his Faith any part of their Accusation though it was the only Reason of their Malice against him but they charged him with a great many other Crimes and that the Reader may the better understand by what Spirit these Men were acted which still appears in this Author I shall give a short Account of the Story The Arian Faction headed by Eusebius of Nicomedia perceiving how impossible it was to retrieve their lost Cause while Athanasius was in Credit and so great Authority in the Church having ripened their Designs against him in their private Cabals prevail with Constantine to call a Council at Caesarea in Palestine at which Athanasius did not appear suspecting probably the partiality of his Judges who were his declared Enemies This was represented at Court as a contempt of the Imperial Orders and another Council was appointed at Tyre which met Ann. 335. with a peremptory Command for his appearance where he first excepted against the competency of his Judges but that being over-ruled he was forced to plead And first he was charged with Oppression and Cruelty particularly towards Ischyras Callinicus and the Miletian Bishops but this fell of it self for want of proof In the next place he was accused for having ravished a Woman and one too who had vowed Virginity The Woman was brought into the Council and there owned the Fact but Timotheus one of Athanasius's Friends personates Athanasius and asks the Woman whether he had ever offered such Violence to her she supposing him to have been Athanasius roundly declared him to be the Man who had done the Fact and thus this cheat was discovered His next Accusation was That he had murdered Arsenius a Miletian Bishop whose hand he had cut off and kept by him for some Magical Uses and the Hand dried and salted was taken out of a Box and shewn to the Council and to make this more credible they had of a long time conveyed Arsenius away and kept him out of sight But he having made his escape about this time and being accidentally met by some Friends of Athanasius was on a sudden brought into the Council where he shewed both his Hands safe to the shame and confusion of the malicious Inventors of that Lye This failing they accuse him of Impiety and Profanation of Holy Things That his Ordination was tumultuary and irregular the contrary of which was evidently true That Macarius his Presbyter by his command had broke into Ischyras's Chancel while he was performing the Holy Offices and overturned the Communion-Table broke in pieces the Sacramental Chalice and burnt the Holy Books all which Ischyras was present to attest but the contrary in every branch of the Accusation was made apparent and the whole Plot discovered by a writing under Ischyras his own hand sufficiently attested After all these shameful baffles they would not give over but sent Commissioners from the Synod to inquire into the matter of fact upon the place and having raked together any thing which they could make look like Evidence though gained by the most barbarous Cruelties and other vile arts they return to the Council who without more ado condemn and depose Athanasius from his Bishoprick and command him to go no more to Alexandria upon this he withdrew himself and went to Court prays the Emperor for a more fair and impartial Tryal who thereupon sent to the Council then adjourned to Ierusalem to come to Constantinople and make good their charge Five Commissioners appeared who joyned with some others whom they could get together formed a small Synod but not daring to insist upon their former accusations start up a new Charge more like to take at Court viz. That he had threatned to stop the Emperors Fleet that yearly Transported Corn from Alexandria to Constantinople which was as true and as probable a story as any of the rest but they told this with such confidence and urged the ill consequences of it so home upon the Emperor that they prevailed with him to banish Athanasius to Triers in Germany If this short story does not make our Author blush he is possessed with the true Spirit of the Tyrian Fathers But to proceed He was also condemned in his own life time by Six Councils as an Heretick and Seditious person of these Councils that at Milan consisted of Three Hundred Bishops and that of Ariminum of Five Hundred and fifty the greatest Convention of Bishops that ever was This consent of the Churches of God against him and his Doctrine occasioned that famous Proverb Athanasius against all the World and all the World against Athanasius This is all Sham. I grant Athanasius was condemned by several Arian Conventicles which he prophanely calls the Churches of God in his own life time but I deny that he was condemned as a Heretick or that he was condemned for his Faith We have seen the account of his condemnation by the Council of Tyre already and for what pretended Crimes he was condemned without the least mention of his Heresie for if this Author understood any thing of the story of those times he must know that though the Arian cause was vigorously and furiously promoted yet it was done more covertly since that fatal blow which was given it by the Council of Nice whose Authority was too sacred to be easily born down and therefore they did not pretend to unsettle the Nicene Faith nay pretended to own it though they did not like the word Homo-ousios and therefore formed various Creeds as they pretended to the same sense without that litigious word which shews that it was not time of day for them to accuse Athanasius of Heresie but of such other Crimes as