unto me every Knee shall how and every tongue shall swear This is so essential a prerogative of the Divine Majesty that to apply our selves to any creature is a Sin To adore any other being is an invasion of his right over us It is to multiply and consequently as much as lyes in us to destroy the Deity Therefore either Christ is God or St. Paul a writer divinely inspir'd contradicts all this Since Rom. 14.10 11. he layes down as a fundamental truth that we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ For it is written As I live says the Lord every Knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God God alone then is the object of our Religion To bow to any other to praise or adore any other for this is the sence of confessing here is Impiety Sacrilege and Idolatry And yet St. Paul assures us that there is a time where Christ is publickly and solemnly to receive the praises and adorations of all Men. Therefore Christ must be God and even that God who says positively that he is God and that besides him there is none else The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 20. has as odd a sort of an Answer to this as was that of God's coming into the World by his Ambassador Christ He tells us that Christ indeed is to be a judge but not as God But only acting by a Commission from God That Men will appear before him as we do before the judges of the land who act in the name of our sovereign Lord the King This witty shift is perhaps one of the most unreasonable things in the World It is true that the honour paid to the judges here is resolv'd into the Authority from whence their power is deriv'd But Christ is judge as he is God He does that which no Man can do by Commission and it is the great qualification of the most Hight to search the Hearts try the Reins and to have darkness as light as the day None but God can find the evidence in the heart of the Guilty He must be Omniscient and Omnipresent who opens the secrets of the hearts of all Men and calls them to an account for those Sins infinite for their multitude incredible for their variety and incomprehensible for their mysteriousness This the Apostle acknowledges and to this he appeals 1 Cor. 4.5 Therefore judge nothing before the time untill the Lord cometh who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the heart He that is our Judge St. John calls expresly our God in that dreadfull description of the last day Rev. 20.11 12. And I saw a great white throne and him that sat on it from whose face the Heaven and the earth fled away and I saw the dead great and small stand before God In the 23. of Jeremy both the Character and the name of the Messias are so fully exprest that the most famous Rabbins have oppos'd the corrupt reading which some obstinate Jews would have forc't on this Text. The Generality of Christian Interpreters ancient and modern have understood it of Christ and receiv'd the noble Prophecy not only as a proof of his birth and office but also of his Divinity The 14. verse calls him a righteous Branch the usual name of the Messias in the Prophets He is said to be rais'd to David as a great King who shall Reign and Prosper and Execute Judgment and Justice in the Earth In the 15. v. Salvation is promis'd by him to Judah and Israel and to shew that this will certainly come to pass and that nothing can prevent it The Prophet tells them who is that righteous Branch that admirable King who is to entail on them an Eternal peace and this is his name whereby he shall be call'd The Lord our righteousness That he is to be a Man who is to effect all this is plain from the letter and sence of the Text. He must be of the seed of David He must execute justice and judgment upon earth That he is God cannot be deny'd from these two expressions The one is the Jehovah the inessable name of God given him The other our righteousness a title which no creature can pretend to As a confirmation of this read Daniel 9.24 where the coming of the Messias is express'd by bringing in Everlasting righteousness And 1 Cor. 1.30 Jesus Christ is made to us righteousness If he is no more than a Creature how can he become our righteousness how can he bring Everlasting Righteousness Can any Man justifie another or procure to him an Everlasting State of Holiness and Blessedness What opinion soever we may have of the greatest and best of Men we cannot but be satisfi'd that those acts of omnipotency are above the reach of any Creature The very sence of the corruption of our nature the very apprehensions that we are finite beings give the lye to all those little notions and we are forc't to look to the Lord The Jehovah for Pardon and Happiness The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 20. opposes to this 1st That Grotius has shew'd that the Branch here intended is Zorobabel 2ly That these words This is the name whereby he shall be call'd are spoken neither of Christ nor of Zorobabel but of Israel 3ly This is prov'd by a place parallel to this Jer. 33.15 16. Where Jerusalem is call'd The Lord our righteousness In those days shall Judah be sav'd and Jerusalem shall dwell safely and this is the name whereby She shall be call'd The Lord our righteousness To the 1st Grotius has not only against him the unanimous consent of the Fathers but he is also unhappy in this that of all the senses that this Prophecy can bear it is not capable of that of Zorobabel How can Zorobabel be the Branch a name constantly appropriated to the Messias Esay 11.1 Esay 4.2 Zech. 3.8 and the 6.12 Luk. 1.78 and never to him How can according to the excellent observation of Theodoret on this place Zorobabel be a King that should actually reign and make his People for ever happy who neither was a King nor ever reign'd over the Jews nor ever sate in the Throne of David To the 2d That the name of the Lord our righteousness is neither given to Christ nor to Zorobabel but to Israel This is another strain of Grotius and as unsuccessful as the other 1st It is against the sence of the Jewish Doctors 2ly It is against the plain letter of the Hebrew 3ly It is against the sence of all Mankind and these Gentlemen are not modest to pretend to impose at this dreadful rate Is it not as clear as the Sun that the design of this Text is to tell us what this King shall do what he is what he shall be call'd Will it ever enter into any Man's head who is not quite mad that Israel or Judah for if it is applicable to
and working the Heavens Do created beings perish and decay really or Metaphorically Is the World's destruction real or only Figurative No Man ever indulg'd his fancy to that degree as to call this an Allegory It is then a real and actual Creation Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth It was done in the beginning before any thing did exist or began to be The consequence then is as bright as the sun that as he who has given a beginning to any thing is before that thing which he has given a beginning to so Christ is pre-existent and before all created beings since it appears by the express Authority of the Scripture that he has given a being to the whole Creation I pass by that Elegant Description of an Eternal Being who is always the same incapable of change and not mov'd even in the general destruction of all things But hold says the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 17. You are in a mighty mistake This seems indeed appli'd to Christ Heb. 1.10 But Thomas Aquinas observes that it may be understood of God only not Christ Grotius tells you and so do Estius and Camerarius that this Text must be referr'd to v. 13. Hold again says the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 10 11. This is an Allegory and must be understood as the new Heavens and the new Earth spoken of Esay 65.17 and 66.22 2 Pet. 3.13 Revel 21.1 which all the Trinitarian Interpreters have understood of the Gospel state of things in opposition to the Jewish which is antiquated and done away agreeable to the assertion of Christ Matt. 24. If this is not satisfactory there is another shift ready He tells you That others of his party take this as an Apostrophe conversion and devout address to God not intended of our Saviour The Allegory has so much the more weight that it comes from the Allegorical Hugo Grotius to whom may be appli'd what the 5th General Council said of Theodore of Mopswest that rather than be convinc't He would turn the plainest truths into Allegories But for all that these Gentlemen are in the wrong St. Peter speaks of the end of the World and of the destruction of all things in the last day The 24th of St. Matthew is of the same strain and though several learned Men have understood these places of the destruction of Jerusalem yet they have agreed that it contains also that of the whole World Christ answers his disciples first says Tertullian de Resurr car follow'd in this by very many of the Fathers of the time of the ruine of Jerusalem and then of the end of the World The notion of the Apostrophe or address to God is scarce worth any notice and time is too precious to spend it in answering trifles of that nature It is like that of Socinus and I believe flows from it that these words are not spoken of the Son because with the conjunctive particle and there was not rursum again An ordinary measure of common sence will shew the vanity of this Let ten thousand People read this Chapter and these two Verses in particular But to the Son he says Thy Throne O God ... and thou Lord in the beginning hast laid but will think them to be spoken to the same Person No not that plain Countryman who hearing his Parson read these words of St. Paul thought it not robbery did fancy that the It was not in the Original Ans to Mr. Milbourn pag. 36. I must beg these Gentlemens Pardon If I am forc't to say that they are guilty in their Disputes of an unparallel'd Injustice The Scripture speaks of a real Creation It mentions one also which is Allegorical Some Interpreters and not all the Interpreters according to their large way of talking have understood the places which they have cited out of Isaias and the Revelation of this last Therefore right or wrong they must be appli'd to the first Rather than give up the Argument they will give over the litteral sence of a Text which is capable of no other and run to the Metaphorical which by no means can agree with it It is confest on all hands that the Prophet in the words in dispute speaks of a real actual Creation and of a real actual Destruction of the Word It is also confest that the words are addrest to the real actual Creator of the World to that Eternal God who in the change and alteration of all things is himself incapable of change This they themselves do not deny The Apostle brings in the Father speaking to his Son attributing to him that real actual Creation as to the real actual Creator and because this is plain evident and unanswerable then the Apostle must be made to speak in an Allegorical and Figurative way This is such a method of arguing which I durst almost say is scandalous I honour Grotius but I would borrow an impertinence of no Man to elude a visible Truth That this Doctrine of the real and actual Creation of all things by Christ is not deliver'd obscurely or by the by but is the constant and universal Doctrine of Scripture appears from Colos 1.15 and foll v. Who is the image of the invisible God the first born of every Creature For by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they by Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers All things were created by him and for him and be is before all things and by him all things consist There is not a word in this but what invincibly proves the question and this after so clear a manner that it leaves no room for Allegories figures or any such poor shifts Passing by the first expression the image of the invisible God of which we shall have a further occasion to speak The Apostle says positively of Christ that he is the first born of every Creature that is born before all Created Beings which is the true rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primogenitus omnis Creaturae reads the old latin that is genitus ante omnem creaturam says Tertullian lib. de Trin. born before any creature The passage of that Father is home to the thing It was before any of these disputes and shews exactly the sence of the Western Church in the Primitive Times Quomodo Primogenitus esse potuit nisi quoniam secundum Divinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex Deo Patre sermo processit How could he be the first born but that in respect of his Divine nature The word proceeded from God the Father before any thing was created Origen lib. 2. contr Cels to an objection made by Celsus that he whom we assure to be God and suppose to suffer so willingly could not forbear cryes and lamentations answers That he does not discern the difference of the Scriptures Expressions That Christ speaks sometimes as Man and sometimes as God We have laid down says
