XXII.

Isai. II. 17, 18. The LORD ALONE shall be EXALTED in that day: and the IDOLS he shall utterly abolish.

"Idolatry is the reverse, and direct oppo"site to Christianity (or, the day of Christ.) "To destroy this, was the great end of Christ's "coming into the world. - But except he were God, the very and eternal God, of one Substance with the Father, his Religion "would be so far from destroying Idolatry,

66

66

વર

that it would only be a more refined and "dangerous species of it. The Prophet, "therefore, concludes all, that so he might acquit the worship of Christ from all charge "" of Idolatry, with this positive assertion; "that it would prove the most effectual

-40

i

means of putting an end to all false and "Idolatrous Worship: The Idols he shall utterly abolish. The like conclusion we "meet with in the Apostle St. John; who

66

having affirmed that Jesus Christ is the true "God and eternal life, immediately subjoins "and closes all with this advice

Little

"Children, keep yourselves from IDOLS."

This remark is taken from the firft Volume of an Essay upon the proper Lessons; written, as I am told, by a Gentleman of the Laity. There needs no Apology for setting it down; it being of good use in the subject I am upon. And it also gives me an occasion of returning thanks to the pious and learned Author of that excellent work, not for myself only, but for many sincere friends to the religion of Christ and the Church of England, among whom his labours are not without their fruit; and I am confident they will not be without their reward: but the Author must be content to wait for it, till Wisdom shall be justified of all her Children.

XXIII.

Rev. I. 8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the LORD, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the ALMIGHTY.

If the Reader will be pleased to examine the 13th and 17th verses of this Chapter, it will appear that this 8th verse was undoubtedly spoken from the mouth of Christ: who c 2 there

therefore has a just title to every name and attribute expressed in it; and among the rest, to that of the Almighty.

Origen, who certainly was no Arian, though often represented as such, by some who would be pleased to have the vote of so celebrated a genius, has the following observation "Now that you may know the Omnipotence "of the Father and the Son to be one and the

same as HE is ONE and the SAME GOD " and LORD with the FATHER, hear what "St. John has said in the Revelation "These things saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Al"mighty." For who is the Almighty that is to come, but Christ?

XXIV.

The Texts that follow, with this mark (†) prefixed to them, are such as have been abused

a Ut autem unam & eandem omnipotentiam Patris & Filii esse cognoscas sicut unus atque idem est cum Patre Deus & Dominus, audi hoc modo Joan in Apocalypsi dicentem: Hæc dicit dominus Deus qui est, & qui erit, & qui venturus est omnipotens. Qui enim venturus est omnipotens, quis est alius nisi Christus?-De Principiis, Lib. I. C. 2. I, z.

by

by the Arians to support their Heresy: and to the best of my knowledge, there are some of every sort. But when the Scripture is brought to declare its own sense of them, they will either appear to be nothing to the purpose, or confirm and preach the faith they have been supposed to destroy.

+ Matth. XIX. 17. Why callest thou ME GOOD? there is none good but ONE, that is GOD.

The objection is founded upon the Greek, which runs thus Ουδείς εςιν αγαθος, ει μη ayaDO, EIS, JEG. There is none good, but us, one: and that (one) is • J, God, Whence it is argued, that the adjective as being in the masculine Gender, cannot be interpreted to signify one Being or Nature (for then it should have been EN, in the Neuter) but one Person: so that by confining the attribute of goodness to the single person of the Father, it must of course exclude the persons of the Son and Holy Ghost from the Unity of the Godhead.

To say the truth, I think this is the most plausible objection I have ever met with; and I have sincerely endeavoured to do it justice.

If it is capable of being set in a stronger light, any man is welcome to add what he pleases to it. For supposing the word us to signifie one person, (and in that lies the whole force of the argument,) then if one person only is good, and that person is God; it must also follow that there is but one person who is God: the name of God being as much confined hereby to a single person, as the attribute of goodness. But this is utterly false; the names of God,. Lord, Lord of Hosts, the Almighty, most High, Eternal, God of Israel, &c. being also ascribed to the second and third Persons of the blessed Trinity. Take it this way therefore, and the objection, by proving too much, con futes itself, and proves nothing.

The truth is, this criticism, upon the strength of which some have dared to undeify their Saviour, has no foundation in the Origi nal. The word us is so far from requiring the substantive person to be understood with it, that it is put in the masculine gender to agree with its substantive 9, and is best construed by an adverb. If you follow the Greek by a literal translation, it will be thus none Good T EL EN ELS 9 DE but the one God; that is, in common English

-There is

but God only. And it happens, that the same

Greek,