wrote only that part of the Actions and Sayings of our Saviour which he did and spoke after the Imprisonment of John the Baptist To supply this Defect St. John was desired to commit to writing what he remembred of our Saviour before the Baptist was imprison'd In a word he wrote his Gospel to supply the Omissions of the other Three Evangelists Euseb Lib. 3. c. 24. Eusebius had read Hegesippus and whatever Church-History St. Jerom could have read and he has made it his Business to make Extracts out of all ancient Books concerning the Writers and Writings of the New Testament the diligence and exactness of this Historian is much admired and praised by all Learned Men nor will any such believe that St. Jerom had seen an Eccesiastical History which Eusebius had not seen St. Jerom says St. John wrote to oppose the Unitarian Heresy and that the first words of his Gospel were pronounced to him from Heaven Eusebius says John had written his Gospel because the other Evangelists had omitted the Gests and Sayings of our Saviour that were before the Imprisonment of the Baptist St. Jerom refers for what he says to an Ecclesiastical History unknown to all the Ancients but Himself Eusebius proves the Account he gives by solid and convincing Arguments His words in the Chapter before quoted are these It is evident that the other three Evangelists have committed to writing only the Gests of our Saviour during one Year's space namely after John the Baptist's being shut in Prison Matthew sets forth the time of his writing in these words When Jesus had heard that John was put in Prison He came into Galilee In like manner Mark saith Now after that John was put in Prison Jesus came into Galilee Luke also maketh this Remark Herod adding this to all the Evils he had done shut up John in Prison Therefore they say that the Apostle John being for this Cause thereto requested has declared in a Gospel according to him the time that was passed over in silence by the other Evangelists and what was done by our Saviour therein This is a probable Account that of St. Jerom is Miraculous and therefore pleases them who are taken with Marvellous things What shall we say then that St. Jerom devised or that he dreamt of an Ecclesiastical History which was never seen before nor since neither of them for I doubt not that his Tale is nothing else but an Improvement and a stretch of some words of Clemens Alexander which he found recorded in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Lib. 6. c. 14. The words were taken by Eusebius out of the Institutions of Clemens Alexander which Institutions are now lost but Photius Cod. 105 and 111. has left us this Character of them that they contained very many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fabulous and Impious Tales Of these Tales this is one John the last of the Evangelists seeing that what appertain'd to Christ's Humanity was manifested in the other Gospels being thereto moved by his Acquaintance and inspired by the Spirit wrote a Gospel concerning Christ's Divinity But to return to our Opposers They commonly say St. John wrote his Gospel against Cerinthus and Ebion and the Heresy of the Unitarians We have seen they have no solid ground for this Pretence in the History of the Church Irenaeus and Origon the most Learned of the Ancients knew nothing of it and Eusebius gives a contrary Account But the Gospel it self written by St. John will best decide this Question if he has more confirmed this pretended Heresy than any other Writer of Holy Scripture He did not without doubt write his Gospel against it Therefore let us briefly see what the Unitarian Doctrine is and how St. John hath delivered his Mind concerning it We say that only the Father is true God that the Lord Christ is his Prophet and Messenger to Man that therefore what the Lord Christ said was not from himself or by his own Authority but by particular Command and Charge from God that all the Miracles he did were not properly done by him but by the Spirit or Power of the Father given to him as to former Prophets Let us hear how St. John in his Gospel written designedly against us confutes this impious Heresy John 17.1 2 3. Father this is Life Eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Or Jesus Christ thy Messenger John 7.16 My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me John 12.49 The Father which sent me He gave me a Commandment what I should say John 14.31 As the Father gave me Commandment so do I. John 5.30 I can do nothing of my self John 14.10 The Father that dwelleth in me by his Spirit Energy or Power He doth the Works I know not what could be said more effectually to evince that the Lord Christ is not God but the Ambassador only and Messenger of God speaking according to the Instructions and Charge given to him and Acting by a Power not of his own but bestowed on him as on former Prophets and Messengers of God If the Texts before cited were not the very words of Scripture were they found in any other Book they should be Anathematiz'd as most Gross Socinianism as the very Heresy of Cerinthus and Ebion against whom as saith St. Jerom's Ecclesiastical History they were written And what wretched Subterfuges do our Opposers make use of to decline these plain Testimonies that were suggested by the Holy Ghost against them for we dare not like them feign Ecclesiastical Histories which say they were spoken against them from Heaven First They tell us St. John doth not say that only the Father is God but the Father is the only true God They say the Socinians have not had the Wit to perceive the vast difference between those two Expressions It may be true they say and is true that the Father is the only true God as St. John in the alledged Text says and yet the Son too is true God nay the only true God and the like of the Holy Ghost And when John says neither the Doctrine nor the Actions of our Saviour were his own but the Commandments of the Father given to him and the Works of the Father dwelling in him By the Father in those Texts they say we are to understand Three Persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Nay when our Saviour saith Of that Day and Hour the Excision of Jerusalem and the Dissolution of the Jewish Polity none knoweth not the Angels neither the Son but the Father only 'T is not true for all that that the Father only or only the Father knoweth that Day and Hour for then only the Father were true God but the Father only in those words is not the Father only but also the Son who is there expresly denied to know that Day and Hour and besides him the Holy Ghost Well but however these things are St. John has paid us off they
Made and Measured by the Motion of the Sun and other Heavenly Bodies and that Duration is by them called Eternity which preceded those Bodies and the Motions which make Time Therefore when they call the Son Coeternal which I think is not found in all their Writings above once or twice they do not mean that He was Really and Actually Coexistent with the Father from all Eternity But 't is their Intention to say He was made by the Father in that Duration which Philosophy calls Eternity some space before the World was made that he might be the Father's Instrument and Minister in creating all things Hereby they acknowledg that the Son was in some sense a Creator and God but it was only as He was the Father's Minister Instrument and Servant those are the Terms they use in making all things He was a Creator and God with respect to all other Creatures but with respect say they to the true and most high God He is only a Servant and a Creature In a word the Ante-Nicen Fathers i. e. those of the first 325 Years whose Works have been suffered to be extant neither held as the Unitarians do that the Lord Christ began to have a Being when He was born of the Virgin nor as the Church now does that He was true God and always actually Coexistent with God but they held with the Arrians that He was Created Begotten or Made for these are with them equivalent Terms in that Tract or Duration which is called not Time but Eternity and that He was the Father's Servant and Instrument in making first the Holy Ghost then the rest of the Creation This is that which is granted by Petavius Huetius Mornay Erasmus Grotius and other Criticks on the Fathers not as our Author supposes that those Fathers held the Doctrine concerning God and our Lord Christ that is now called Socinianism But though this be so yet we doubt not that we are able to prove that the general Body of Christians and