where to rest He has found this in Grotius and has taken it up for want of something more solid If this way of criticising is allow'd there is nothing in Scripture capable of a litteral sence A warm Fancy and a great deal of Confidence will make the Sacred Book a continu'd Metaphor How easy would it be to do that with the first Chapter of Genesis which those Gentlemen have done with this and indeed with any thing in Scripture which is never so litteral He has cited Athanasius and Cyril but not the places where they read Modell'd Till they are quoted what can be said to it is that it cannot but be known even to them that both these Fathers with all the ancients and even the Arrians themselves acknowledge Christ the Creator of the natural World But if Grotius The Jesuit Selmero and Montanus have read Modell'd I cannot see what advantage comes to their cause from the rendrings of private Men. All the Greek Copies read Created The old Latin Created All the publick Translations that I know in the World read Created I am not sensible that there is any one place in Scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not render'd Creation and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Creator Nor do I understand why it should be Modell'd here and not every where else Must we say Rom. 1.21 That the invisible things of him from the Modelling of the World are clearly seen and not from the Creation Rom. 8.19.21 The earnest expectation of the thing Modell'd waits for the manifestation of the Children of God The Modell'd it self shall be deliver'd from the bondage of corruption For the whole Modellship groaneth and travelleth untill now must we say 1 Pet. 4.19 committ the keeping of their souls to him as unto a faithful Modeller Many more instances of this kind might be produc'd which if thus translated and why not thus in other places as well as here are down right impertinence But granting that rare word Modelling still it does not ruine but suppose the Pre-existence He is before all things and by him all things consist The things spoken of here are not reduc'd only to the preaching of the Apostles It includes that of the Prophets and reaches to all the Types of the Messias The Figures were to be Modell'd as well as the realities Not only the Generation which comes after Christ is sav'd by him but also that which preceeded him Christ then being the Saviour was to be the Modeller of both David and Solomon were Figures of Christ He must therefore have been before them to Modell them Joshua and Moses are said by all the Fathers to have been eminent Types of the Holy Jesus He must then of necessity have preceeded him to Modell him Adam was also a Figure of Christ and consequently to be Modell'd by him The natural Heaven and Earth are a shadow of the new Heavens and the new Earth wherein dwells righteousness Therefore Modellable by the Saviour Therefore he must have existed before them to Modell and to speak this Author 's own words to order dispose and prepare them to answer those great ends for which they were created I will say to the acute Author of this History once for all what the Answerer to Doctor Wallis tells that Reverend Person pag. 17. This may be call'd a fineness He means a finenesse a subtlety a querk nor an accurate reasoning or a solid and true Answer And pag 18. But so it is that they that maintain a false Opinion must answer to the present Exigent sometimes this thing sometimes the contrary Only truth is stable coherent consistent with it self always the same I will end this Letter with that wise reflexion and so remain SIR Your Most humble Servant L. THE Third LETTER SIR WHAT has been said concerning the Pre-existence of Christ is enough to overthrow the Socinian System and supposes his Pre-eternity We have this advantage that the one proves the other For if nothing is before time but what is Eternal there being no duration conceivable by us but Time and Eternity shewing that Christ existed before Time it self was implies his Eternal Being That by him all things were created the Arrians themselves could not deny forc'd to it by the great evidence of the Texts alledg'd before But whatsoever creates is infinite in the general confession both of Divines and Philosophers It supposes an unlimited power in the agent which nothing can resist and every thing must obey at whose Call matter is produc'd and presents it self to be actuated into what form he pleases But if whosoever creates is infinite and Almighty and whosoever is infinite and Almigthy is also Eternal The same Texts which so evidently prove the Creation of all things by him do also prove his Eternity But even passing by all this I presume to say that if Christ's Eternal Being is not clearly and plainly deliver'd in Scripture there is nothing plain or clear in the World I will begin by the 1st of St. John An Authority of that weight and extent that all that is dispersed in the other Books of the Sacred Writers concerning the nature of Christ seems to be collected in this There is no complaint here of mutilation of Sentences of alteration of words As it was deliver'd at first so it has been preserv'd a clear and a lasting testimony of this Sacred Doctrine I admire what makes the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 20 21. so angry with St. Jerom for saying that at the request of the Asiatick Bishops St. John Writ his Gospel to assert the Divinity of Christ which this Father pretends not to assure upon his own credit but that of the Church's History This Author says That Irenaeus 200 Years older then St. Jerom is silent about it That Origen the great searcher of the Monuments of Antiquity gives no such account and Eusebius himself who has preserv'd what is said here of Origen who besides had read Hegesippus and whatever History St. Jerom could have read says that the design of St. John in writing his Gospel was to supply the omissions of the other three Evangelists Yet after all this the learned World knows that St. Jerom was a serious and a candid Person of a temper not to impose or be impos'd upon of a quick apprehension vast parts prodigious reading well acquainted with the affairs of the Eastern Church and of whom it is not imaginable that he would either cite a Book which he had not seen or give credit to a History that had not been genuine and authentick The answerer calls it in vain A Legend a Fiction a great Romance of an Ecclesiastical History cited by St Jerom and seen by no body but himself No Man of sence or learning will believe any thing of this A negative proof goes a great way but it must be better grounded then this Irenaeus does not say it it is true but he says nothing to the
Mr. la Motte has gravely and justly say'd to him pag. 3. That to speak so of the Apostles is ill manners nay 't is Unchristian and Impious But then comes the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn He will not have the Creation spoken of in this Chapter to be understood of the natural but of the spiritual World By the spiritual World he means the State of the Gospel by the other the spiritual World He says pag. 26. That the Socinians commonly suppose that St. John speaks here of the New-Creation even that great change of affairs in the World which has been so considerable that the Scriptures have divers times call'd it the new Heavens and the new Earth He begins the charge pag. 23. with a rule of Criticism That the writers of the New Testament have a particular regard to the notions and Opinions of the Jewish Church as also to the Customs and Forms of Speech in use amongst the Jews This is one of these forms that the Messias the Christ call'd the word by their Chaldee Paraphrases and by Philo the Jew should make a new and a better World and that the World was made for him This the Gentleman has borrow'd from Grotius the only Friend in distress Moreover they us'd the words El and Elohim which in Greek and in English signifie God of Angels Kings Magistrates and all such as are extraordinary Messengers or Ministers of God This he calls Keys to let us into the sence of those Verses without multiplying Gods as we do or Creators as the Arrians have done He tells us That in the beginning is not from the very first from for ever or from all Eternity Moses beginning with the same words does not mean as we do Moses means only in the beginning of the World John means only in the beginning of the Gospel state In the beginning was the word He intends here to say in the beginning was the Messias or Christ whom the Jews call'd the word That it is not easy to determine why the Jews gave the Messias the name of Word But 't is evident why St. John does it for as at v. 7 8 9. He calls him the light because he was the bringer of the Gospel light for the same reason he is content also to call him the word because he was the Messenger of the Gospel word ..... which is indifferently to be call'd the Gospel or the word of God This you have pag. 24. The word was with God and the word was God Here the Author grows somewhat hot not to say rude He tells us that his Opposers will not deny what every petty Grammarian knows that we should have translated thus The word was with The God and The word was A God He claims this Translation as absolutely necessary for clearing the meaning of the Evangelist in that place He says not the word was with God but with the God Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or The God is always us'd to signifie the true God or him who is God by way of Excellence and Appropriation as the Grammarians speak But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A God is in Holy Scripture appli'd to Angels to Kings to Prophets ..... Moses is call'd so and so must the Messias who is no less than Moses the Ambassador and Representative of God He was with the God The meaning is That before he enter'd on his Office he was taken up into Heaven to be fully instructed and inform'd in the nature and quality of his Office Pag. 25. He says Their Opposers have nothing to say to this Explication of these words but they deny Christ to be Call'd God as Moses because it is said All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made and because the World was made by him I tell you Sir it is very dangerous to have to do with Criticks The Author says that this is a bold Translation He challenges us to deny that the Greek preposition which is render'd by might have been render'd for Thus the sence should have been All things were made for him The world was made for him That that makes this Translation certain is first that maxim that the world was made for the Messias and 2ly That Irrefragable Argument that there is no other Creator but God and that the word being distinguish't from the God and thereby deny'd to be the God this Translation must hold good You have this pag. 26. The short is says he If St. John speaks of the old Creation and of the visible World then the Translation must run All things are made for him to preserve the allusion to the known saying of all things being made for the Messias If he speaks of the new Creation the World which the Messias should make then the Translation must run all things were made by him The rest says he is easy The word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us The Translation is ill They should have render'd it the word was Flesh They render themselves the Greek word v. 6. not was made but was only All this is put into a pretty Paraphrase At last he puts the case of the unlearned and what they are to do who are not acquainted with those precious Criticisms He resolves it by saying that they must consult their reason which will satisfy them that the Trinitarian Doctrine is impossible pag. 28. He says We do the same in the Case of Transubstantiation That Protestants must either come over to the Socinians or revolt to Rome That the decision of the Church and the mere Letter of Scripture is against us But if no interpretation of Scripture is admitted but what is consistent with reason both Protestants and Papists must be Socinians The Trinity and Incarnation being more inconsistent with reason than Transubstantiation Now one should be apt to think that when an Author undertakes to face all Mankind that they are mistaken in the sence of a Scripture which they look upon to be the foundation of their Faith and has not only the simple and credulous but the learned and understanding part of the World for ' its Defenders He should bring some reason so clear so plain so self evident that the contrary assertion must appear most unreasonable This Answer has two unpardonable faults 1st The Criticisms on which it is grounded are every one of them false 2ly It supposes that which is to be prov'd the pretended impossibility of the thing The sence of the Church says he cannot be admitted because it is impossible This is still the How can it be If a Revelation is plain and express and if all the Criticisms in the World cannot make it otherwise it is to quarrell with the Almighty It is in so many words the assertion of Dr. Wallis which they have exclaim'd against as an injustice done to them and yet remains still true that God say's The word was God and the word was made Flesh and they say Not