might condemn and depose him and remove him out of the way that he might not hinder their Designs Thus in the Council at Antioch in the Reign of Constantius 341 the old Calumnies are revived against Athanasius and he deposed again after he had been restored by Constantine the younger and George the Cappadocian a Man of mean Birth base Education and worse Temper for they could find no better Man that would accept it was advanced to the Patriarchal Chair but all this while he was charged with no Heresie in Faith But that his return to Alexandria had occasioned great Trouble and Sorrow there and the effusion of much Blood that being condemned by a Synod and not restored again by the Authority of a Synod he re-assumed his Chair again contrary to the Canons c. Upon this Athanasius fled to Rome where in a Synod of Western Bishops he was absolved and restored to Communion contrary to the earnest Solicitations of the Council of Antioch Anno 347 a Council of Eastern and Western Bishops was called at Sardica where the Eastern Bishops who were most of them Arians or Favourers of that Party refused to joyn with them of the West and acted in a seperate Assembly and had brought with them Count Musonianus and Hesychius an Officer of the
and what is the Rule of Faith are two very distinct Questions and to apply what is said of the Catholick Faith to the Rule of Faith becomes the Wit and understanding of an Heretick This is the very Argument which the Papists use against our Authors Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Scriptures that they do not contain all things necessary to Salvation because they do not prove the great Fundamental of the Protestant Faith that the Canon of Scripture which we receive is the Word of God now what Answer he would give to Papists with reference to the sufficiency of Scripture let him suppose I give him the same Answer in Vindication of the Catholick Faith of the Athanasian Creed and we are right again But his parting blow is worth some little observation That if the Scriptures be a compleat Rule of Faith then this Creed of Athanasius is at least an unnecessary Rule of Faith But why did he not say the same thing of the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed or any other Creeds as well as of the Athanasian Creed for it seems a Creed as a Creed for there is no other sense to be made of it is a very unnecessary thing if the Scripture be a compleat Rule of Faith And thus both Catholicks and Hereticks even his dear Arians and Socinians have troubled themselves and the World to no purpose in drawing up Creeds and Confessions of Faith But this Author ought to be sent to School to learn the difference between a Creed and a Rule of Faith A Rule of Faith is a divinely inspired Writing which contains all matters to be believed and upon the Authority of which we do believe a Creed is a Summary of Faith or a Collection of such Articles as we ought to believe the Truth of which we must examine by some other Rule the sum then of our Author's Argument is this That because the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and contains all things necessary to be believed therefore it is very unnecessary to collect out of the Scripture such Propositions as are necessary for all Christians explicitely to believe He might as well have proved from the Scriptures being a compleat Rule of Faith that therefore there is no necessity of Commentators or Sermons or Catechisms as that there is no necessity of Creeds But as senseless as this is there is a very deep fetch in it for he would have no other Creed but that the Scripture is the Divine Infallible Compleat Rule of Faith which makes all other Creeds unnecessary and then he can make what he pleases of Scripture as all other Hereticks have done before him But let me ask this Author whether to believe in general that the Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith without an explicite belief of what is contained in Scripture will carry a Man to Heaven There seems to me no great difference between this general Faith in the Scriptures without particularly knowing and believing what they teach and believing as the Church believes We suppose then he will grant us the necessity of an explicite belief of all things contained in the Scripture necessary to Salvation and ought not the Church then to instruct People what these necessary Articles of Faith are and what is the true sense of Scripture about them Especially when there are a great many damnable Heresies taught in the Church by Men of perverse Minds who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction and does not this shew the necessity of Orthodox Creeds and Formularies of Faith And this puts me in mind of the great usefulness of ancient Creeds though the Holy Scripture be the only Divine and Infallible Rule of Faith viz. That they are a kind of secondary Rule as containing the Traditionary Faith of the Church It is no hard matter for witty Men to put very perverse senses on Scripture to favour their heretical Doctrines and to defend them with such Sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking Men and the best way in this case is to have recourse to the ancient Faith of the Christian Church to learn from thence how these Articles were understood and professed by them for we cannot but think that those who conversed with the Apostles and did not only receive the Scriptures but the sense and interpretation of them from the Apostles or Apostolical Men understood the true Christian Faith much