an incompâ—â—able majority of their Learned Men believed as the Unitarians now do till about the Times of Victor and Zephiâ—in Bishops of Rome that is till toward the Year of our Lord 180. It has not availed our Opposers that they have suppress'd the works of those most Ancient Fathers who are known and confess'd to have been Unitarians such as Aquila Symmachus and Theadotion who so excellently translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek and Lucianus who restored the Greek Copiet to their first Integrity Artemas and Theodorus Men noted by their Adversaries to have been incomparably Learned and ancienter than any of the Orthodox Fathers as we now call them Paul also Patriarch of Antioch Photinus Archbishop of Sirmium Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra I say it has not advantaged our Opposers that they have destroyed the Writings of these Fathers for the Fathers that are still extant give us an account of the Opinion of those other Fathers thô concealing their Arguments Moreover they confess that those first Unitarians claimed to be the true Successors and Descendents of the Apostles and that they derived their Doctrine from them Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 28. Besides this the only Creed of all the Churches till the Council of Nice and which is called the Aposties Creed because it contains the true Apostolick Tradition is confest on all hands to be wholly Vnitarian That Creed acknowledges but one God the Father Almighty and but one only Son of God even him saith this Creed who was conceived generated or begotten by the Holy Ghost on the Virgin Mary not as our Opposers feign an Eternal Son begotten of the Essence of God his Father But I will not Sir now dilate on these things it shall be done in a Treatise by it self if it please God to give me Leisure and Opportunity in the mean time I appeal to those Learned Criticks Petavius and others before mentioned that the ordinary pretence of such Scriblers and Sciolists as our Author is utterly false and ungrounded even this that the Ante-nicen Fathers held the Doctrine of the Trinity as the Church now does As for the Scoffs of Lucian on the God who is Three and One One and Three not having the Book by me I cannot tell whether he meant to jeer the Trinity of the Platonick Philosophers or of the Christians I conjecture he means the former Neither was he so ancient as some give out the best Criticks make him to have flourish'd about the Year of our Lord 176 when the new Doctrines were grown very rise and common The Account that Pliny gives of the Christians to the Emperor Trajan is ancient but in the particular objected to us very uncertain The Copies of Pliny in Tertullian's Time exprest the matter thus Ad canendum Christo Deo They sang Psalms of Praise to Christ and to God not ut Deo to Christ as God The very words of Tertullian are these Pliny in his Letter to Trajan objects nothing else to them but that they were obstinate in refusing to sactifice and that they held caetus ante lucanos ad canendam Christo Dio Meetings before day to sing to Christ and to God Tertul. Apol. adv Gentes c. 3. I make use of an Edition of Tertullian with the Notes of all the Criticks published by Rigaltius at Paris yet none of them dislikes the Reading by Tertullian or prefers to it the Modern Reading But admitting now that we were to read ut Deo as to a God Pliny in these words might speak only his own Opinion not the Opinion of the Christians He might conjecture that because the Christians sang certain Compositions in Praise of the Lord Christ in their Meetings therefore they held him to be a God Or ut Deo may be translated as if he were a God so as to make this sense They sing Psalms and Hymns to Christ as if he were a God whom themselves confess to have been a Man for Hymns are not usually sung but only to the Gods However it be this Citation makes not much to the purpose at most it only proves that even in Pliny's time some began to corrupt the Evangelical Doctrine concerning the Unity of God CHPA X. On divers Passages out of the Evangelists and Epistles FRom the Fathers our Author returns again to the Scriptures and advances an Argument to prove our Saviour's Divinity from those Texts which seem to intimate that the Lord Christ is to be prayed unto and also from others in which 't is said that even while he was upon Earth he was worshipped by some and did not refuse the worship paid to him He saith no Person can be the proper Object of Divine Worship such as Prayer is but He who is Omniscient Omnipotent and Omnipresent and that if the Socinians ascribe these Properties to our Saviour they make him to be true God That Jesus Christ was worshipped and that he ought to be worshipped he proves from these Texts Phil. 2.9 10
sort of People called Schismaticks and Hereticks who having free and discerning Minds stout and brave Souls finding themselves in some Particulars either cheated or wronged by the strongest side they maintain tho a dangerous and bazardous yet a generous and perpetual War for the Natural Liberties of Mankind in Matters of Conscience and Religion They assert by all possible and honest means the Kingdom of God that is they admit of no Lords over Conscience but only God nor any Law of Faith of Worship or Manners but only God's Word no Canons or Articles no humanly devised Creeds or Catechisms nothing but God's Word the naked Gospel without any Interpretations or Interpreters but only Reason and Good Sense These have the luck sometimes to baffle Mother-Church and to bear up against all her Indignation But this Sir shall serve in Answer to your Dedication and Preface only let me advise you as you would come off with more Credit and do more Good in the Parish of Great St. Hellens than you did at Great Yarmouth that you carry it with more Modesty and Respect to all the Inhabitants and to forbear such smutty Lampoons as you made upon that Town What follows is an Answer to your Book and I address it to Friend T. F. An Accurate EXAMINATION of the principal Texts usually alledged for the Divinity of our Saviour and for the Satisfaction by him made to the Justice of God for the Sins of Men Occasioned by a Book of Mr. Luke Milbourn called Mysteries in Religion vindicated To T. F. CHAP. I. Containing an accurate Examination of 1 Tim. 3.16 SIR YOUR particular Friend Mr. Milb has begun his Attack on Socinianism with a Text of St. Paul in the Explication and Vindication of which he wastes no fewer than 82 Pages The Text is this Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifest in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory 1 Tim. 3.16 He saith hereupon that indeed some Translators read here Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH which Mystery was manifested by Flesh that is the Law was given by Angels but the Gospel by the Ministry of Men even by Jesus Christ and his Apostles called Flesh here in opposition to Angels who are Spirit and because Flesh is the usual Scripture-Term for Man but all the Greek Copies he saith agree in reading this Text as we read it in our English Bibles as also does the famous Manuscript in the King of England's Library which is about 1300 Years old And if saith he the Providence of God as the Socinians contend is concerned to preserve his own holy Word from Corruptions and Falsifications 't is reasonable to think such Providence has been exercised rather about the Original Greek than about Translations But neither saith he do all the old Translations read here as the Socinians do for the Arabick reads as we do GOD was manifested in the Flesh Further more Macedonius to whom the Socinians impute the Corruption of this Text was too late in time for he lived in the Year 512. to attempt an Innovation in Scripture And besides he could have no design in so doing because he had no peculiar Opinions about our Saviour Finally the word God in the first Clause of this Verse makes that Clause to accord with all that follow it for all of them together will make this most proper Sense The Eternal Son of God God equal with his Father and Creator of the World took upon him and was manifested in our weak and passible Nature being incarnate in the Man Christ Jesus He was justified to be God notwithstanding his mean outward Appearance by divers glorious Actions and Miracles done on that behalf by the Holy Spirit He was seen i. e. known by Angels to be the Eternal Son of God and God thô covered with the Veil of Flesh He was preached as such by the Apostles to the Gentiles was