so because they cannot tell how Ans to Dr. Wallis by his Friend pag. 11. 1st For the Criticisms It is a known Maxim amongst the Jews says the Author that the World was made for the Messias and that the Messias should make the new World spoken of in Scripture by the new Heavens and the new Earth that is the Creation of the Spiritual World Granting all this what is it to the question in hand Therefore he is not the Creator of the old World is a strange way of reasoning If they could prove that it is inconsistent to be Creator of both it would do them some service The World was made for the Messias therefore not by the Messias is another wild consequence since the World may be made by him and also for him that is for his honour and exaltation amongst Man as all things are made by God and for God who is the Author and the end of all things These Gentlemen own that the Messias was known to the Jews under the notion of the word But they say it is not certain why they gave him that name This will appear a vast mistake to any one who is never so little acquainted with their Writings It is not my design to stuff these Papers with Jewish citations It shall be done if required But it is clear that they understood the Messias to be the Son of God and that Son to be The word The famous Philo in his Book of Quest and Solut. makes the Deity to consist first of him who is the Father of all things 2ly Of the other Person or God who is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word of the Father He calls him in his Book de agricul The word proceeding from God his first begotten Son In his Book de flamm Glad The word is the instrument of God by whom the world has been created Expressions deriv'd from the old Paraphrasts and Commentators Thus Jonathan renders Isay 45.12 I made the Earth and created man upon it I by my word made the Earth and created man upon it Gen. 3.8 and they heard the voice of the Lord God is explain'd by the Chaldee Paraphrast and they heard the voice of the word of the Lord God Gen. 1.27 and God Created man in his own image the Interpreter reads and the word of God Created man These Paraphrases were the publick interpretations of the Jews and this Doctrine so constant among them and particularly amongst the Hellenists that in the 2d Book of Origen contr Cles The Jew in whose person Celsus disputes owns freely that the word is the Son of God This Author then has neither understood nor appli'd as it ought to be the rule which he has laid down that the Writers of the New Testament had a particular regard to the Opinions and Notions of the Jewish Church and nothing is more visible than this that St. John to prove the Creation of the natural World by Christ and his Eternal being with the Father has brought him under the notion of The word to whom by the constant Doctrine of the Jews and after them of the Fathers the Creation of the natural World was attributed This was one of the Keys to let us into the sence of these words They have another and that is that poor distinction between the God by nature and a God by deputation That the true God is the one that Christ is the other That to find out the God by nature from the God by deputation it is to be observ'd that the one is always call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The God The other only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a God That the very Text in dispute shews it where The word was God is simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an Article and where the word was with God who certainly there is the supreme God is with an Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the God Truly Sir the first Key was worth little but this is worth much less should I take upon me to offer a poor Criticism I would say that if any one looks seriously into the sacred writings he will find that there is no care at all of observing Articles and that of this innumerable instances may be produc'd This distinction has been borrow'd from the Arrians confuted and laugh'd out of doors by the Fathers and is a poor mean miserable shift without the least solidity in the World It is overthrown to all intents and purposes in this very Chapter V. 12. He gave them power to become the Sons of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an Article v. 7. There was a man sent from God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an Article and yet both these undoubtedly spoken of Almighty God V. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man has seen God at any time is without an Article Not to multiply instances of this without end nothing shews more evidently the poverty and deficiency of this Criticism that the God by nature is always exprest with and the false God or the God by deputation without an Article than that Gal. 4.8 9. where the true God is designedly oppos'd to the false he is simply call'd God without an Article Howbeit then when you knew not God you did service to them who by nature are no Gods but now that you have known God or rather are known of God The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is without an Article Nay Rom. 1.1 4. even when God is oppos'd to Christ whom they make a God by office he is then call'd God without any Article at all The Criticism of the Particle by which should have been render'd for is as bad as this I would beg this Author to produce any one Translation extant at this day were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not render'd by him or any before Socinus who ever dreamt of a Gospel state or a spiritual Creation out of these words of St. John I would pray him to reconcile this Particle for with the latter part of this v. and without him was not any thing made that was made and with v. 10. He was in the world and the world was made by him and the world knew him not It is another miserable shift that the new Creation the spiritual World the World of the Messias were things universally known to the Jews and the Primitive Christians converted by them Since it is undeniable that the Jews understood no Creation wrought by the word but the natural nor the Primitive Fathers ever explain'd these words of any other It is strange that this should be so clear to the Jews and to the Fathers and yet that we should not find so much as the footstep of this spiritual and a constant assertion of the natural Creation by the word This Author is so sensible of this that he does not know where to fix the beloved Criticism If you speak says he of the natural World it must be render'd
Consent of the learned World made venerable Essence Substance Hypostasis Generation Spiration Procession And yet these Gentlemen not only pretend to Reason but would so monopolize it to themselves as to make their Adversaries the most unreasonable people in the World Reason in all their Writings is the Word To it the most express Revelation must be made to stoop and God must not be Judge of what he commands man to believe But man assumes to himself to know whether what God commands is agreeable to the Principles of his Reason I know that they would seem to exclaim against this and that in the Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation pag. 1. they complain that they are charg'd with exalting Reason above Revelation They apologize for it in the Observations of Dr. Wallis's Letters pag. 16. But how can this be reconcil'd with this Assertion Considerat on the Explicat of the Doctr. of the Trin. pag. 5. If Heaven and Earth were miraculously destroy'd to confirm an Interpretation which disagrees with the natural and Grammatical sense of the words it will for all that remain a false Interpretation Which in plain English amounts to this that though Heaven contradicts an Interpretation by the most forcible sort of Argument which is a real Miracle and such as the Destruction of the whole World yet if it does not agree with that natural or Grammatical sense which our Reason makes of these words The Miracle will be true but the Interpretation false I am willing to give to Reason all the weight and admiration that it deserves it being the distinguishing Character of man and that by which he ought to be guided in his spiritual and temporal Concerns But there is a rational way of using our Reason which when strain'd beyond its bounds is no more Reason but extravagance and obstinacy When the greatest Authority in the World imposes on us the belief of that which our Reason cannot penetrate or understand It is not the work of Reason to reject it because the Notion is unintelligible and in our imperfect way of Reasoning offers seeming Contradictions But the truest and noblest Exercise of our Reason is to submit to that Authority and when we are satisfy'd that God speaks man is never so rational as when he yields without any inquiry into what he is pleas'd to reveal I say seeming Contradictions for admitting the Divine Revelation no Contradiction can be real We may imagine that indeed it is so because we are men who know very little and in the state of sin and weakness that we are in meet with a thousand obstacles to our perceptions But supposing that God has deliver'd it there can be no such thing as a Contradiction because howsoever I apprehend it it still comes from him who cannot contradict himself The Question once more is not of the Unity of the Divine Nature The Orthodox are as stiff as they in the point The Question is Whether the Trinity of Persons destroys or no the Unity of that Divine Nature The Orthodox must carry it if they can prove that the same God who has reveal'd the one has also reveal'd the other For if he has done this our duty is to adore in an humble silence what we cannot understand and those very Contradictions which we fansie in the thing reveal'd ought only to be to us sensible proofs of our ignorance and deep arguments of humiliation The Socinians then are in a great mistake and instead of writing Books after Books to shew the pretended inconsistencies and contradictions in the Revelation they ought to prove plainly that it is not reveal'd at all For if it clearly appears that it is so the pretended Contradictions must lye at their door but the Revelation will still be safe and certain It is strange that ingenious men who meet with so many things unintelligible in Nature will have nothing to be so in Religion They will submit to Philosophical proofs and Mathematical demonstrations which are at most but natural Evidences and will reject the greatest and most certain Evidence which is Faith Nothing can take them from reasoning and nothing will bring them to believe Whether the thing is is the Question How it is does not at all belong to us How the Father communicates his Essence to the Son How the Holy Ghost proceeds from both How three Persons subsist in the same Divine Nature can be no part of our inquiry If we can but be satisfy'd that God has so reveal'd himself to us that he is God that in that Deity which is one there are three equally adorable Persons we have nothing to do with the How Let us adore and believe the thing and reserve the manner to a better and a happier life where we shall know even as we are also known 1 Cor. 13.12 Those Reverend Persons who out of condescension to querulous men have undertaken to give Explications of the Trinity in Unity never pretended to go further They never thought that this could be Geometrically prov'd They built upon the Revelation and endeavour'd to find every one that way which seem'd to them the aptest to reconcile what these Gentlemen call Contradictions But left the thing it self as incomprehensible and relying on his Authority who reveal'd it The Socinians are not candid in the matter They endeavour to disprove the Athanasian Creed They pretend to answer the late Archbishop the Bishops of Worcester and Sarum They ridicule Dr. Wallis They insult the Dean of Paul's They are rude to Dr. South but still are clamorous about the How can it be and are not serious in proving that it is not These Gentlemen have pretended that by denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost they make the Scripture plain intelligible and obvious to the meanest capacities They think after this to have remov'd all those difficulties which the Clergy call Mysteries but are not so in themselves In the impartial account of the word Mystery pag. 3. By the means of Mystery Divines have made Religion a very difficult thing that is an Art which Christians are not able to understand and thereby they raise themselves above the common Christians and are made necessary to the People improving that Art to their own benefit Passing by the incivility of the reflexion I dare affirm that denying the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit nothing is easie nothing is plain in Religion That the Scripture is the darkest Book that ever was written and that no Christian can find the satisfaction of his mind and the peace of his conscience It may be said with a great deal of truth that the stream of the Scriptures runs that way that the belief of the Holy Trinity and the union of the two natures in Christ is the Key to all difficulties and that distinction so much laught at by these Gentlemen of one thing said of him as God and of another as Man which
groundless and unconceivable Therefore the last must be admitted And this is so much the more rational because the Socinians are Men too learned not to know that the Primitive Writers or to speak the words of a truly great Man of this Nation all the first Writers of the Church of God have expresly attributed the Creation of Man to the Son and have brought in the Father speaking thus to him Let us make Man Not to multiply citations read Orig. cont Cels l. 2. In Gen. 3.22 is another place of the same nature and to the same design The Man is become as one of us to know good and evil I think that custom of Princes has nothing to do here Those little Pedantical evasions are too mean for the weight of the expression If there is but one Person in the Divine Nature how comes the Vs so emphatically Why say those Gentlemen in the page cited Onkelos and Oleaster render the words more truly The Man is become one knowing of himself good and evil Grotius not trusting to this would have God speak here to Angels Thus a groundless supposition is made a solid answer to a translation universally receiv'd before any of these Disputes I humbly conceive that the Irony us'd in that place has no force if the knowledge here spoken of is not that Primitive Essential Knowledge which belongs only to God which Man 's ambitious designs aim'd at and of which neither he nor Angels are capable of v. 5. You shall be as Gods knowing good and evil which is to say just nothing if this consists in the sad experience of his misfortune and not in the rashness of his undertaking The book of Job is certainly a part of the Old Testament and St. Austin in an Epistle to St. Jerom calls Job deservedly a Prophet In the 19.25 26 27. he expresses himself thus I know that my redeemer lives and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth and though after my Skin Worms destroy this body yet in my flesh shall I see God The old Latin Interpreter reads Deum meum my God Whom I shall see for my self and my eyes shall behold and not another I pass over that most solemn and elegant Preface more lasting than the rock on which he wishes the assertion to be written 1st The Holy man draws an argument of comfort in the deepest of his afflictions from the thoughts of another and a better life 2ly He looks upon him who is able to save to the uttermost not only them that come after but all them also who are gone before him 3ly He is satisfi'd that he lives who will redeem him from the pains that he lyes under who knows his innocence because he is the searcher of the hearts 4ly He asserts a final judgment wherein justice will be done to all men who shall rise from their graves and be clothed with flesh to receive it 5ly He avers that he who lives now though invisible will become visible and be their Judge in that great day 6ly He is now only the object of his knowledge and faith but then he shall be the object