better than those at a farther remove and therefore as long as we can reasonably suppose this Tradition to be preserved in the Church their Authority is very Venerable and this gives so great and venerable Authority to some of the first General Councils and therefore we find Tertullian himself confuting the Hereticks of his days by this argument from Prescription or the constant Tradition of all Apostolick Churches which was certain and unquestionable at that time and as much as Papists pretend to Tradition we appeal to Tradition for the first Three or Four Centuries and if the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed have as good a Tradition as this as certainly it has it is no unnecessary Rule though we do not make it a primary and uncontroulable Rule as the Holy Scripture is where there are two different Senses put on Scripture it is certainly the safest to embrace that sense if the words will bear it which is most agreeable to the received Doctrine of the Primitive Church contained in the Writings of her Doctors or Ancient Creeds or such Creeds as are conformed to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church Then for taking ought from this Creed the whole Greek Church diffused through so many Provinces rejects as Heretical that Period of it The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son contending that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only which also they clearly and demonstratively prove as we shall see in its proper place And for the menace here of Athanasius that they shall perish everlastingly they laugh at it and say He was drunk when he made that Creed Gennad Schol. Arch Bishop of Constantin This Addition of the Filioque or the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and from the Son which was disputed between the Greek and Latin Church is no corruption of the Essentials of the Christian Faith about the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as I observed before nor does Athanasius deny Salvation to those who do not believe it For he that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity does not relate to every particular Word and Phrase but to that Doctrine which immediately proceeds That the Trinity in Vnity and Vnity in Trinity is to be Worshipped which the Greeks acknowledged as well as the Latins and therefore agreed in the Substantials of Faith necessary to Salvation And that I havereason for what I say appears from this that after the Latins were perswaded that the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Son they were far enough from denying Salvation to those who
believed otherwise Pope Leo III assented to the definition of the Council of Aquisgrane An. 809. concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and yet would by no means allow that it should be added to the Creed nor would he deny Salvation to those who believed otherwise but when that Question was asked him returned this Answer That whosoever has subtilty enough to attain to the Knowledge of this or knowing it will not believe it cannot be saved but there are many and this among the rest deep Misteries of the Holy Faith which all cannot reach to some by reason of Age others for want of understanding and therefore as we said before he that can and won't cannot be saved And therefore at the same time he commanded the Constantinopolitan Creed to be hung up at Rome in a Silver Table without the addition of the Filioque nor can any man tell when this was added to the Creed however we never read the Greeks were Anathematized upon this account till Pope Vrban II. 1097. and in the Council of Florence under Eugenius IV. 1438 9. Ioseph the Patriarch of Constantinople thought this Controversie between the two Churches might be reconciled and the Filioque added in a sense very consistent with the belief of the Greek Church As for what he adds that the Greek Church condemned this addition as Heretical I desire to know what Greek Council did this Vossius a very diligent Observer gives no account of it the quarrel of the Greeks with the Latins was That they undertook without the Authority of a General Council to add to the Creed of a General Council when the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon had Anathematized those who did so and therefore for this reason the Greeks Anathematized the Latin Church without declaring the Filioque to be Heretical and as that Learned Man observes this was the true cause of the Schism that the Greeks thought the Pope of Rome and a Western Synod took too much upon themselves to add to the Creed of a General Council by their own Authority without consulting the Eastern Church which was equally concerned in matters of Faith But the Comical part is still behind for he says The Greeks laugh at Athanasius 's menace and say he was drunk when he made the Creed and for this he refers us to Georgius Scholarius or Gennadius who was made Patriarch of Constantinople by Mahomet when he had taken that City I confess I have not read all that Gennadius has Writ and know not where to find this place and he has not thought fit to direct us but this I know that whether Gennadius says this himself or only reports it as the saying of some foolish Greeks for I cannot guess by our Author which it is whoever said it said more then is true for Athanasius neither made the Creed drunk nor sober for as most Learned Men agree he never made it at all though it bears his name but I wish I could see this place in Gennadius for I greatly suspect our Author