believed on generally in the World where-ever they came and after his Resurrection He was received up into the Glories of Heaven But if saith our Author we read here as the Socinians do Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh that is by Men what Sense shall we make of the other Clauses Will it be Sense to say The Mystery of Godliness the Gospel was seen by Angels Or will it be true that it was received up into the Glory of Heaven The Socinians indeed here answer That instead of these words received up into Glory it should have been said by our Translators was gloriously extolled was magnified and lifted up but this saith our Author is false for on the contrary the Gospel was despised and derided both by Jews and Gentiles This is the Sum and Force of what he has transcribed out of Authors in behalf of his Opinion from the words of this Text. He might if he had pleased have given us too the full and solid Answer made by the Socinians to these Pretences of his Party for I see he has quoted the Books in which those Answers are to be found but that was not the way he thought to mend his Fortunes in the World which is what he aims at and the cause of his writing his Book I will briefly evince these two things 1. This Text of St. Paul has been falsified by those who affirm the Ante-mundan Existence and Divinity of our Saviour 2. This Corruption has been so unskilfully performed that the Attempt serves only to betray their Unfaithfulness and Partiality but does not a whit avail their Cause 1. This Text has been most certainly falsified by substitution of the word God instead of Which WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh The first time I meet with this Text read with the word God among the Antients is in the Acts of the first Council of Nice a Council of next Authority to the Scriptures themselves in the Opinion of our Opposers In this Council a Person repeated the words of St. Paul as they are now read by Trinitarians God was manifested in Flesh the Person who made this Mistake probably from some Marginal Note where he found the word God put as an Explanation of the word Which in the Text was answered by Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem that he mistook the reading for St. Paul's words are Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH was manifested by Flesh Mr. Milbourn will not say that the Authors of the Old Translations the Latin Syriac and Armenian were Unitarians be sure St. Jerom Author of the Latin was a bigotted Trinitarian yet they and he read with the Nicene Council WHICH was manifested by Flesh not GOD was manifested in Flesh I appeal to any Man of ordinary sense whether he can think those Translators and Fathers would have corrupted the Bible in favour and to the advantage of their Adversaries the Unitarians by saying not GOD but WHICH was manifested by Flesh
this the Goings forth of the Lord Christ have been Decreed by God from the Days of Eternity But Grotius instead of From Everlasting or from the Days of Eternity hath Translated here from ancient Days and so All know the words may be rendred therefore he maketh the Sense to be this Whose Goings forth i. e. whose Descent Original or Pedigree is of Old from Ancient Times For Christ is come of that most Ancient Stock of David of the Town of Bethlehem Our Author may please in his next to try his Skill on these Solutions in the mean time I pass to what He hath objected from the New Testament CHAP. IV. On his Texts out of the Gospels THEY are not many Texts Sir on which our Author has insisted to prove his Proposition that our Lord Christ is true God but He assures us at P. 309. they are Choice Ones We have considered those He alledges from the Old Testament let us now examine what He hath urged out of the New On the Texts of St. Matthew He begins with Matth. 1.22 23. This was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord by the Prophet saying A Virgin shall Conceive and shall bring forth a Son and they shall call his Name Immanuel which being interpreted is God with us He notes that these words are spoken of the Lord Christ and that the Name Immanuel or God with us has been appropriated to him by God for we no where find that He hath given this Name to any other But where God giveth a Name and the Spirit of God interprets it it cannot be insignificant from whence it follows that the Lord Christ is indeed God Eternal and God with us To this I say thô the Consonants of the Hebrew Name Immanuel may be so Pointed that the Name may be Interpreted God with Him which would turn the Objection from this Text upon our Opposers yet that is not here to be insisted on because we shall see presently that in giving that Name it was really intended the Child should be called or named God with Vs The Text here objected out of St. Matthew is taken from Isa 7. where that Prophet tells Ahaz King of Judah who was at that time invaded by the Confederate Kings of Syria and Israel that the Confederacy of these two Kings against Judah should in the end come to nothing and that Israel should be destroyed from being any longer a Nation within the term of 65 Years And for a Sign to you says the Prophet that God will bring this to pass a Virgin one who at present is a Virgin shall forthwith Conceive by her Husband and bring forth a Son whom God will have to be called Immanuel or God with Vs because before this Child is of Years of Discretion to know Good and Evil God will indeed appear to be on our Side He will withdraw by Death the two Kings who are Confederate against us There is no Learned Critic that doubts that the Child here promised by the Prophet to be a Sign of the Truth of what He had said about the Confederacy of the Two Kings and the final Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel is Maher-Shalal-Hashbaz Son of this Prophet by the Wise whom it should seem He had lately taken And They observe that this is the Reason why he saith in the next Chapter I and the Children whom the Lord hath given me are for Signs in Israel from the Lord Isa 8.18 But whether the Child Immanuel was the Son of the Prophet or of some other this is certain that He was to be a Sign to King Ahaz and to the People of Israel and Judah This Child being to be such a Sign the Sign of so favourable a Providence to Judah and Ahaz had an Answerable Name given to him by order from God even Immanuel or God with Vs Therefore our Author's First Observation is certainly false that the Name Immanuel was Appropriated to the Lord Christ and no where given by God to any other Person And so too is his other Note that because God gave to him the Name Immanuel He must needs be true God for God gave the same Name to the Child that was to be a Sign to Ahaz and Judah that God would be with them or for them by destroying their Enemies the Syrians and Israelites We see that the words of the Prophet were originally intended of a Child that was to be a Sign to Ahaz and Judah and that there was a good reason why that Name should be given to him But St. Matthew accommodates and applies both the Prophecy and the Name to our Lord Christ because in him they had another and a second Completion we may say a more perfect Completion For the Lord Christ was our Immanuel or God with us not only as he was a Sign that God would be on our side which was the only reason of the Name of the first Immanuel but because he did really conciliate God to us and us to God and because God was with him and in him by an extraordinary Effusion of his Spirit upon him No one can be so blind or obstinate as not to acknowledg that this Interpretation which indeed is not ours but advanced by divers of the principal Trinitarian Interpreters is easy and rational perfectly agreeable to the scope of the Prophet and also to the manner of writing observed by this and the other Evangelists who very usually apply divers Texts of the Old Testament intended originally of other Persons to the Lord Christ because in him they had a second and very often a more perfect fulfilling Therefore let our Opposers show cause why we should depart from an Interpretation every way reasonable to imbrace and adhere to theirs which implies a Doctrine contrary to the first Commandment and to the whole Current of Scripture even this that there is more than one Divine Person or more than one who is true God His second Argument is from Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost He observes here that the Son and Spirit are set equally with the Father as Objects of our Baptismal Faith which either proves their real Equality or is of dangerous Import for 't is apt to impress upon us false Notions of the Deity and to make us think those to be really equal who are not so He saith moreover that in other Texts where God is joined with his Creatures a distinction is made whereby to discern that one is God and the other but Creatures but not so in this Text we are bid here to be baptized equally and alike to the Father Son and Spirit without any Note of Dignity or Superiority in one more than in another of them therefore they must be understood to be equal It may be our Author knows not that some Learned Criticks have given very strong Reasons why they believe that these words of