of his sense He shall see him 7ly He who is now invisible but shall be visible then he calls His God the ground of his hope and indeed of all his confidence This is so positive that it is capable of no allegory but only of a litteral sence That this is spoken of Christ is agreed by the old Rabbins That it is understood of Jesus is the opinion of most Christian Interpreters That that God who is represented here as living according to the noble and usual expression of Scripture which cannot be apply'd to Moses Solomon or any of them who are call'd Gods will stand as a judge and be seen by men in their Flesh and be beheld with their eyes is not the Father is consented to on all hands It must then be the Son who in the union of the two natures is the Redeemer Who as God is known to live and to inhabit Eternity Who in the fullness of Times has appear'd in the flesh and obtained to be at the end of the World the judge of the quick and dead It may be objected to this that Grotius for these Gentlemen look upon an objection not to be answerable if it has but the name of Grotius is positive that the Jews never understood this text of the resurrection of the dead How this learned man comes to be mistaken is strange to me But that he is so may invincibly be made to appear from the body of the Jewish Writers What is taken out of the Book of Psalms to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ has so much the more force because most of it is appli'd to the same purpose by the writers of the New Testament This gives these proofs a double authority and fully determines their sence Nor can any other be put upon them then that in which they are taken by them whom we all acknowledge to be inspir'd This is so natural and carries so much self-evidence along with it that I cannot hear without a deep astonishment Hugo Grotius saying that those Prophecies Non in vim argumenti propriè adhiberi sed ad illustrandam atque confirmandam rem jam creditam That they are not properly arguments to make us believe but a sort of illustrations and confirmations of a truth already believ'd I thought those excesses buri'd long since with Theodore of Mopswest Anathematis'd on that very account by the Fathers of the fifth General Council and Faustus the Manichee so often confounded by St. Austin I was glad to hear Observat on Dr. Wallis's four Letters pag. 16. That those Gentlemen do not profess to follow Socinus but the Scripture that if Socinus has at any time spoken erroneously or unadvisedly or Hyperbolically t is not Socinus who is their Master but Christ yet after all they espouse the same enormity in the brief Hist pag. 16 17. and lay this as a rule Nothing is more usual with the Writers of the New Testament than to apply to the Lord Christ in a mystical or allegorical sence what has been said by the Writers of the Old Testament of God or any other in the litteral and primary sence of the words This they do as often as there is any likeness between the Persons or things or events He that shall read the Thalmud or other Rabbinical Writings will see that the Apostles took this way of Interpreting from the Writers of the Jewish Nation For as often as the Jewish Rabbins met with any event or thing or Person like to what is recorded in some place of the Old Testament they said that place was fullfill'd or was again fullfill'd and accommodated immediately the words of such Scripture to that Person event or thing If this be receiv'd it is a folly to pretend to reason or to dispute First Though there are some Prophecies of Christ which may admit of
be that then in the Messias whom we all acknowledge to be the Holy Jesus which makes the Glory of this latter Temple to exceed that of the former I take this to be the stress of the Question To think that the difference lies in the Building and Architecture as some have fansied of the Temple built afterwards by Herod or even of the duration of this which is the Opinion of some Jews does not deserve any consideration It is said then of the former Temple that the Almighty did appear by a Cloud That he sent a Fire to consume the Sacrifices and this with so great a sence of his Presence that 2 Chron. 5 7. Chapters it is repeated four times that the Glory of the Lord fill'd the House An Argument not only of his approving what they did but even of being himself amongst them How could then the Glory of the second Temple be made greater by the Coming of the Messias For granting that the Spirit of God did inhabit in Christ in a vast measure That he wrought Miracles and pleas'd God by the great Holiness of his Life yet this at most but equals the frequent and glorious appearing of God himself Nothing can justifie the Assertion of the Prophet but this That God in the second Temple is become visible appearing to men in their own Nature That having sent his only Son in the likeness of sinful flesh he has consecrated this second House with his Blood That by assuming our Nature he has made good his Promises and shew'd himself glorious not only in a small corner of the Earth and for a short time but establish'd an endless Kingdom and procur'd ro men an incomprehensible Glory Hence Christ is call'd by David Psal 23.7 The King and by the Apostle 1 Cor. 2.8 The Lord of Glory two of the most High God's Qualifications The Author of the Brief Hist has taken no notice of this place but the Lord Bishop of Sarum having made use of it in a Book or Sermon which I have not seen I find that what they say to it Considerat on the Explicat of the Doctr. of the Holy Trin. pag. 24 25. amounts to this 1st That my Lord is mistaken to think the word Glory in the second Temple alludes to the Cloud of Glory in the first 2ly that My Lord has added His to the Text led to it by that chimerical mistake 3ly That the meaning is plain They have built as well as they could considering the streight they were in But that God in due time will cause this house to be more magnificent even then that built by Solomon 4ly That admitting My Lord's opinion that God has appear'd in the Person of our Saviour in whom the Majesty of God dwelt Bodily the Temple would not be more glorious than any other place where Christ resorted But particularly because Christ never enter'd into the Temple 5ly That this Prophecy was fullfill'd in the rebuilding of the second Temple by Herod To the 1st I say that the sacred writer in speaking of the Glory of the second Temple must allude to the cloud of Glory of the first or else he is not intelligible This is evident if the Glory of the first Temple has no other foundation then the appearing of God in the cloud of Glory But that it is so is undenyable since all the excellence of a building of that nature consists neither in the magnificence of the structure nor the rarity and beauty of the pieces of which it is made But only in God's acceptation The burning bush was certainly more glorious then the palace of the Pharao's The cloud of Glory was a sign that God was pleas'd with the erecting of a House which himself had required Therefore the cloud of Glory was the true and principal Glory of the first House That it is so of the second appears from that magnificent preface of shaking the Heavens and the earth and of bringing in the desire of the Nations and then the promise of filling the House with Glory This proves invincibly that as God appearing in the cloud of Glory was the Glory of the first so the appearing of the Messias the desire of the Nations was the Glory of this second House To the 2d then The Bishop did not undeservedly add the word His but follow'd the sence of the words For if God's appearing in the Cloud made it His Glory His appearing in the Messias must make it His Glory too To the 3d. It is altogether wide of the question 1st The Glory of the Lord was not only visible to the Priests and Ministers of the Altar but to all the Children of Israel 2. Chr. 7.3 2ly It was not only in the Holy of Holies or where the Priests Minister'd but it was upon the house Thus Christ the Glory of the second house appear'd to all the people and did those Miracles which no Man can do except God be with him Joh. 2.3 3ly It is visible that the Glory promis'd to the Temple is not so much to the Temple it self as to the time of its standing since the Temple it self was to be destroy'd A substantial observation and strangely overlook'd by these Gentlemen That time was to be more glorious by bringing in a dispensation of Eternal righteousness By putting an end to all Types and Figures By fullfilling of God's Promises by introducing into the World the desire of the Nations Heb. 12.27 And this word once more signifies the removing of those things that are shaken as of things that are made that those things which cannot be shaken may remain To the 4th It deserves no answer These Gentlemen are positive in things which are really very disputable The modern Jews may be of their opinion The Ancient were not That Herod the Great rebuilt the second Temple is assur'd by them but flatly deny'd by Josephus Ant. Jud. lib. 15. c. 14. They say that it is confess 't by all to have excell'd that of Solomon But this is flatly contradicted by several learned Men and I think to the purpose by Villapandus Tom. 3. in Ezech. In a word These Gentlemen imagine in the place before cited that this noble Prophecy amounts to no more than this ..... We have not so much Money as Solomon but we have done what we can God will provide us more and then we shall do better Consid pag. 24. How can Men of sence and learning espouse such comical Interpretations If they are in earnest what must we think of them And if they are not let them consider that God is not to be mock't The whole Prophecy of Zechariah seems to have no other end but to discover the Messiah to the World His Divine nature is so fully express't in the second Chapter that it is above the reach of any little Criticisms or evasions whatsoever The four first verses announce to Jerusalem that it shall be built again and to its people that they shall inhabit it The 6
the person promis'd by the Holy Prophets ever since the world began In the History of his passion he shews that he has suffer'd nothing but what was foretold by the Spirit of God The casting lots on his vesture v. 24. The calling for drink v. 28. That the scripture says the Evangelist might be fullfill'd And immediately before the Text in dispute For these things were done that the Scripture should be fullfill'd What is to interpret a Prophecy but to shew its accomplishment how can God better justify his servants the Prophets then by fullfilling visibly what they have foretold Malachy is another witness of that sacred truth which God has deliver'd to Mankind Mat. 3.1 I will send my Messenger and he shall prepare the way before me And the Lord whom you expect shall suddenly come to his Temple That by the Lord who is to come to his Temple God is understood is agreed by all Interpreters Parallel to this is Isay 40.3 The voice of him that cryes in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord Make strait in the desert a high way for our God The learned Rabbins Maimon and Kimchi are positive that this Prophecy regards none but the Messiah St. Jerom affirms in Mal. 3.1 that the old Jews were of the same mind This is put out of doubt by the anthority of the New Testament The sacred Writers understanding one part of the Prophecy of John the Baptist and the other of Christ Matt. 11.10 Mark 1.2 Luk. 1.76 and 7.27 The Lord then is God who should come to his Temple It is our God to whom the way was to be prepar'd But both these are said of Christ by the testimony of the Evangelists and the consent of the Jewish Writers Therefore Christ is the Lord Christ is our God The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 22. brings again the rare notion of God coming by his Ambassador Jesus of which we have taken notice already He has another singular imagination and would have this to be said of Nehemias But this being without any warrant reason example or authority of any note does not deserve a reply Many more Texts might be added to these But a letter must not swell into a volume and I am affraid I have been already too tedious to you But yet before I conclude you must give me leave to say by way of Appendix to what has been laid before you that of all those Gentlemens answers none is so weak so insufficient and short of the thing propos'd as that to an objection of the Dean of Pauls that Socinianism makes the Jewish Oeconomy unreasonable and unaccountable Observat On Dr. Sherlock's Ans pag. 45. and foll I have not seen the Dean's Book and I take what they make him say upon their own credit But there is more even in that than has been or can be answer'd They call it Trifling But upon the least consideration it must be own'd that the answer and not the objection is the trifle The Dean says that if Christ were no more then a meer Man the Antitype should fall very short of the Types contain'd in the Old Testament that is the Figures should far excel that of which they are Figures and Moses his dispensation should be far more glorious than that of Christ which if it be not an absurdity nothing in the world can be absurd I will presume to add to what the Dean says that this is visible For how can it be conceiv'd that the Old Testament is an introduction to the New That from the Creation of the World to the coming of Christ every thing every person every institution or transaction should be a Figure That Moses should be a Figure the Temple a Figure in a word that whole dispensation a Figure which are all the assertions of the Fathers and yet deny'd by no Christians and yet all this so magnify'd by the Prophets look'd upon with such an expectation by the Jews even reverenc'd by the Heathen attested by God himself who at sundry times and in divers manners speaking to the Fathers by the Prophets has at last spoke to us by his own Son That those splendid promises those stupendous miracles those incomprehensible methods of the Almighty those repeated raptures and discoveries of the Prophets those mighty characters of him that was to come That