Acerca de este libro
Mi biblioteca
Libros en Google Play
THE
CONTENTS.
Compare the following TEXTS.
I am the Lord, and there. The Word was God,
is none elfe; There is Job. t. 1.
no God befides me, Ifa.
Thy Throne, O God,
Heb. 1. 8
Chrift came, who is o-
ver all God bleffed for ever,
Rom. 9. 5.
Who being in the Form
of God, Phil, 2. 6.
Who being the Bright-
nefs of his Glory, and the
exprefs Image of his Per-
fon, Heb. 1. 3.
QUERY I
Whether all other Beings, befides the one Supreme God, be
not excluded by the Texts of Ifaiah (to which many
more might be added) and confequently, whether Chrift
can be God at all, unless he be the fame with the Su-
preme God? p. 2.
QUERY II.
Whether the Texts of the New Teftament (in the fecond
Column) do not how that He (Christ) is not excluded,
and therefore must be the fame God? p. 6.
QUERY III.
Whether the Word (God) in Scripture, can reasonably be
Suppos'd to carry an ambiguous meaning, or be us'd in
a different Sense, when applied to the Father and Son, in the fame Scripture, and even in the fame verfe? (See
Joh. 1. 1.) p. 47.
QUERY IV.
Whether, fuppofing the Scripture-Notion of God to be no
more than that of the Author and Governor of the
Universe, or whatever it be, the admitting of Another
to be Author and Governor of the Univerfe, be not
admitting another God; contrary to the Texts before
cited from Ifaiah; and alfo to Ifa. 42. 8.--48. 11.
where he declares, He will not give his Glory to Ano-
ther? p. 73.
QUERY V.
Whether Dr. Clarke's pretence, that the Authority of Fa-
ther and Son being One, tho' they are two diftinct Beings,
makes them not to be two Gods. As a King upon the
Throne and his Son adminiftring the Father's Go-
vernment, are not two Kings, be not trifling and
inconfiftent? For, if the King's Son be not a King, he
cannot truly be called King; if he is, then there are
two Kings. So, if the Son be not God in the Scrip-
ture-Notion of God, he cannot truly be called God;
and then how is the Doctor confiftent with Scripture, or
with Himself? But if the Son be truly God, there are
two Gods upon the Doctor's Hypothefis, as plainly as
that one and one are two: and fo all the Texts of
Ifaiah cited above, befides others, ftand full and clear
against the Doctor's Notion. p. 79.
TEXTS, proving an Unity of divine At-
tributes in Father and Son, applied.
To the one God.
Thou, even Thou only
To the Son.
He knew all Men &c. Joh.
knoweft the Hearts of all 2. 24. Thou knoweft all
the
Things, Joh. 16.30. which
the Children of Men, knoweft the Hearts of all
Kings 8. 39.
1.
I the Lord fearch the
Heart; I try the Reins,
Jer. 17. 10.
I am the firft, and I am
the laft, and befides me there
is no God, Ifa. 44. 6.
I am A and , the be-
ginning and the end, Rev.
1. 8.
King of Kings, and Lord
of Lords, 1. Tim. 6. 15.
The mighty God, Ifa.
10. 21.
Lord over all, Rom.
10. 12.
Men, Acts 1. 24.
I am he that fearcheth
the Reins and the Heart,
QUERY
Whether the fame Characteristicks, especially fuch eminent
ones, can reasonably be understood of two distinct Beings;
and of one Infinite and Independent, the other Dependent
and Finite? p. 89.
QUERY VII.
Whether the Father's Omniscience and Eternity are not one
and the fame with the Son's, being alike defcrib'd, and
in the fame phrafes? p. 100.
QUERY VIII.
Whether Eternity does not imply neceffary Exiftence of
the Son; which is inconfiftent with the Doctor's Scheme?
And whether the Doctor hath not made an elufive,
Reply. p. 227.
equive-
equivocating Answer to the Objection, fince the Son may
be a neceflary Emanation from the Father, by the
Will and Power of the Father, without any Contradi-
Etion? Will is one thing, and Arbitrary Will another.
P. 121.
QUERY. IX.
Whether the divine Attributes, Omniscience, Ubiquity?
&c. thofe individual Attributes can be communicated
without the divine Effence, from which they are infepa-
rable? p. 164.
QUERY X.
Whether, if they (the Attributes belonging to the Son)
be not Individually the fame, they can be any thing
more than faint Refemblances of them, differing from
them as Finite from Infinite; and then in what Sinje,
or with what Truth can the Doctor pretend that all
divine Powers, except abfolute Supremacy and Irace.
pendency, are communicated to the Son? And whether
every Being, befides the one Supreme Being, must not ne-
ceffarily be a Creature and Finite; and whether all
divine Powers can be communicated to a Creature, In-
finite Perfection to a Finite Being? p. 174.
QUERY XI.
Whether if the Doctor means by divine Powers, Powers given
by God (in the fame Senfe as Angelical Powers are di-
vine Powers) only in a higher Degree than are given
to other Beings; it be not equivocating and faying nothing:
Nothing that can come up to the Senfe of thofe Texts be-
fore cited, † or to thefe following? p. 181.
Applied.
Thou, even Thou, art
To God the Son.
All things were made by Lord alone; Thou haft him, Joh. 1. 3. By him
• Scripture Doctr. p. 298.
B
Query 6. p. 89,
were
made Heaven, the Heaven | were all things Created; He
of Heavens with all their is before all things and by
Hoft, the Earth, and all him all things Confift, Co-
things that are therein &c. lof. 1. 16. 17.
Thou, Lord, in the Be
ginning, haft laid the Foun-
dation of the Earth; and
the Heavens are the Work
of thy Hands, Heb. 1. 10.
QUERY XII.
Whether the Creator of all Things was not himself Uncreat-
ed; and therefore could not be con orar, made
out of nothing? p. 194.
QUERY XIII.
Whether there can be any Middle between being made out
of nothing, and out of fomething; that is, between being
out of nothing, and out of the Father's Subftance; be-
tween being effentially God, and being a Creature?
Whether, confequently, the Son must not be either effen-
tially God, or else a Creature? p. 202.
QUERY XIV.
Whether Dr. Clarke, who every where denies the Confub-
ftantiality of the Son as abfurd and contradictory, does
not, of Confequence, affirm the Son to be a Creature,
2 Gone Orter, and fo fall under his own cenfure, and
is Self-condemn'd? p. 212.
QUERY XV.
Whether he also must not, of Confequence, affirm of the
Son, that there was a time when he was not, fince
God must exist before the Creature; and therefore is
again Self-condemn'd (See prop. 16. Scrip. Doctr.)
And