Gennadius being a very unlikely Man to say any ill thing of Athanasius upon account of the Filioque who himself took the side of the Latin Church in this dispute and as Vossius relates gives Athanasius a very different and more honourable Character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Athanasius the Preacher and Confessor of Truth But there is nothing smites me more than to hear this Arian or Socinian or whatever he is affirm That the Greeks have clearly and demonstratively proved that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only For that which is proved clearly and demonstratively I hope is true and then this alone is a confutation of his brief Notes for the Greeks taught and proved demonstratively as he says that the Holy Spirit so proceeds from the Father only as to be of the same Substance and One God with the Father And the Catholick Faith is this Catholick Faith is as much as to say in plain English the Faith of the whole Church now in what Age was this which here follows the Faith of the whole Church The Catholick Faith I grant is so called with relation to the Catholick Church whose Faith it is and the Catholick Church is the Universal Church or all the true Churches in the World which are all but one whole Church united in Christ their Head the Profession of the true Faith and Worship of Christ makes a true Church and all true Churches are the One Catholick Church whether they be spread over all the World or shut up in any one corner of it as at the first Preaching of the Gospel the Catholick Church was no where but in Iudaea Now as no Church is the Catholick Church of Christ how far soever it has spread it self over the World unless it profess the true Faith of Christ no more is any Faith the Catholick Faith how universally soever it be professed unless it be the true Faith of Christ nor does the true Christian Faith cease to be Catholick how few soever there be who sincerely profess it It is down-right Popery to judge of the Catholick Church by its multitudes or large extent or to judge of the Catholick Faith by the vast Numbers of its Professors were there but one true Church in the World that were the Catholick Church because it would be the whole Church of Christ on Earth and were the true Christian Faith professed but in one such Church it would be the Catholick Faith still for it is the Faith of the whole true Church of Christ the sincere belief and profession of which makes a Catholick Church Not in the Age of Athanasius himself who for this Faith and for Seditious Practices was banished from Alexandria in AEgypt where he was Bishop no less than four times whereof the first was by Constantine the Great What shall be done unto Thee thou lying Tongue What impudence is this to think to sham the World at this time a day with such stories as these when the Case of Athanasius is so well known or may be even to English Readers who will take the pains to read his Life written with great exactness and fidelity by the learned Dr. Cave But when he thinks a second time of it will he say that the Church of God in Athanasius's Age was not of the same Faith with him What thinks he of the Nicene Fathers who condemned Arius In which Council Athanasius himself was present and bore a considerable part and so provoked the Arian Faction by his Zeal for the Catholick Faith and his great skill and dexterity in managing that Cause as laid the Foundation of all his future Troubles Will he say that Constantine the Great who called the Council at Nice in the Cause of Arius and was so zealous an Asserter of the Nicene Faith banished Athanasius for this Faith No his greatest Enemies durst not make
when God vouchsafes to speak to us in our own Language we must understand his Words just as we do when they are spoke by men Indeed when I am sure that it is an inspired Writing I lay it down for a Principle that it contains nothing absurd and contradictious or repugnant to the received Principles of Natural Reason but this does not give me authority to Expound the Words of Scripture to any other sense than what they will naturally bear to reconcile them with such Notions as I call reason for if one man has this liberty another may take it and the Scripture will be tuned to every mans private Conceits and therefore in case the plain sense of Scripture contradicts those Notions I have of things if it be possible to be true I submit to the Authority of Scripture if it seems to include a Contradiction and Impossibility if that Contradiction be not plain and notorious and in such Matters as I am sure I perfectly understand there I submit again and conclude it is no Contradiction though I cannot comprehend how it is if I can by no means reconcile it I will confess I do not understand it and will not pretend to give any Sense of it much less to give such a Sense of it as the Words will not bear This shows that men may pretend to Expound Scripture according to Reason when the Dispute is nothing else but a Clash of Reason with Scripture as this Author phrases it for so it is when the usual signification of the Words and the Scope and Circumstances of the Place require one Sense and men force another Sense on it upon pretence of Expounding Scripture by Reason that is to reconcile Scripture to their pre-conceived Notions and Opinions of Things for what the Words signifie that is the Sense of Scripture and when they will not admit this Sense because they apprehend it contrary to Reason though most agreeable to the Words and Scope of the Place that is