all this should end in the appearing of a meer Man who by the Holiness of his Life should be acceptible to God is in the modest terms of the Dean very unaccountible It is a great truth that nothing can so effectualy ridicule the Jewish dispensation as this The Answerer has said nothing to this and has not so much as taken notice of it And indeed he is to be commended the objection is great and substantial It does not lye within the reach of a small criticism and comparing a Text or two together and then saying How can this be The Dean of Pauls having laid this principle of twenty instances which he might have given has chosen this of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle or in the Temple by the visible symbols of his presence He argues from thence very rationally that the God who fills Heaven and earth with his presence must have prefigur'd something more Divine and mysterious by dwelling in a house made with hands He urges that a Typical presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real presence and God's personal dwelling amongst Men Nothing answering to a Figurative visible presence of God but a personal visible presence All this is just and coherent He says that the Man Corist Jesus was really the Temple which the Divinity chose to inhabit The Antitype of that Temple where God made himself visible That Christ with a great deal of reason call'd his body a Temple since God did appear so eminently in him All this is so true that they have not one word to say to it Their exclaiming against Allegories and the instance of the Ark are wide of the thing The prodigious inclination of the Israelites to Idolatry being the reason of the visible Symbols of God's Presence is a new and at best a slender notion The Metaphorical expression of the Apostle to the Corinthians that they are the Temple of God is nothing to the purpose I dare to say that if the Dean had gone no farther all had been without exception But he does and urges a personal union by saying that without it the body of Christ had been no more then a Figurative Temple as the other was that is the Figure of a Figure which is unsufferable This will not prove a contriving of Types and Figures of cold and groundless Allegories as they call it if they are pleas'd but to consider from all the Texts examin'd before that God had promis'd to appear and that all these promises imply a personal appearance If this can be prov'd as I humbly conceive that it has where lyes the difference between a personal appearance
that Father who also writ before these disputes and shews the sence of the Eastern Church that in Jesus those expressions are to be found which belong to none but him who is born before any creature such as is I am the way the truth and the life others again which belong to none but to Man such as is but now you seek to kill me a Man who has told you the truth The firstborn here then is not the must beloved though understood so by the Hebrews and Hellenists in several places nor in respect of the Resurrection from the Dead as St. Paul calls him or in relation to his dignity as David is stil'd Ps 68.27 but in regard of his antemundane existence of his Eternal nature according to his Divinity say both Origen and Tertullian Nor indeed can it be otherwise For by him were all things created The first born can have here no other sence then born before all created beings Or else how could all things have been created by him He is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the great and holy Archbishop of Milan that by the words born and begotten he may be distinguisht and excluded from all that is made or created The Apostle not only asserts his creating power and his actual excercise of that power in general by saying that he has created all things but he also descends to a most exact enumeration of created beings Those that are in Heaven those that are in earth those that are visible those that are invisible even the Heavenly Hierarchy Thrones Dominions Principalities and Powers He repeats it again with this addition that as Christ is the beginning he is also the end of all Creatures the Alpha and the Omega a name which God alone assumes He gives a being to all that is and none is but by him But at the same time himself is the end of all their operations It is for his glory that they are created All things are created by him and for him He sums up the whole and asserts anew that he exists before any thing created and by him what is created is preserv'd And he is before all things and by him all things consist I wish these Gentlemen would shew me the difference between these last words and by him all things consist and those of the Apostle Act 17.28 in him we live and move and have our being which they own to be spoken of the Almighty I would beg of them to tell me whether any part of Scripture even the 1st of Genesis is more exact more litteral more circumstantiated then this I pray them if this be not a real Creation and a real Creator to let the World know by what plainer terms they can be inform'd I shall be thankful to any who will satisfy me substantially whether any thing that is said here can agree with the Son of Mary if he has no existence but that of the nature which he had of his Mother I protest I am asham'd to repeat what the Author of the Brief Hist calls an answer to this pag. 38. 1st He says That Christ is call'd the first born of every Creature not absolutely as if he was in being before all other Creatures but the meaning is he is the first born from the dead of all God's Creatures .... that thus in this very context is the first born explain'd v. 18. That Christ is call'd in the 18. v. the first born from the dead is freely acknowledg'd not only for the reason alledg'd by them that he rose to dye no more but many other more solid which they have not exprest for fear they should interfere with the belov'd System But what is this to the purpose Christ is the first-born all the wayes that the word can be understood in He is the first-born from the dead because the first of all Men he rose from Death to Life after so miraculous a manner He is the first-born of every Creature because he exists before any created being I deny that the 18. v. has any relation to this The design of the Apostle is to shew that Christ in all things has the pre-eminence He has it in the natural order of things because he is superior and antecedent to them He is born before all Creatures He has it in the Mystical and spiritual order because he is the head of the body the Church He is the beginning the source of all Grace He is the foundation of our peace He is the first born from the dead the first and great instance the visible assurance of that glorious immortality God has promis'd to our obedience But it is a fallacy usual in these Gentlemen's Writings to reason à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter to turn a particular into a general interpretation But 2ly says the Author of the Brief Hist in the page cited these words for by him were all things creâ—â—ed are not spoken of Christ but of God I commend them to own that those things can be said of none but God This in their own confession proves Christ to be God for all this is said of him What Have these Gentlemen receiv'd from above a power to put out People's Eyes and to invert the sence of all Mankind The contents lye thus Who God has deliver'd us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son in whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of Sins Who is the image of the invisible God the first born of every Creature For by him were all things created that are in Heaven .... All things are created by him and for him and he is before all things ... and he is the head of the body the Church c. I say what I have said before Let this be read to ten thousand Men and I give up the cause if any one of them who is not quite void of sence does not confess that this is spoken of the Son The mistake of those Gentlemen is so much the worse because it is willfull the Particles us'd here which join the whole and make it all of a piece and for by rendring it altogether impossible 3ly The Author says again that the most learned and Critical of our Interpreters do not think that Creation is in this attributed to Christ He cites some mordern and even some Fathers who do not read Created but Modell'd The sence which he makes is this That the Lord Christ is said to Model or order all things on Earth because of the great change he has introduc'd abolishing Judaism and Paganism and introducing Christianity in their stead He new order'd or modell'd the Thrones ..... and other Angelical Orders in Heaven in that he became their King and their Head whereas before the were immediately under God and gives them from time to time such Orders as to him seems good Thus that ingenious Man flyes from branch to branch without finding
men The visible and glorious appearance of God amongst Men. God then is become visible in Christ Jesus The word the Eternal God has made the human nature of Chirst the Tabernacle where he shews himself to Men. 2ly That appearance is call'd by the Greeks glory for so the septuagint so all the sacred Writers in the New Testament render it Exod. 40.34 Numb 16.42 1 Sam. 4.22 2. Chron. 5.14 Ibidem 7.1 Isay 6.1 Joh. 12.41 Matt. 25.31 Mark 8.38 Luk. 2.9 Therefore as a proof of this appearance of God in the Flesh St. John adds and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father Wherein the Particle as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a Comparison but an Explanation of that glory And we have seen him present amongst us with such declarations from Heaven such a train of stupendous miracles with such a glory as could become none but the only begotten Son of God I have been somewhat large on this place because it is home to the question those Texts being decisive and staring in one's face These Gentlemen are sensible of it and have turn'd their Answers into several shapes and still with a kind of mistrust owning and disowning taking up and laying down again sometimes opposing the litteral sence and sometimes obtruding a poor miserable Allegory The Author of an Answer to a letter of Dr. Wallis by his Friend touching the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity consults in the letter one of these Gentlemen who gives him several explications of this place The first is that which he calls the ancient Orthodox sence at the Council of Nice and afterwards of some centuries The second of the Modern Orthodox The third that of the Arrians All pag. 9. The fourth is attributed to Paul of Antioch as he remembers it somewhere related by Melanchton which he owns to be uncouth and strange pag. 10. and the Socinian interpretation to be forc't and unnatural because says he we have inbib'd from our youth and even from our Cathechism contrary Expositions The first is that of Grotius pag. 11. who being the only Man of reputation who has lent them Allegories is upon every occasion call'd great and illustrious He concludes by saying I think I have said enough to convince any Man that is not extremely prejudic't that this is an obscure Scripture For as every one of those sences finds some specious grounds in the Text so never a one of them can clearly answer all the Objections that are levied against them and that of the Trinitarians least of all It is then a Text which in his opinion cannot be explain'd This indeed is strange to a high degree that a Writer divinely inspir'd an Evangelist who lays the foundation of a Faith once deliver'd to the Saints and which we are all oblig'd to embrace is by no means to be understood It is also very odd that this should have seem'd clear to all the Ages before and even to all the Christian Churches of this Age which all agree in this though they differ in other points and it should be dark and obscure now to this Gentleman Admirable that some particular Wits should be made now so different from all Mankind as to see what all the World before has not seen and not to see what has been seen by all the World before He tells his Friend further That Dr. Wallis has not done like a Divine but like a censorious he will not say a malicious Person when he Dr. Wallis says if God says The word was God and The word was made flesh shall we say Not so only because we cannot tell how As if these sayings were so clear that they admitted no sence but his He runs on in the difference between the word taken personally which he says is but seldom and impersonally which he says is very often He concludes That they have reason to complain of forc't interpretations depriving God of an incommunicable Attribute even his Unity and of defending their interpretations with sad distinctions between the Essence and the Divine Persons the threefold manner of Existence in God Hypostatical Union Communication of Properties c. This Gentleman is not sensible that he himself justifies Dr. Wallis And that instead of a censorious he represents him like a candid Man when he tells them that is the How can it be that they dispute against Have they not been perpetually minded that we preserve inviolably the unity of God That Three Persons subsist in one Divine Nature because that one God has reveal'd it to be so Let them deny the Revelation if they can But as long as they are angry with the Expositions of the Church concerning how it is The Doctor is in the right it is the How can it be that they quarrel with and upon which they deny the whole But after all this what should we say if this Gentleman who finds this chapter of St. John so obscure and the Catholick interpretation the most unreasonable of all with never so little help should find the one clear and the other highly rational He has himself shew'd us the way in the same Letter pag. 9. The consulting Friend reading to him the Drs. Letter he comes to this place John 1.1 and the 14. The word was God and The Word was made Flesh This says the Gentleman who was consulted were to the purpose If by this term The word could be meant nothing else but a Pre-existent Person and by the term God nothing but God Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth and if taking those terms in those sences did not make St. John speak nonsence and if by Flesh could be meant nothing but a Man how excellent soever and not a Mortal Man subject to infirmities but all these things are otherwise Will this Gentleman stand to this Will the Author of the Brief History and the Answer to Mr. Milbourn and the humble adorers of Grotius his strain'd and Allegorical Explications put the thing upon this issue 1st He does not deny the word to signify a Person but only a Pre-existent Person Nor can he deny him to be pre-existent since he was before all things began to be since by him all things were made 2ly He cannot deny that the term God is meant of the Almighty since the God with whom the word was is undoubtedly the Almighty and the word being said here to be God and God being but one the word must be that Almighty God 3ly He will not offer to deny that the term Flesh here is nothing but our human Nature and that the word made Flesh implies the word being made Man This Author then has plainly answer'd himself and ruin'd all that he pretended to say to his Friend But as for this strange sort of an If and if says he taking those terms in these sences did not make St. John to speak nonsence I will pray him to take to himself what the Author of an Answer to