the objected Text In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit were not spoke by our Saviour but have been added to the Gospel of St. Matthew from the common Form and Practice of the Church in administring Baptism as 't is certain that these words For thine is the Kingdom the Power and the Glory for ever have been added to the Lord's-Prayer in the same Gospel of St. Matthew from the Greek Liturgies or Forms of Common-Prayer These Criticks observe that Cardinal Bellarmine is very angry with the Unitarians who maintained the Dispute at Alba because they said those words were added to the Bible but only since the Nicene Council had corrupted the Faith all Antiquity saith the Cardinal is witness against them that those words were always read in the Gospel of St. Matthew But the Learned Cardinal does not produce one Testimony in Confirmation of what he says tho he uses to be very free in his Quotations of Fathers and ancient Ecclesiastical Historians In short we have nothing but Cardinal Bellarmine's word for it that the Ancients did read the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Whereas some pretend to find these words cited by St. Ignatius as spoken by our Saviour in the Epistle of the said Ignatius to the Philippians that Epistle is all of it a meer Forgery by Confession of all the Criticks who have publish'd the Works of Ignatius or have written Notes upon them They observe that Epistle is never quoted by any of the Ancients nor was heard of in the World before Ado Viennensis who flourish'd about the Year 859. Eusebius the famous Ecclesiastical Historian quotes the objected Text nine times in several parts of his Works but never with the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost he reads thus Teach all Nations in my Name instructing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you The constant Practice of the ancient Unitarians was to baptize only in the Name of the Lord Christ and therefore it was ordered by the Councils of Nice and Laodicea that the Paulinists i. e. the Unitarians who came over to the Church should be re-baptized Whether they or the Catholick Church so called are in the right concerning the Form of Baptism is best determined from the Practice of the Apostles for we cannot well suppose that if the Form prescribed by our Saviour himself was In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that the Apostles would depart from that Form or that 't was lawful for them so to do But where-ever there is mention in Scripture-History of the Administration of Baptism either by the Apostles or by their Order the Form of such Baptism was only In the Name of the Lord Christ or Vnto the Lord Christ Acts 2.38 Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus The same thing is said at Acts 8.16 Acts 10.48 Acts 19.5 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 1 Cor. 1.13 Add to this that besides the School-men and other Moderns St. Basil St. Hilary and St. Ambrose do expresly own that the Apostles administred Baptism only in the Name of the Lord Jesus Finally the other Evangelists mention the Institution of Baptism by our Saviour after his Resurrection but they say not that he appointed it to be administred In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which 't is not likely they would have omitted if our Saviour had injoined that Form of performing the Rite of Baptism Nay it should seem by what St. Luke says that the Form of Baptism appointed by our Saviour was only in his Christ's Name not in the Name of more Persons Luke 24.46 47. Jesus said unto them that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preached in his Name unto all Nations Here Remission of Sins seems to be no other thing but Baptism administred in Christ's Name as a sign of the Remission of Sins and therefore it is that elsewhere instead of Repentance and Remission of Sins the holy Writers say Repentance and Baptism so St. Peter speaks Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus To this effect speak the forementioned Criticks and from hence they infer that we cannot make use of this Text to warrant the Church's Form of Baptism In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit much less to prove that the two latter are God or Gods equal with the Father I desire and resolve Sir to argue this great Question concerning the Divinity of our Saviour or whether there is more than one Divine Person with all possible sincerity Therefore I will ingenuously own to you that tho the before-mentioned Exceptions to this Text are not without their weight yet I have observed divers things which make me to think that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture was spoken by our Saviour and written by St. Matthew First 'T is found in all the Copies of the Bible both Printed and Manuscript and in all the ancient Translations which cannot be said of any other Text which is rejected by us or by our Opposers all the doubtful and suspected Texts are wanting in divers Copies of the Original Greek and of the Ancient Translations I conceive we ought not to argue against the Truth of any Text from only Negative Proofs or from some possible Interpretations of other Texts tho those Texts are perhaps many It ought to be shown that either Church-Historians or Fathers have said that such Text was not read or was otherways read in the Copies of their Times Secondly To the Allegations out of the Acts of the Apostles and some Epistles of St. Paul it may be answered That those Texts mention only the Name of the Lord Jesus and not the other two Names the Father and the Holy Ghost because by the Name of the Lord Jesus and unto the Lord Jesus they mean to the Profession of the Lord Jesus and of the Doctrine by him taught without at all intending to express by those words the Form of Baptism which every one knew to be In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost I like this Interpretation because when St. Paul asked some Disciples at Ephesus whethey they had yet received the Holy Ghost and they had answered that they had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost He replies Vnto what then were ye baptized Acts 19.3 This Reply of the Apostle seems to suppose that if they were baptized with Christian Baptism and not only with the Baptism of John they must needs have heard of the Holy Ghost because the Form was in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Thirdly The ancient Unitarians baptized only in the Name of the Lord Christ I think 't is grounded only on the Report of Pope Innocent I. who might not understand their Discipline or