nothing else but a Controversie between Scripture and Reason My present Undertaking does not oblige me to examine all the Scriptures which are alleadged by the Socinians against the Doctrine of the Trinity or by others for it this is a voluminous Work and has often been done by others and if there were any just Occasion of doing it again it deserves a Treatise by it self but indeed it is the Doctrine it self which the Socinians dislike more then our Expositions which they cannot deny to be reasonable enough were the Doctrine so but they must not expound Scripture contrary to Reason and therefore must never allow that the Scripture teaches such a Doctrine which they think contradicts the plain and self-evident Reason of Mankind reconcile men to the Doctrine and the Scripture is plain without any farther Comment this I have now endeavoured and I believe our Adversaries will talk more sparingly of Absurdities and Contradictions for the future and then they will loose the best Argument they have against the Orthodox Expositions of Scripture but yet I am unwilling to dismiss this Argument without some few Observations about the Sense of Scripture This Author refers us to the History of the Vnitarians which though it be but a little Book in all Senses is too large to be particularly examined now but however I shall give some taste of it In the first Letter the Author marshals those Texts which he thinks overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity and because this may be most dangerous to unskilful Readers I shall more particularly examine that He reduces the Scriptures under several Topicks or Heads of Arguments 1. If our Lord Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than he none that might be called his Head or God none that could in any respect command him Now this Argument is fallacious for though Christ be God himself yet if there be Three Persons in the Godhead the equality and sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of Persons a Son is equal to his Father by Nature but inferiour to him as his Son if the Father as I have explained it be Original Mind and Wisdom the Son a personal subsisting but reflex Image of his Fathers Wisdom though their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same yet the Original is superior to the Image the Father to the Son and therefore though I know such Texts as he alleadges My Father is greater than I. The Head of Christ is God I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's Human Nature yet I see no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his Divine Person and his Relation to his Father For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity and the Son is God of God and therefore the Father may be called his God As for Christ's receiving Commands from the Father though this relates to the Execution of his Mediatory Office and so concerns him as God Incarnate as by the Dispensation of the Gospel he is the Minister of God's Will and Pleasure yet I grant even as God he receives Commands from his Father but it is no otherwise than as he receives his Nature from him by Nature he is the Word the Wisdom the Command of the Father his reflex Image whereby he produces all the Designs of his own Wisdom and Counsel into act Thus St. Austin answered the Arrian Objection That Christ was but God's Instrument and made the World by God's Command Let them consider with what other words the Father commanded his only Word But they frame to themselves an Imagination of two near one another but separated by their distinct Places one commanding another obeying Nor do they understand that the Fathers Command it self that all things should be made is no other Word of the Father but that by which all things are made that is the substantial Word and Wisdom and Command of the Father his only begotten Son 2. If our Lord Christ were indeed God it could not without blasphemy be absolutely and without Restriction affirmed of him that he is the Creature the Possession the Servant and Subject of God It is well he added absolutely and without restriction but he had done better if he had remembred it in his Proofs that Christ is called a Creature he proves because he is the first-born of every Creature but here he should have remembred his absolutely and without restriction for he is so to the first-born of every Creature that he is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore no Creature so born before all Creatures as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies That by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all
of the Father is not the One Supreme God and the Holy Ghost who proceeds from Father and Son is not the One Supreme God The Major is as self-evident as any Proposition in Euclide whoever understands the Terms must confess it to be true that the One Supreme God cannot be begotten nor proceed from any other the Minor is confessed by Trinitarians that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son how then shall we avoid the Conclusion That the Son is not the One Supreme God nor the Holy Ghost the One Supreme God Indeed no way that I know of for the thing is true the Son is not the One Supreme God nor the Holy Ghost the One Supreme God nay nor the Father the One Supreme God considered separately from each other but Father Son and Holy Ghost or a Trinity in Unity is the One Supreme God Now of this One Supreme God it is certainly true that he is not begotten nor proceeds from any other for then there must be a God above this One