures whatever, from being adorable Gods: and therefore they can be no more than nominal Gods; that is to say, no Gods. The Jews might have had nominal Gods what they would: but they were to pay worship to one only; which comes to the same as having no other Gods but one. The receiving more adorable Gods than one, is making another God. Well then, will you cast off the worship of God the Son, or will you frankly own that you make of him another God? You discover a great inclination to own him for another God: you do not scruple in one place, to call him another Lordb: and yet, when you come to the pinch, you pause, you hesitate, you are at a loss what to resolve on: another God, or two Gods, sound very harsh; no Scripture, no Fathers, ever ventured upon it; and Christian ears cannot bear it. What then

Page 197.