designedly misreport it and besides his Epistles are supposed to be forged by most learned Men because they make mention of Rites and Persons that were not in Being in Innocent's time Lastly Whereas the Unitarians at Alba said that this Text has been added to St. Matthew since the first Nicene Council tho Cardinal Bellarmine has only denied this he might most easily have proved the contrary For Tertullian who flourish'd above 120 Years before the Nicene Council often quotes this Text. In his Book concerning Baptism Chap. 13. he saith The Law of baptizing is imposed and the Form prescribed Go saith he teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit And again in his Book against Praxeas Chap. 26. After his Resurrection he commanded that they should baptize to the Father Son and Holy Ghost not to one of them only It is true none of the Ante-Nicene Fathers do ever alledg this Form of Baptism to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Spirit but the reason of that was because tho they allowed that the Son might be called God on account of his perfect Conjunction by Love Unity of Will and Subjection with the Father who only is true God yet they thought otherwise of the Holy Ghost some of them understanding him to be only the Energy or Power of God others that he was a Creature of the Son and only the chief of the ministring Spirits or Angels But to return to our Opposer He saith We are baptized alike and equally to the Father Son and Spirit therefore the two latter are equal in all respects to the former or are God no less than he they are mentioned together in this Text without any Note of Dignity or Superiority in one more than in another which were of dangerous Consequence and apt to lead Men into Error if only one of these is true God But 1. 'T is not true that here is no Note of Distinction or Superiority for the words at length are these All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit I would know of our Opposer what greater Distinction could be made than our Saviour here makes between God and himself doth he not here expresly profess and own that his Power is given to him that he hath received it from the Liberality of another and not from himself Can any one be said to give Power to himself And the Apostle hath told us how we are to understand it that all Power is given to the Lord Christ in these words to the Ephesians God gave to him to be Head over all things to the Church Ephes 1.22 As who should say He is over all things and hath all Power with respect to the Church 't is He and He only that must prescribe her standing Laws and Rites and appoint by what Persons and what Means the Church shall be first gathered and then preserved 2. But supposing now there had been no Note of Superiority here made or Distinction of Dignity and Power I see not what could be truly inferred from thence to the advantage of our Author's Cause For when God is joined in the same form of Speech with any others sure that needs not to be expressed which all Men know and acknowledg even God's Superiority above all others 1 Chron. 29.20 The Congregation bowed their Heads and worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God the Lord Jesus Christ and the Elect Angels Rev. 22.17 The Spirit and the Bride say Come Will our Author say upon these Texts and upon that other parallel Text 1 Sam. 12.18 All the People greatly feared the Lord and Samuel Will he say that Samuel and David the Angels and the Bride i. e. the Church are equal with God or with the Spirit because they are mentioned together without any Note of Distinction or of Dignity and Superiority in one more than in the other The Acts of Religion mentioned in those Texts are no less solemn or important than Baptism is fearing the Lord worshipping the Lord adjuring by the Lord are the very highest Acts of Devotion and Religion yet even in them God is joined with Creatures without any Mark of Distinction or Superiority because as I said when God is joined with any others there is no need of such Note or Mark. Therefore the more learned of our Opposers especially the Ancients of the first 400 Years do not insist on this Text of St. Matthew to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit by these words In the Name of the Father Son and Spirit they understand only to the Profession and to the Obedience of the Father Son and Spirit According to these Criticks the Sense of the objected Text is only this Baptize the Nations into the Profession and Obedience of the Father or God and of Jesus Christ whom the Father hath commanded us to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us and of the other Teacher even the Spirit or Inspiration of God by which he advises and comforts the Faithful in all extraordinary Exigences Our Author may please to consult Mr. Pool's Collections on this Text where he will see divers such Interpretations as this all of them by the Criticks of his own Party and all of them consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is held by the Socinians Therefore all those Interpreters and Criticks must be understood as giving up to us this Text. CHAP. V. On the first Verses of St. John's Gospel OUR Author's next Effort is from that well-known Context even the first Verses of St. John's Gospel The Clauses by him urged are these In the Beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God All things were made by Him namely by the WORD and without Him was not any thing made that was made He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not Others have added to these And the WORD was made Flesh and dwelt among us Also that Testimony of the Baptist He that cometh after me is preferred before me for He was before me Our Author endeavours to Ridicule the common Socinian Interpretation of these Verses by Misrepresenting it and by concealing the remarkable and probable Proofs which the Socinians add to every Clause of their Interpretation He recites also the Explication of this Context by Dr. Hammond which he saith is a full Explication and the Sense of the Catholic Church Indeed Dr. Hammond has given us the Belief of the Catholic Church so called and has set it down as the Sense of this Context of St. John but that 's the very thing in question whether that Belief be the Sense of these Verses Our present Opposer has performed so Meanly in the long Discourse he has made on this Proem of St. John's Gospel
was not He himself but He by the Gift of God that shed forth the Spirit on them Let us hear the whole Verse Acts 2.23 Therefore He Christ being by the right Hand of God exalted and having received or obtained of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost He hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear Here indeed the Spirit is said to be shed forth by the Lord Christ on the Apostles but not by Him himself but He shed it forth having saith the Text received it of the Father As who should say having received this Power from the Father which afterwards the Apostles also received of the Father even the Power of conferring the Spirit He now shed it forth on them not He himself by his own Authority or Power but by the Warrant Order Grant or Commission of the Father If our Saviour had conferred the Spirit on his Disciples by his own Power or Authority it would not have been said that having received of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost he shed it abroad on his Followers Let our Opposers show that the Lord Christ was more than the Instrument Minister and Mediator by Whom and at whose Instance God shed forth the Spirit neither this nor any other Context ascribes more to him and as much as is elsewhere ascribed to the Apostles Acts 10.44 Acts 19.6 They are words which our Saviour speaks to his Disciples As my Father hath sent me even so send I you But it follows not from hence that the Authority and Power of Christ was equal to the Power and Authority of the Father nay the contrary rather follows for the Messenger is but the Minister and Servant of the Sender After Jesus was ascended into Heaven his Disciples did their Miracles in his Name and by Faith in him Acts 3.6 In the Name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up and walk Ver. 16. His Name through Faith in his Name hath made this Man strong We confess hereupon that Miracles were done by the Name or in the Name of the Lord Jesus and through Faith in his Name But how does this prove that he was God Such Miracles prove indeed that the Person in whose Name they are done is a most Powerful and Effectual Mediator with God but not that He himself is God they prove that he is acceptable to God and that what he desireth that also God willeth but not that he is the true proper Author of those Miracles 'T is a particular Honour that God is pleased to do to the Lord Christ that in his Name Wonders should be done and that some who believed in his Name should on that account be enabled to do Miracles But when our Opposers infer from hence therefore Christ is God this is no Necessary or Natural Consequence because nothing hinders but that God may confer the same Honour on any other Person or Thing Nor secondly is it a true Consequence because we are assured by innumerable express and clear Testimonies that the Lord Christ is not God As 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Jesus Christ Finally Our Lord promis'd that he would deliver his Apostle from the People and from the Gentiles and declares that we are sanctified by Faith in his Name or by believing in him Acts 26.17 18 c. He delivered indeed that Apostle from very many Machinations of the Jews and Conspiracies of the Gentiles but all this as Mediator not as God by his Intercession which as this Apostle saith he ever liveth to make