effectually as that place Isay 44.6 I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God This Text is of the New as well as of the Old Testament St. John begins his Revelation by wishing us peace from him which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty Nor indeed can we have a clearer notion of that supreme being which we call God than that he exists before and after all things v 8. I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending says the Lord which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty This is a Title which nothing that is Created can pretend to and an Explication of the Sacred Name Jehovah which in the sence of the Hebrews extends to all the durations imaginable and shews that in the change of all things he is permanent and incapable of alteration This suppos'd I conceive it obvious that if Christ assumes that name to himself if he says of himself that he is the Alpha and Omega The first and the last If he often takes that Title willing to be known by it making it the ground of a solid encouragement to his Disciples in their Sufferings for his sake and if what he says can reasonably be diverted to no other sence it cannot be deny'd that he is God with the Father To see whether this is true read Rev. 1.11 I am Alpha and Omega the first and the last v. 17. Fear not I am the first and the last Rev. 22.13 I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last and because these Gentlemen are so fond of Articles and build such mighty things upon them all this is spoken with the same Articles as in v. 8. when it is spoken of Almighty God Which though in truth and reality is no proof at all yet it is so to them who lay so great a stress upon it I will add two remarks to this The 1st is that acclamation which in both Testaments is made to none but God v. 6. to him be Glory and dominion for ever and Chap. 5.13 and every creature which is in Heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea and all that are in them heard I saying Blessing honour glory and power to him that sitteth on the Throne and to the lamb for ever The 2d is that admirable description made of Christ Rev. 19. which tells us v. 13. that he has a vesture dip't in blood and that his name is the word of God that Eternal word which Grotius owns created the World and all that is in it which was made Flesh and this same Prophet says washt us in his own blood after he had taken our nature upon him who has on his vesture and on his thigh a name written King of Kings and Lord of Lords a title which belongs to none but God which none but the Almighty can assume He alone being the source of power and from whom all other power is deriv'd All this the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 44. pretends to evade by saying that v. 11. is not in the Latin nor in any good Greek Copy It is true that it is not in the Latin and that it is wanting in some few Greek Copies But being that it is in so many other places in all the Greek and Latin Manuscripts It is disingenuous to accuse this particular place and a candid opposer should have judg'd that it can be Attributed to nothing but the neglect of the Transcriber It is in all the aforesaid places and besides Rev. 2.8 spoken by him who was dead and is alive who lives and was dead and is alive for evermore A second Evasion and really much worse than the first is what he says pag. 20. of the Brief Hist to the 17. v. That Christ is the first and most honourable with good Men and the last the most despis'd by bad Men. He cites for this Hugo Cardinalis from whom Grotius and Erasmus have borrow'd it It is very diverting to see a learned Man as the Author of this History to cite in these disputes Hugo Cardinalis but what if the Cardinal if Grotius if Erasmus have understood these words in a manner so contrary to their real and natural sence I ask what is it to the matter in hand Is it less true because Erasmus and Grotius say that it is not so Will these Gentlemen be contented if instead of these three names we produce three hundred of a contrary Opinion a whole Body of Scripture Interpreters who understand the words in their litteral sence Briefly says the Author again pag. 21. Both Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ are the first and the last but in different sences Why does he not alledge those sences What corner of the Earth hides the precious Treasure A Text is produc't which is express cogent self-evident liable to no little Criticisms A title Attributed to Christ in its utmost latitude without any exception or restriction capable of no reasonable sence but the literal and instead of a substantial answer they tell us that a certain Author understands it so and so that it is capable of different sences and so bid us good night Thus any shift is made an Answer and a bare assertion becomes an Argument I have often endeavour'd to find out what might be the cause of so unfair a dealing in an Author who is certainly a Man of learning and is as sensible as my self that the Interpretation of Hugo is ridiculous and impertinent and that a general Allegation is no Answer The true reason I take to be this They have espous'd this notion that the Trinity and Incarnation are contradictory and impossible read this Author pag. 44 45. that is not so much the thing as the manner The How can it be Thus when we who are satisfy'd that if the thing is plainly and clearly reveal'd it becomes the object of our Faith and excludes any further inquiry into the manner when we bring those Texts on which no impression can be made by denying a word excepting against a Translation exclaiming against an Article or a punctuation citing any orthodox who by chance favours their explication of some particular Text though otherwise an utter Enemy to their Doctrine they leave no stone unturn'd But when a Text is alledg'd which as this stares in the face then any thing will serve they think that their strength is to sit still and rather say nothing then not to the purpose What they say to this place Rev. 19.16 King of Kings and Lord of Lords is of the same nature It is not only a magnificent description of the Almighty but a notion also so universal so innate to all Mankind that from this the most illiterate see the necessity of their Obedience to his Laws The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 44. says to this that Christ is so Lord of Lords as
Divinity of Christ are parties in the case even by the confession of our Adversaries and so not to be heard But in this it is visible even to the most zealous Socinian that he has grosly and shamelesly corrupted this Text. The word God not being in the Text is really an objection but if truely consider'd rather confirms than weakens the assertion For the only Lord can no more be restrain'd to Christ exclusively to the Father than the only true God can be restrain'd to the Father exclusively to Christ The word God adds nothing to the force of the expression The only Lord being a Phrase of as large an extent and as full an importance as the only true God This takes off at once all the other Texts depending from this on which this Author has so much insisted 1 Cor 8.6 Eph. 4.4 5 6. 1 Tim. 2.5 c. A 2d objection which indeed this Author has not made though he has scarce left a Text untouch't whether it made for his purpose or no and was a reason or only look't like one but is made by the Author of some thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Trininy is taken from Joh. 10.35 36. If he call'd them Gods unto whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of him whom the Father has sanctify'd and sent into the world thou blasphemest because I say'd I am the Son of God He does not say I whom the Father has begotten from all Eternity says the Author pag 4. of his own substance But I whom the Father has sanctify'd Which plainly shews that when he says he was the Son of God his meaning was that he was only so in a sence of consecration and of mission and consequently that his unity with the Father is not an Essential and natural unity but meerly moral and relative of works not of Essence which is really incommunicable pag. 6. I should think this passage written with the very finger of truth to be unanswerable were it not that I know the Orthodox are wont to darken the most bright light at the cost of sincerity and good sence and make no scruple of the grossest contradictions and absurdities so they may but cast dust in the Eyes of simple men Passing by the complement which is of a singular nature and a barbarous aspersion on persons whom they themselves own to have an extraordinary piety and learning I must beg leave to admire the difference of Men's perceptions This Author thinks this passage to be written with the very finger of truth and not to be answerable I think so too But he says against the Eternal being of Christ and I saw for it The cause of this difference between us lyes here He fancies that those Verses are an Explication of what Christ had said before v. 30. I and my Father are one for which v. 31. the Jews took up stones to stone him and which v. 33. they call Blasphemy and because that he being a man makes himself God and that to avoid their anger he declares to them that he is no otherwise God than those very Men who by their law are call'd Gods not because they are so indeed but because they have the Power and Authority of God communicated to them Now I think that these words are not an Explication Excuse or Apology for what he had said I and the Father are one But an open and free continuation of what was before and a new assertion of his Divinity This will appear if the whole context is taken together Christ had said v. 9. that he is the door that by him if any man enters he shall be sav'd Agreeable to this expression of Revel 7.3 He that is holy he that is true ... he that opens and no man shuts and shuts and no man opens v. 28. that he gives his sheep Eternal life and that they might not wonder at those Characters which can agree to no creature he carries yet the point higher He tells them v. 30. I and my Father are one That though they see him in the form of a Servant and in all things like Man yet he is God with his Father and partaker of the same Divine Nature This assertion to Men whose hearts were not purify'd by Faith seem'd strange and impious v. 31. They took stones to stone him He tells them with that unconcernedness which truth and innocence gives that he has done amongst them many miraculous works to prove this his Union with his Father He asks which of these works has provok'd their blind zeal to stone him They answer him v. 33. that it is not for any of those good and miraculous works But because being but a man he makes himself not A. God but God He does not at all excuse the thing or parts with his first assertion He pities but not fear their malice and uses a plain and forcible Argument to instruct them Though the name of God be Sacred and the most reverend appellation in the World yet your law says Christ will allow it to them who speak to you from him If it be so then and you cannot deny it because it is writen in your law Ps 82.6 I have say'd ye are Gods If Men are sometime allow'd to be call'd Gods How much more may I make my self God and this without the least danger of Blasphemy who am above any thing that is created to whom every Knee must bow of things in Heaven and things in the Earth and things under the Earth Whom the Father has sanctify'd not only by a peculiar designation as a King or a Prophet but by an Eternal Communication of his nature by which He and I are one and so sent me into the World to save you and the rest of Mankind If I did not do the works which none but the Son of God can do you might have some ground not to believe me But as long as I do these miraculous works it is to you a sufficient argument of perswasion You ought to believe that the Father is in me and I in him v. 38. That the Jews understood this answer litterally as they had done the allegation That they did not take it as an Apology for the pretended Blasphemy but a further proof of his being one with the Father appears by their not relenting but v. 39. Therefore they sought again to take him but be escap't out of their hands I beg leave then of this Author and of Calvin whom he has cited blaming the Fathers for misapplying this Text to say that the Fathers were in the right and that nothing can be more obvious than this It will be much confirm'd if we consider that this is not the only time that the Jews quarrell'd with Christ upon the same account and he always answer'd not by denying but justifying the assertion Mark 2.5 He tells one who was brought to him Sick of the Palsy Thy sins be forgiven thee v. 7.