Supreme God but if there be Three Persons in this One Supreme God this does not hinder but the Father may beget the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from Father and Son and yet the One Supreme God neither be begotten nor proceed for it is not the One Supreme God that is begotten but the Divine Person of the Son who is God and with the Father and Holy Spirit One Supreme God nor is it the One Supreme God that proceeds but the Divine Person of the Holy Ghost who also is God and together with Father and Son One Supreme God This is plain and what every one may understand at first sight and the fallacy of the Argument consists in this That whatever may be affirmed of the One Supreme God is applied to each Divine Person in their Personal Capacities as if each Person considered separate from the other Divine Persons were the One Supreme God Now this is false for the One Supreme God is not any One Person distinct and separate from the rest but all Three Persons essentially united into One God and therefore the Application must be false too when what is true of the One Supreme God is applied to every distinct Person in the Godhead It is certain the One Supreme God can neither be Father Son nor Holy Ghost If he be a Father he must beget a Son who is not One with him and yet is God For the Son of God who is begotten of his Father's Substance and has the same Nature with him which is the proper Notion of a begotten Son must be God as the Son of a man is a man And if the Father himself in his own proper Person as begetting the Son be the One Supreme God the whole entire Deity then he must beget a Son without not within himself who is not and cannot be that One Supreme God that the Father is The One Supreme God is One in himself and separate from all other Beings And therefore if the One Supreme God be a Father he must beget a Son separate from himself if he be a Son he must have a Father separate from himself and so of the Holy Ghost In the One Supreme God there may and must be a Trinity of Divine Persons within the Unity of the Godhead there is a Father a Son and a Holy Ghost but the One Supreme God is neither neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds for all Three Persons are the One Supreme God and what belongs to the Godhead belongs to them all as considered in the Unity of the same Godhead but not as considered in their distinct Personal Capacities as One is the Father the other the Son and the third the Holy Spirit And thus it is in the present Case the One Supreme God can no more be sent then he can be begotten can receive no Commands from any other cannot be given by any other cannot be subject to any other Will but his own c. but the Divine Persons may send and be sent and interceed with each other for though in the Unity of the Godhead they are all the One Supreme God yet there is a mutual Relation and Subordination between the Divine Persons as I have already explained it As to instance in Intercession or Prayer for himself or others which is a Contradiction to the Notion of a Supreme God as it is to the Notion of an Absolute and Soveraign Prince But yet a Soveraign Prince may interceed with himself his own Wisdom his own Mercy Clemency and Compassion may interceed with him and prevail too without any diminution to his own Soveraign Power Thus though the Supreme God can interceed with no other Being yet the Son may interceed with the Father his own eternal and begotten Wisdom may interceed with him and make Atonement and Expiation for sinners and thus God interceeds with no body but himself for it is his own Wisdom which interceeds with him and makes the Atonement And if we will consider things aright we shall find that there can be no other Advocate with the Father but the Son but his own eternal and begotten Wisdom When a man interceeds with himself it is done by reflecting on his own Mind and examining the Reasons and Motives he finds there to pity and spare and to do good that is by his reflex Wisdom and Knowledge of himself which in the Godhead is the Son God's reflex Knowledge of himself or his begotten Wisdom that Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word which Philo calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High Priest For let us consider what it is to interceed with God and what kind of Intercession is consistent both with the Soveraign Authority and Soveraign Goodness of God An infinitely wise and just and good Being cannot be moved by meer Entreaties nor by the bare Interest and Favour of the Advocate for this is weakness in men and therefore cannot be incident to the Divine Nature Now if you set aside Entreaties and Importunities and Favour there can be no other Advocate with the Father but his own Eternal Wisdom It is his own Wisdom that must Atone him that must reconcile him to sinners that must obtain Pardon and all other Blessings for them for if this cannot be done wisely God cannot do it and therefore his own Wisdom must do all this for no created Wisdom can But God loves his own Wisdom his only begotten Son and therefore Wisdom is a powerful Advocate and must prevail with the Father So that the Son's Intercession with the Father is so far from being incongruous or inconsistent with his being God that the Divine Nature can admit of no other Advocate or Intercessor properly so called To intercede with a never-failing Effect and Success is an Act of Power and Authority and for God to make a Creature-Advocate and Mediator is to give a Creature Authority over himself which