on behalf of all the Faithful and more especially of such as are extraordinarily commissioned to the Work of propagating the Gospel in Heathen Nations as St. Paul was As to our being sanctified i. e. made Holy by Faith in Christ or by believing in him it was never questioned I think by any but the meaning of the Expression is only this that such as sincerely believe the Lord Christ and the Gospel or Doctrine by him delivered do sanctify themselves they refrain from every Evil Work and Word their Faith does dispose and incline them of its own Nature and Tendency to Sanctification and Holiness this is the only meaning of our being sanctified by Faith in Christ CHAP. IX On what is alledged from the Fathers OUR Author passes from sacred Authorities to Ecclesiastical and Profane for proving the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity and Incarnation of our Saviour He quotes the Account which Pliny gives to the Emperor Trajan concerning the Christians that they were wont to meet before Day Et Carmen Christo canere ut Deo To sing Psalms to Christ as if he were a God He cites also a Dialogue supposed to be Lucian's in which that Author jeers the God who is Three and One These two Authors were very Ancient within about 100 Years after Christ and their words before quoted show How early the belief of the Trinity and of the Divinity of our Saviour was found among Christians For Ecclesiastical Writers he brings some Fragments out of Justin Ignatius Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Tertullian Arnobius Cyprian Lactantius Gregory Thaumaturgus Faelix also out of the Councils of Nice Antioch and Constantinople He saith the Socinians are apt to appeal in these Questions to the Ante-Nicen Fathers before-named and that several great Men such as Erasmus Grotius Petavius and others yield this Point to Us. I will make no Advantage of our Author's Ignorance in this Matter I will freely own to you Sir that the Socinians never Appeal in these Questions to the Fathers whether Ante-Nicen or others who are now extant We grant they were in Sentiments very different from ours all the Ante-Nicen Fathers I mean whose works have been suffer'd to come down to our Times were in the Opinion concerning God and the Lord Christ afterwards called Arrianism except perhaps Clemens Alexandrinus who seems to have held the same with Savellius Nor do Erasmus Petavius Grotius and other Criticks grant to us as he supposes that the Ante-Nicen Fathers were of our Opinion they have granted those Fathers not to us but to the Arrians They grant those Fathers did not hold the Doctrine of the Trinity or of the Divinity of our Saviour in such manner as 't is now held by the Church for the Church holds a Trinity of Three Coequal and Coeternal Persons all of them jointly and equally Creators none of them Creatures but those Fathers held a Trinity in which only the First Person is truly God or the most high God the Second and Third are Creatures though also they were the Creators according to these Fathets of the other Creatures They say inded sometimes that the Son is Coeternal and a Creator but by Coeternal they mean only that he was not made in Time but in that Eternity which did precede Time and the Creation of the World They call that Duration Time which began with the World and which is both
of a Man describing his Conception or Generation by the Holy Ghost or Power of God in the Womb of Holy Mary declaring that he died was buried rose again and was exalted to the right Hand of God that is to be next unto God all which is a denying him to be God It says no more of the Holy Ghost than it says of the Holy Catholick Church I believe in the Holy Ghost I believe in the Holy Catholick Church so all know this Creed is read in the Original Greek Your last fling at T. F. is to this purpose tho after a scurrilous fashion that the Socinians have made choice of him to disperse their Pamphlets That a Person so much concerned and imployed in the disposal of Charity might keep the Ballance even between Heaven and Hell and while he supports Mens Bodies might pervert and poison their Souls 'T is well Sir but what will your Wisdomship advise in the case Shall we turn this dangerous Man out of the gainful Imployment of neglecting his own Business and losing his Time to be an Instrument of Good to the Poor and Necessitous And let me ask you this Question Do you really think that this Gentleman ever endeavoured to proselyte to his particular Perswasion any of the Objects of Charity with whom he is concerned Does he think you seek to gather a Church out of the Hospitals the Prisons the Corners of Streets or of such Persons as are ready to perish for want of Bread or Clothes If you your self do not so think as you are challenged to give but one single Instance of what you would insinuate to your Head you are an ill Man to make that the subject of your Scurrility which should have been of your Praises and Commendations Doth the Age Sir so abound with Men who make it any part of their business to minister to the Wants of others that it should be advisable to discourage such Persons by false and scandalous Innuendo's But I am with-held by a particular Charge as I am told from him from doing him that Right against your Reproaches which I thought to be due to his Exemplary Industry and particular Dexterity in solliciting and managing the Cause and Interests of the Poor He saith if what he doth in that matter will not defend it self he is content to be without a Defence You conclude with submitting ALL that you have written to the Censure and Correction of Holy Mother-Church I acknowledg the Language of Babylon but was it convenient that a Presbyter of the Church of England as you write your self should thus publish to the whole World that he has neither Faith nor Religion I mean of his own but only what Mother Church shall prescribe to him as the terms of Preferment He propounds here in a Book of 800 Pages the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Satisfaction as Essential Articles of the Christian Religion and such as must be believed or if you 'll believe him you shall without doubt perish everlastingly He pretends he has proved these Doctrines by Demonstrations of Reason and by Testimonies of Holy Scripture and of all Antiquity Well does he himself believe what he has written Not a Tittle of it he says unless Mother Church approves of it he submits ALL Faith and Proofs to the Censure and Correction of his Holy Mother let her hang or save he submits This is the Man with whom we have to deal without Faith and without Conscience unless as the Church directs nay and he dares profess too to be otherwise without either Neither is L. M. alone but there are many others that believe their Paradoxes no more than we do but they subdue first their Consciences and afterwards their Minds to the Sophistries usually alledged to prove them so long as Holy Mother Church which can dispose of their Fortunes in the World recommends this Belief as the condition of holding a Parsonage or Vicarage or of getting a Deanary or Prebend On the same Conditions Mother Shipton should be as sacred and infallible with them as Mother Church and they would believe the Kingdom of Oberon and the Territories of Fairy-Land and had they been born Papists Transubstantiation should have been reckoned among the holy Mysteries which Faith must imbrace tho Reason craz'd they say since the Fall of Adam disclaims and renounces them But who is Holy Mother-Church to whom they pay such Profound Submissions I meet with her in Story some hundreds of Years past she seems to be such a one as the Scots imagin'd Queen Elizabeth to be I mean as uncertain and vivacious The Scots thought their King should never succeed to the Crown of England for Queen Elizabeth say they is not a particular Woman But the Lords of the Council in England call an old Woman Queen Elizabeth and so long as there is an old Woman in England they will never want a Queen Elizabeth But the worst thing to my Fancy in Holy Mother-Church is this that she is such an Individuum Vagum in one place she is this thing in another she is the just contrary she is not the same in England for instance that she is at Rome or at Geneva or in Germany and the two Northern Kingdoms or in the Provinces of the Levant in all these places she is so different a Person that she mortally hates and furiously persecutes her own self I find just such another Fantasm haunting the chosen Nation as is now meant by Mother Church and it was in as