and born before any created substance but the Father who has begot him Nor can any know the Father after the same manner but his living word who is both his wisdom and truth I remain SIR Your humble c. THE Fourth LETTER SIR HAving prov'd the Pre-Existence and Pre-Eternity of Christ his Antemundane and Eternal Being with God before he assum'd our Nature and shew'd how deficient or to use the very words of your Friends in the Brief Hist pag. 23. how harsh and strain'd their answers seem to be to the Texts produc't against them it remains to make good that Christ is God by a communication of the Divine Essence and that the Scriptures represent him to be God after a manner applicable to no Creature The first of these two assertions is grounded on Phil. 2.6 and foll v. The Apostle proposes Christ to the Philippians as a Divine instance of Humility and Obedience He makes both to consist in this that being really God and equal with God yet he made himself of no reputation but became Man and humbl'd himself to the Death of the Cross The words of the Text are clearer than any Commentary v. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God The form of God is here the Nature and Essence of God For though in some other places of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Form signifies no more than an Image or a personal appearance yet in this it is determin'd to this sence of Nature and Essence by the next Verse where the form of a Servant is certainly the Nature and Essence of a Servant The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subsisting rather than being in the form of God as these Gentlemen will not deny that it should have been translated implies a real and an actual in-being in the Divine Nature St. Paul having asserted that Christ subsisted in the form of God says that he thought it not robbery to be equal with God an expression which crumbles to dust the poor notion of a God by deputation as Socinus has contriv'd and an inferior though an excellent God as Arrius For what inferior or deputed God dares claim an equality with the God of Heaven and Earth audet pariari Deo says Tertullian What Moses Solomon what Lord Lieutenant of a County or Mayor of a Town because the Scripture calls Magistrates Gods would pretend it to be no robbery to equal themselves with God The excessive humility of Christ appears then in this that though God and equal with God yet v. 7. He made himself of no reputation semetipsum exinanivit reads the Old Latin exhausted himself says Tertullian contr Marci more agreeable to the Original he lessen'd he empty'd himself He took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men both so Highly Disproportionate to the Infinite Being of God v. 8. He carry'd yet the humiliation to a more stupendious degree For being found in fashion as a man he humbl'd himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross There is then not only a plain assertion but a visible Union of the two Natures There is a God becoming a Servant and a Man and suffering for us in that humanity which he was pleas'd to assume The Author of the Brief History pag. 37. excepts against this He says 1st That it cannot be the design of the former part of these words to intimate that Christ is God because 't is added at last that God has exalted him and given him a name that is above every name These words plainly distinguish Christ from God as one who is not himself God but exalted by God 2ly That this has oblig'd several judicious and learned Trinitarians to interpret the whole Context of Christ as he is a Man 3ly He explains pag. 38. being in the form of God only to be like God by a communication of the Divine Power 4ly He does not translate as we do thought it not robbery to be equal with God but committed not robbery to be equal with God i. e. did not rob God of his honour by arrogating to himself to be God The Answerer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 36. and foll says almost the same things only he brings in a Tale and a Proverb The Tale is of a Countryman who without a remnant of Greek or Latin did yet puzzle his Vicar by asking whether It was in the Original whether the true reading was thought it not robbery or only thought not robbery to which last the Vicar yielding the Countryman was satisfy'd that this Text did destroy the Divinity of Christ The Proverb is that every like is not the same and therefore that since Christ was in the form of God that is like God as Adam and all other Men he cannot be God He says further that it is both Morally and Physically impossible that God should do any of these things and undergo any of these changes He observes and that Socinus had done before that if Christ is equal with God he cannot be God since nothing can be equal to it self He cites Christopher Sandius who has made a considerable Collection of Authors Fathers as well as modern who confess that this Text is to be understood of Christ as Man and not as God The Answerer to two Discourses of one Monsieur la Motté done out of French repeats all this in other words Only he is so confident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be translated thought it not robbery that pag. 11. he sends us to the School Boys and pag. 8. to the Lexicon I hope they are Persons of too much judgment to take this for an Answer that Christ is not God because God has exalted him and God cannot exalt God For all that is or ever was pretended from thence is not that God has exalted God But God has exalted that humane nature that Man Christ Jesus assum'd by the word to the participation of the honour due to God That other sort of reasoning is as bad as this that if he is equal with God He cannot be God because nothing can be equal to it self I suppose they mean because equality implies comparison and comparison excludes identity This is certainly false in Geometry and false again in Divinity But admitting the Proposition as it lyes It is nothing at all to the Question The design of the Apostle is not to compare Christ with God or a God with another God But only to shew that Christ is that supreme God who humbled himself to that degree as to take upon him the form of a Servant Now what more significant sort of expression could be us'd than this that though he was God and had reason to think all the perfections and glory of the Divine Nature to be his own which is the full and only importance of being equal with God yet he humbl'd himself to death c. I hope also that they are
not in earnest when they bring Sandius with his Catalogue of most Learned and Judicious Trinitarians since they cannot be ignorant that All the Greek Fathers concern'd in this dispute who understood I hope their own language better than any of us It being more than highly probable that the Author of the Brief History and of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn who are really accurate Writers can give a far better account of any English Phrase now in use and better understand the extent and importance of it than a Frenchman or a Dutchman who though never so Learned and Judicious will twelve or thirteen hundred Years hence Criticise Paraphrase and give another sence to that Phrase than what they gave themselves since I say all the Greek Fathers who understood the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thought these words an undoubted and clear testimony of Christ's Divinity The natural impossibility of the thing is an old objection made to Lactantius and confuted by that Father Negant Deo dignum ut Homo fieri vellet .... ut passionibus ut doloribus sese ipse subjiceret They deny that it is worthy of God to become man and subject himself to Grief and Sufferings This is the constant mothod of these Gentlemen always to return to the How can it be It is not so because it is impossible We say it is possible because it is so and it is so because it is reveal'd It is dinsingenuous to be ever parting from the point in Question which is the Revelation to the manner of the thing it self which is above our reach All these things consider'd which really are not worth answering may not I have the liberty to tell your Friends what they said to Monsieur la Motté pag. 10. T' is a very thin Sophistry this when an Author leaves off to speak to the vulgar and would needs undertake in this very passage Phil. 2.6 7 8. to speak to the learned he should bring something more substantial to blind such Eyes as theirs In short the stress of the difficulty lies here Whether to be in the form of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Signifies the nature or only the likeness of God such as Adam and all other Men have And whether the Translation is right thought it not robbery to be equal with God That the form of God is the Divine Essence is evinc't from the Authority of the Greek Fathers Theodoret Basil St. Chrysostom Theophilact who not only spoke their own language but were Men of an admirable Eloquence and purity of speech And indeed if we consider the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subsisting it cannot be otherwise It is against all the rules of Philosophy of sence of Speech if form is no more than an accidental form to use the word subsisting which implies of it self a communication participation or in-being in the same nature To say that a Man subsists in the form of a Man is not to say that he is like other Men or has the figure of a Man but that he is really a Man that he has human nature communicated to him To pretend that the form of God is only a communication of a Divine power of miracles c. If this flows from a communication of Essence as Matt. 28.18 All power is given me in Heaven and in earth Joh. 14.10 The Father that dwells in me he does the works Act. 2.22 Jesus of Nazareth a man approv'd of God amongst you by miracles .... which God did by him in the midst of you is a notion tolerable though very improper But if it is only a communication of a power foreign to us to which we have no relation and in which we are only instrumental such as was in Moses in the Prophets and Apostles is a ridiculous notion To subsist in a miraculous power that is to be a miraculous power is an irrational and unintelligible way of speaking The Great Erasmus then and the Illustrious Grotius from whom they have borrow'd this Explication are greatly and Illustriously mistaken To deal with candor I humbly beg what sence can be made of this Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus who being in the form of God a Man made in the similitude of God as other Men are yet became Man for your sakes To say that Christ making himself of no reputation was the concealing of his Miracles as these Gentlemen interpret it is unreasonable and contrary to the Gospel His miraculous Birth of a Virgin his Star in the East his being reveal'd to the Shepherds by the Angels his being Preach't by the Baptist God owning him for his Son his doing good amongst all Men his miraculous works the raising of Lazarus The prodigious Eclipse at his Death the continual attendance of the multitudes upon him made him the most Famous Person in the World The Gospel wholly contradicts the injurious assertion Matt. 4.24 Matt. 9.31 and 14.1 Luk. 1.15 Mark 1.28 That thought it not robbery to be equal with God is truly translated I have this to Offer 1st That the Generality of the Latin Fathers render'd it thus and that no exception was made against it by the Arrians to whom they produc't this Text. 2ly That all the publick Authentick and receiv'd translations read it as we do 3ly That the It which this sharp-nos'd Countryman smelt to be wanting in the Text adds nothing to its force and that thought no robbery is as home to the question as thought it not robbery since the natural sence of the words the very first impression which they naturally give is that Christ did not think to be a Robber Guilty of Theft and Injustice in equalling himself to God The other being strain'd a sence of yesterday and invented in these latter times to serve a turn 4ly That the first part of the Verse who subsisting in the form of God makes that sence impossible for if he subsisted in the form or nature of God how could he who was God arrogate to himself to be God 5ly That the translation of these Gentlemen committed not robbery by equalling himself with God is a most notorious falsification of a Text. I will not send them to School Boys and Lexicons to know the sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Civility and Breeding must never be Banish't from the hottest disputes I will only say en passant that Learned men use to Correct Lexicons and Dictionaries and not to be corrected by them But I appeal to themselves and beg of them to know 1st Whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify all the World over Robbery And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thought judg'd counted and therefore whether thought not counted not robbery to be equal with God is not an exact Translation 2ly I beg that they would produce any one Greek Author either Sacred or profane who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commit robbery I pass by that other strange stroke of rendring to be
to our belief I believe in God in which Three Persons subsist The Father who is Maker of Heaven and Earth His only Son who is our Lord and the Holy Spirit who Sanctiâ—ies the Catholick Church This expression the only Son or the only begotten is a stop to all those exceptions For he cannot be a deputed God who is a Son an only Son begotten as the Fathers and Councils express it of the substance of the Father He must be God of God very God of very God The Eternal God of the Eternal God This suppos'd there is no objection can be pretended God cannot have a Son but it must be by a communication of his substance An Eternal being cannot communicate it self as we mortals do within the measures and successions of time A mortal begets another mortal He can give no other substance then what he has An Eternal being gives what he is himself an Eternal and Divine being This leads to the true sence of Col. 1.15 2. Cor. 4.4 Heb. 1.3 where Christ is call'd the image of God the brightness of his glory the express image of his Person Texts so reverenc't by the Fathers of the Christian Church and so abus'd by Socinus and the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 38. who says That those Texts are demonstrations that Christ is not God it being simply impossible that the image should be the very being or thing whose image it is Were this reasoning true which is a meer Sophism to reason of an Eternal and Increated Being by the rules of things mortal and created it can reach to no more than this that the Son is not the Father because he is the express Image of his Person which is true but at the same time it proves that because he is his Image he must have a communication of his substance because he is his only Image as he is his only begotten Son But say these Gentlemen you run on but still you suppose the thing to be prov'd We agree that Christ is the only Son our Lord but we deny that the only begotten implies a communication of substance Christ says the Authour of the Brief Hist pag. 28. is call'd the only begotten on several accounts This especially that he only was begotten by the Divine Power on a Woman He is the only begotten says Chrellius because of all the Sons of God he is the best and most dear to him Time is too precious to spend it in answering such things as these are The Interpretation of Chrellius is trifling and that of the Brief Hist is absurd God is a Father antecedently to the Creation of the World God is not the Father of Christ but as he is the Father of the word who assum'd our nature Had there been nothing created there would have been still a Father and Father of it self supposes a Son If the Father is from ever the Son is from ever These ancient assertions of the Primitive Fathers destroy the notion of these Gentlemen of the only begotten A notion so strange so new so contrary to the language of Scripture and to that of the Church that the Old Hereticks durst never offer at it It ruines the difference between Christ and the rest of men For we are all the Sons of God Nay we can no more be the Sons of God being only Sons of God by adoption and only adopted in Christ Jesus who if he is adopted himself and only a Coheir with us as we are Coheirs with him there is no more adoption the great blessing of Christianity Now if Christ is the only begotten of the Father by reason of his being conceiv'd of a Woman by the Divine Power it is visible that he is no more than an adopted Son as we are This second Adam has no more of the Divine Nature than the first who was made of the Earth by the Divine power as the other was made of a Woman and was only an adopted Son Whereas the Scripture is so careful to distinguish between us the adopted Sons and that Son who is not adopted and is call'd the true Son the only Son his own Son his only begotten Son that Son who is sent Gal. 4.4 that we might receive the adoption of Sons It offers violence to these Texts to which the Author of the Brief Hist has done the advantage to shew that they are proofs against all the Turns of Wit Joh. 10.30 I and my Father are one Joh. 7.29 I know him for I am from him Joh. 10.38 The Father is in me and I in him I came out from the Father and to all the unanimous confessions in the Gospel Thou are the Christ the Son of the living God I commend this Author to have in this place given an answer without a reason to support it He has in this as in other places evaded and shifted the difficulty He sees what straights his Explication of the only begotten is lyable to and too much modesty to have laid down the pretended reasons of his Friends They would put a sober Philosopher to the blush I cannot without Horror read Smalcius de vero natur dei fil And all that can be said to this is what St. Austin said almost on the same account that it is Sceleratissima opinio a most execrable opinion Serm. 191. de temp I will multiply no more Arguments on this subject the places alledg'd being so full and forcible and the shifts of these Gentlemen so visible that it is enough to perswade any equitable person I pass to the second part of the assertion that the name of God is given to the Saviour after a manner applicable to no creature I will not lay down the rules which the Socinians have invented to discern when the word God must be understood of that God who is so by nature and of the deputed God who is only so by Office They are Criticisms for the most part false and always little and uncertain I humbly conceive that 1 Tim. 3.16 is spoken of the God by nature And without controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifest in the Flesh justify'd in the spirit seen of Angels preach't to the Gentiles believ'd on in the world receiv'd up into Glory I humbly conceive also that every word of this is accomplish't in Christ Jesus and that this Text is an Epitome of the Gospel God was manifest in the Flesh is the explication of Joh. 1.1 and the word was made Flesh Justify'd in the spirit is the explication of Matt. 3.16 17. and lo the Heavens were open'd and the spirit of God descending ... and lo a voice from Heaven this is my beloved Son Seen of Angels is the explication of Matt. 4.11 and behold Angels came and Minister'd to him Preach't to the Gentiles is the explication of Matt. 28.18 Teach all nations Believ'd on in the World is the explication of Joh. 6.69 and many places of this nature Receiv'd up into Glory is the Explication
Text has the advantage that it is uncontested and come down to us without the least alteration All is plain and clear in it The resurection of Christ was deny'd by Thomas His incredulity says elegantly St. Austin was more useful to the Church than the Faith of the other Apostles He protested that except he saw in his hands the prints of the nails c. he would not believe The merciful Saviour condescends to let him make the Experiment which draws presently that noble confession of his Faith My Lord and My God Which is the same as if he had say'd I believe that thou art my Lord and my God This interpretation is evident 1st By the words of Christ in the next Verse where the Saviour takes no kind of notice of any Admiration or Exclamation as these Gentlemen would have it but only replies to that profession of his Faith Because thou hast seen Me thou hast believ'd and lays down this Maxim the comfort of Christians in all succeeding Ages Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believ'd 2ly The last Verse of this Chapter intimates that this History is written that by that Zealous confession of his Faith we might also be induc'd to believe v. 31. But these things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God 3ly The resurrection of Christ was to be a proof of his Divinity Rom 1.4 declar'd to be the Son of God with power .... by the resurrection from the dead It was not by being risen from the dead that Jesus was the Son of God But his resurrection was a Declaration to all Mankind that he was so and therefore Thomas being satisfy'd of his Resurrection owns him for His Lord and his God The Fancy then of a deputed God has nothing to do here nor indeed any where else The Notion it self is contradictory and impossible I easily apprehend how a Man may be sent from God and intrusted with his commands to the rest of his Fellow Creatures But the very name of God excludes office and deputation A made God is that which cannot be made A deputed God is that which cannot be deputed The office of God is God himself When the Lord says to Moses Exod. 7.1 See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh he explains what that is in the next Verse Thou shalt speak all that I command thee This is no deputed Divinity There is not a God in Heaven and a deputed God upon Earth If the expression signifies no more than to speak or act from God not only Moses and the Prophets but every Father of a Family is a deputed God If it imports no more the notion is silly and if it does it is rash and unintelligible Socinus seeing Christ call'd God and the Son of God so very often in Scripture thought it a very easy way to rid himself of so many pregnant places gave him by this imaginary or deputed God which he thought to have found in this mistaken place of Exod. and in Ps 45. As if these two solitary Expressions could ballance or equal those repeated ones which assure us that Christ is truly God In one single place of Scripture Moses is say'd to be a God to Pharaoh In innumerable places of Scripture Christ is call'd God the Son of God has the Names the Attributes the Nature of God given him Therefore Moses is God as Christ and Christ God as Moses both deputed Gods A wild and irregular way of reasoning Nor do I wonder that Socinus should be guilty of this Though a Man of learning and parts and the unhappy restorer of an Heresy long since bury'd in a deep Oblivion and the first of a Sect to which he has left his name It happen'd to him as to many who have not time to refine their Arguments and do not so well understand their own system as they that come after But I admire that Gentlemen who have receded from so many inadvertencies of Socinus and of his outlandish followers and have really given a turn and a force to great many of their Arguments which they themselves did not nor could ever have done have not yet parted from this poor mean empty and if I am not too rude ridiculous notion of a deputed God But admitting that Moses is such and that his personal qualifications the diginity of his Office his commerce with God and his distinction from a people which it self was distinguish'd from all the Nations in the Earth give him a title to it St. Paul has clearly stated the difference and shews that if Moses in these Gentlemen's Principles is a God by Office Christ must be a God by Nature Heb. 3.2 3 4. The Author of the Epistle compares Christ with Moses He says that Christ our High-Priest was faithful to him that appointed him as also Moses was faithful in all his house then v. 3. he shews how much Christ excells Moses even as much as an Architect excell his own work in as much as he that built the house has more honour than the house In as much as the maker of Moses is more excellent than Moses himself He concludes v. 4. every house is built by some man but he that builds all these things not all things as our translation reads is God Every building has some Man for its Architect but these things which are built by Christ do far excel because the builder is God If Moses then in these Gentlemen's supposition is a God by Office what sort of God is Christ who is the Maker of the God by Office And how much of their assurance must these Gentlemen abate who when any pressing place is cited of Christ being call'd God send us dogmatically to Moses The Author of the Brief History pag. 41. has cited indeed both this Chapter and these Verses but has been very careful to avoid the objection by overlooking the 4. v. and indeed I commend him for it The difficulty is real and solid He plays at cross purposes and after his Laconick way of speaking he tells us that the House here is not mens bodies but the Church of Christ which he under God is said to build and so he dismisses us whereas the Text does not say he builds under God but that he is God who builds all these things Many other places might be alledg'd to that purpose but these are so clear and the pretended Answers to them so insufficient that the assertion of the Author of the Consider on the Sermon of the Bishop of Worcester pag. 11. will appear strangely confident That it cannot be satisfactorily prov'd that any Authentick Copies of the Bible do give Christ the title of God as he says the Author of the Brief Hist has abundantly shewn The Author of the History has not and none of these Gentlemen will ever be able to do it But it is the character of this Author in this Book in the Answer to Mr. Milbourn
in that to Mr. la Motté to venture upon any thing that comes first to hand and to want that candor and modesty that cool temper which the Author of the History has and would be a great Ornament to his Parts and Learning One thing more I have to say before I conclude this and it is that besides those Arguments which have been lay'd before you no Man can seriously read the sacred writings but he will find those things say'd of Christ and to Christ which no meer Creature is capable of 1st He is represented to us in such a height as transcends all Created Beings Phil. 2.9 10. That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in Earth and things under the Earth 1 Pet. 3.22 Angels and authorities and powers are made subject to him Matt. 28.18 All power is given me in Heaven and Earth Joh. 15.16 All things that the Father has are mine Joh. 15.5 without me you can do nothing He commands the Sea the Winds the Devils c. He gives to others the power that he has Mark 16.17 18. In my name shall they cast out Devils c. All this looks like Omnipotency If he is not God men are naturally lead to Idolatry by seeing in a Man all that we adore in God and by which he is known to us 2ly Some men are call'd the Sons of God as Adam the Angels and just men who are all God's adopted Sons But Christ is call'd the Son of God so very often so very Emphatically with so great a solemnity that it is unconceivable how this can be say'd of one who has no other relation to God but to be the work of his hands or the object of his favour Act. 8.37 And Philip say'd if thou believ'st with all thy heart thou may'st and he Answer'd and say'd I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God In the great uncertainty who that miraculous Person was whether Elias or John the Baptist or any of the Prophets St. Peter makes this confession Matt. 16.16 thou art Christ the Son of the living God Christ himself replies that on this confession the Church is buil't on this the salvation of men depends v. 17. That this is not the result of natural inquiry and that Flesh and blood has not reveal'd it to him but my Father which is in Heaven A declaration made not only by poor men here below but come down from above once at his Baptism Matt. 3.17 a second time in the glory of his transfiguration Matt. 17.5 This is my beloved Son An homage which the very unclean spirits the Devils themselves pay'd him Mark 3.11 and the unclean spirits when they saw him fell before him .... thou art the Son of God and Mark 5.7 the Son of the most High God If to be the Son of God is no more than to be remarkable by the examples of a holy life though in as great a measure as our nature is capable of Is it not unaccountable that revelation should be necessary that Heaven should inform us that the very Devils should proclaim it that our Faith and Eternal Salvation should be built upon it Does not this naturally incline men to believe that this very Jesus in that despicable nature by which he appears as a Man has another which none but the Father could reveal and is far beyond the discoveries of Flesh and Blood 3ly None but God could descend to the incredible humiliation of Christ Jesus No Man can properly be say'd to humble himself no not to the death of the Cross None humbles himself in dying who is form'd to dye No Creature humbles it self in suffering who is born to suffer and is subject to vanity I understand how God humbles himself in becoming Man This is easy to apprehend But how the best of men can humble himself in becoming Man when it is not at all his choice and in suffering for his Fellow Creatures which even in the sence of bad men is the most glorious thing in the World is past my apprehension None but he can humble himself in whom is found between the state that he is in and that which he assumes an infinite disproportion Nothing shews more evidently what Christ was before his humiliation than that series and order of stupendous Miracles which attend that very state To be figur'd by the Patriarchs announc't by the Prophets to be born of a Virgin to be declar'd by the Angels Immanuel God with us to exercise a despotick power over the whole Creation to rise from the dead to ascond to Heaven to sit at the right hand of God are convincing Arguments that he is more than a Creature 3ly The name of Lord is given him which all the Interpreters agree is the Jehovah of the Hebrews These Gentlemen must own this themselves I know that the Author of the Considerat on the Bishop of Sarum's Fourth Discourse pag. 22. has quarrell'd with his Lordship because he says that it is the peculiar name of God He tells him that the Socinians deny it and pretend to prove that the name Jehovah is given to particular Persons and communities and pag. 23 24. that we are like to have great many Jehovahs since if the word Lord is Jehovah that Pontius Pilate is call'd so Matt. 27.63 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord is no more than Master and Sir Joh. 20.15 But I know also that all this is a quibble and that such things as these are should not drop from the Pen of a Learned Man as this Author is nor to such a knowing Person as the Bishop For who is he that has the least tincture of Hebrew but knows that the facred name Jehovah signifies Essence Existence and nothing else As God himself has express'd it Exod. 3.14 I am that I am which if it is not peculiar to God a Primitive and Self Existent being I know nothing that is peculiar to him This is so true that Chrellius himself has own'd that it follows the nature of proper names It is undenyable that the Translators of the Old Testament have constantly render'd Jehovah by the word Lord and it is from thence that the sacred writers of the New Testament who as the Bishop observes were Jews spoke like Jews and understood the full importance of their own language have Attributed it to Christ And though the word Lord sometimes signifies no more than Sir or Master as in the instances produc't by this Author yet the stream of the Scriptures is against this mean shift Act. 10.36 he is Lord of all Act. 2.36 God has made him Lord and Christ Rom. 14.9 The Lord both of the dead and living 1 Cor. 2.8 The Lord of Glory Revel 19.16 Lord of Lords But particularly 1 Cor. 8.5 6. For though there be that are call'd Gods whether in Heaven and in Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many To us there is but one God the Father of whom