much regard with two sorts of People the Designing and the Weak as Mother Church is now with the like sorts of Men and Women Jer. 7.4 Trust not in vain words saying The Temple of the Lord The Temple of the Lord The Temple of the Lord are these By which they intended what some now do when they say Mother-Church Mother-Church Mother-Church but the Prophet ventures to call them vain words i. e. a lying and unprofitable Pretence But after all that Reverence which any pretend to have for this Holy Mother 't is certain there is nothing really meant by our Holy Mother the Church but only the strongest side or the prevailing Party And all the mighty Complements Men use to this blessed Mother are nothing else but their Wit or their Fears They find themselves the Slaves of an usurping Faction in the Church which is able to constrain them to profess any thing tho never so contradictory and absurd therefore the Witty presently list themselves of the Party call themselves her Sons and Children and subscribe and swear to all she propounds In others their Dread and Awe turns into real Reverence or rather Superstition and they act and believe as they are commanded without desiring or caring to reflect upon the Causes which first biassed their Minds to this Obedience but those Causes were originally nothing else but the Power and Wealth of the Holy Mother that is as was said of the strongest side But there is another
thy Father's House so shall the King greatly desire thy Beauty Instead of thy Fathers shall be thy Children whom thou mayst make Princes in all the Earth or rather in all this Land q. d. Thou mayst make them Governours of Tribes in all the Land of Canaan Our Opposers catch at the word God thy Torone O God is for ever and ever as if because of that word it were necessary to suppose that both the Psalmist and the Author to the Hebrews do speak of such a Person as is really and truly God But why have they not noted what our Saviour tells them that those also are called Gods in Scripture To whom the Word of God comes Joh. 10.35 that is to say Judges Magistrates and especially Princes are called Gods because they hold the Place of God and act by his general Commission granted to them in his Word For Proof of which Observation he alledges the words of Psal 82.6 concerning the Magistracy and Princes of Israel I have said Ye are Gods In a word Solomon is in this Psalm saluted by the Name of God according to the known Language of those Times and Countries to Magistrates and Princes and what had been said to Solomon is by St. Paul to the Hebrews applied or accommodated to the Great Spiritual King the Messias or Christ because it might even more properly be said of him than of Solomon even this saying Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever Nay we may allow that he more than applies the words we may say he interprets them of Christ because the Psalm being composed by a Prophetical Poet at the same time that he courted and praised Solomon he might prophesy of the Lord Christ This account of these words Thy Throne O God is for ever being so generally approved by the more learned Criticks of the Trinitarians I cannot but wonder that this Text should be urged by any at this time of the day as a Proof that the Lord Christ is true God equal to the Eternal and Almighty Father of all the dread Creator of Heaven and Earth If it prooves the Lord Christ to be such it proves the same of Solomon even in the Opinion of the most judicious of our Opposers A fourth Proof of our Author is Heb. 1.6 When he God bringeth his First-begotten into the World he saith or he commandeth Let all the Angels of God worship him His Argument from hence is this the Charge so often repeated in Scripture of worshipping God only obliges Angels as well as Men seeing therefore they are required to worship our Lord Christ it follows that he is true God But our Author is greatly mistaken when he saith that the words Let all the Angels of God worship him are taken from Psal 97.7 they are taken from the LXX Translation of Deut. 32.43 where the LXX whose Translation is followed generally by the Writers of the New Testament and more especially by the Author of this Epistle throughout read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all the Angels of God worship him the very words of the Author to the Hebrews But at Psal 97.7 from whence Mr. Milbourn would fetch this Quotation 't is only said Worship him all ye Gods and the words are by Interpreters commonly understood of the Gods or Demons worshipp'd by the Heathen Nations Furthermore it has been observed by some Trinitarian Criticks that Justin Martyr Theodoret Epiphanius and St. Austin all very ancient quote these words Let all the Angels of God worship him as taken from the LXX Translation of Deut. 32.43 tho the words are wanting in the present Hebrew Copies of the Bible and therefore also in our English Bibles as are divers other Passages of the Old Testament cited by the Writers of the New The words in that Text of Deuteronomy are spoken of the Nation of Israel the Nations are there bid to rejoice with and the Angels to worship Israel that is to guard serve and watch over him But these words intended originally of Israel are by the Author to the Hebrews accommodated and applied likewise to the Lord Christ because the Angels had in charge to succour and minister to him also Yet not to him only but to all his Brethren Heb. 1.14 They are all Ministring Spirits sent forth to minister to such as shall be Heirs of Salvation We have just such another Accommodation or Application of a Text to our Saviour which was originally meant of the Nation of Israel at Matth. 2.15 there the Evangelish saith that Jesus was brought by Joseph his Foster-Father out of Egypt into Judea and so saith he was fulfilled the Word of God by the Prophet Out of Egypt I have called my Son But any one that looks into the Context of the Prophet will plainly see that those words were originally meant and designed of the People of Israel whom God there vouchsafes to call his Son The words of the Prophet are these Hosea 11.1 When Israel was a Child i. e. in the first Ages of that People then I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt Therefore when such Texts are either interpreted of Christ or accommodated and applied to him we are to understand it after this manner that those Texts were again fulfilled or had a second Completion in the Person of our Lord Christ But our Author urges that the Precept of worshipping only God obliges Angels and Men therefore how could the Angels be required to worship Christ if he were not true God It seems then he has not observed what is said at 1 Chron. 29.20 The Congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers and bowing the Head they worshipped the Lord and the King Nor has he noted how often divers Persons worshipp'd our Saviour while he was upon Earth The meaning is not that they worshipp'd either David or our Saviour with Divine Worship but with a Civil and Religious Worship such as is due to Kings and to Prophets on the account of him that sent them The Lord Christ has an Office that of King and Head of the Church higher than any Angel nay so high that he may make use of the Ministry of Angels in the Execution of his Office therefore they are bid to worship him not with Divine Worship no more than they were to worship Israel with such Worship but with the Worship or Respect that is due to him in regard of his Office as the Congregation worshipp'd David in the Text last quoted in regard of his Kingdom or Royal Dignity But as I observed before the Worship principally meant in the words Let all the Angels of God worship him is to be understood of succouring and ministring to him while he was upon Earth as they were to worship Israel CHAP. III. Continuation of the Examination of the Texts objected from the Old Testament OUR Author's fifth Objection is from Heb. 1.10 11 12. words taken from Psal 102.25 26 27. And thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation
that I am not willing to be seen maintaining a Scuffle with him Others of his Party have known how to make a vigorous Opposition from this Context the sum of what they say is Every Clause here objected is a several Argument against the Socinian Heresy The First declares the Real Divinity of our Saviour by asserting his Eternity in these words In the Beginning as who should say from the very First or from all Eternity was the WORD The second Clause saith The WORD was with God to signify the continual and perpetual Generation of the WORD or Son and also the mutual Inexistence of these two Divine Persons in one another The next yet more Directly and even Expresly contradicts the Socinians by saying the WORD was God They say He was a Man and no more than a Man 'T is true they allow He may be called God in such sense as Moses is called a God and that by God himself at Exod. 7.1 in that He was to represent the Person of God being to deliver God's Commands to Pharaob to Israel and to the Egyptians But our Evangelist has been careful to prevent these Evasions by telling us what kind of God the WORD was All things saith he were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made And lest Incredulous and Obstinate Men should interpret all things in these words to be only All things belonging to the Gospel-state or the whole Oeconomy and Doctrine of the Gospel as the Socinians would now wrest St. John's words To prevent I say this Elusion he adds yet farther He was in the World and the World was made by him But this Holy Evangelist has not yet done with them He says at V. 14. The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us 'T were Nonsense to speak so of a Person who was only a Man Who ever said Peter or James were made Flesh and dwelt among us Would it not be Ridiculous so to speak Therefore the Lord Jesus was more than a Man He was God made Flesh that is to say Man for Flesh is a very usual Scripture-Term for Man He was made Man by being Incarnate in an Human Nature by an Hypostatical Union to a Body of Flesh and a Rational Soul This Evangelist has given us too the Testimony of the other John even John the Baptist concerning the Prae-existence or Prae-eternity of our Saviour He that cometh after me is preferred before me for be was before me We are expresly told by St. Luke that John Baptist was six Months older than our Lord Christ as Man Therefore when St. John says Christ was before him it must be thus understood that as God He was before John thô as Man He was younger than John It is true the Socinians have strained their Wits to give other Senses of these Verses or so to interpret them as to make their Saviour nothing but a Man not God not a Creatour no not so much as an Angel but a meer Man Now when Expressions may have divers Senses it sometimes happens that there are no Primitive Acts to ascertain one of the Senses above or rather than another of them but Providence has been watchful on behalf of the true Faith and the Catholic Interpretation of these Verses by preserving to us Ancient Acts and such as must needs satisfy sincere and teachable Persons the Church is in possession of most certain Records by which she indubitably proves the Catholic Interpretation of this Context The Socinians are not the First Authors of this Heresy that there is but one Divine Person even the God and Father of our Lord Christ and that the Lord Christ was nothing else but a Prophet and the Holy Spirit only the Power and Inspiration of God The Nazarens and Cerinthus and Ebion immediately after the Death of the Apostles began to propagate this Heresy to the great Offence and Scandal of the Churches And it so hapned that many hearkued to them insomuch that the Bishops and Churches of Asia importuned St. John to write somewhat more expresly concerning the Divinity of our Saviour than had been yet done by any of the Apostles St. John was at length prevailed on to do as they desired only he requested that a General Fast might be held to invoke the Aid of God on his Undertaking The Fast being ended the Holy Ghost fell upon him and He began his Gospel with these words which came to him from Heaven In the Beginning was the WORD and the Word was with God and the WORD was God All things were made by Him and without Him was not any thing made that was made This Relation is made by St. Jerom Proem Com. in Matth. And he declares in the same place that this was no uncertain Rumour nor a thing of Hear-say Sed ita narrat Ecclesiastica Historia The Church-History so tells us The Socinians therefore sweat to no purpose in devising Comments or Elusions on this Context which was designedly written against them 't is in vain for them to oppose their own Inventions to Primitive Acts which tell us plainly that this Gospel was written on purpose against their Heresy nay that the words of it with which we pretend to confute them came down from Heaven or were spoken against them from Heaven St. John being only the Penman not the Author of them Thus it is Sir that the Socinians are Baffled by false and Senseless Translations supported by Fictions and Legends There never was a Greater Flamm than this Tale of St. Jerom out of an Ecclesiastical History never seen by any body but Himself Irenaeus two Hundred Years older than St. Jerom and therefore so much nearer to matter of Fact could say nothing of St. John's Gospel but this He publish'd it at Ephesus in Asia Advers Haeres Lib. 3. c. 1. Origen who had made so diligent a search among all the Monuments of Antiquity that He might be able to give an exact Account of the Writers of Holy Scriptures says Concerning the four Evangelists we have received by Tradition as follows St. Matthew first a Publican afterwards an Apostle wrote his Gospel in Hebrew for the sake of the Jews who believed St. mark wrote his Gospel as St. Peter declared it to him The third is the Gospel of Luke approved by St. Paul and written for the sake of the Heathens Lastly St. John's Gospel Had St. Jerom seen an Ecclesiastical History that Origen never saw or would Origen have omitted such a Famous Occasion and Confirmation of St. John's Gospel when he tells us the Occasions and Approvers of the other Gospels The words of Origen before quoted were extant in his Fourth Book of Comments on St. Matthew they are preserved by Eusebius Hist Lib. 6. c. 25. Eusebius spends a whole Chapter concerning the Order of the Evangelists and declares the true Occasion and Cause of St. John's Writing which according to him was this It being saith he observed that the other Evangelists had
in the Father or God by their Obedlinet and Love and God is in them by his mutual Love to them This is the Interpretation which the Scripture gives of it self we ought not to heed the Dreams or Fancies of Mystical Divines who think nothing is Religion but what no body understands and what contradicts Reason and good Sense Last of all our Saviour also said I am the Son of God Every one confesses that he was so because he was generated by the Divine Power on a Virgin without the Concurrence of any other Father but God yet even this as great a matter as it is is not so great a Glory to him as that he was the Son of God in such sense as all the Faithful are called God's Children Sons and Daughters of God begotten of God namely because of their Similitude and Likeness to God in Holiness or Purity to which they have been begotten by him by his Word and other Means sutable and adapted to their Rational Natures Mat. 5.45 That ye may be the Children of your Father which is in Heaven 1 John 5.18 Whosoever is born of God sinneth not he that is begotten of God keepeth himself Whereas therefore the Lord Christ is sometimes called the only begotten of the Father it is to be understood as when Isaac is called the only Son and the only begotten Son of Abraham at Gen. 22.2 12. Heb. 11.17 Abraham had other Sons begotten by himself yet Isaac is called his only begotten in regard of his Father's particular and especial Love to him even such as Parents ususually have for an only Child And in this sense the Greek word used concerning our Saviour which we render only begotten is frequently used in Greek Authors and not only of such Person or Persons as are strictly and in proper speaking only begotten In these Interpretations of the objected Clauses I and the Father are one I am the Son of God the Father is in me and I in him we have the concurring Judgment of the principal Criticks and Interpreters among the Trinitarians some of them do blame the Fathers for urging such Scripture-Expressions as these against the Arians and Photinians and they call the Interpretations of the Fathers and of some Modern Writers of Controversies Violent Glosses Our present Opposer was aware of this and therefore is forced to say at P. 354. We are not bound to regard what some Men of great Names say or boldly assert It is true but the Authority of such Men whose Names are deservedly great in Critical Learning and especially in the sacred Criticism doth at least evince thus much that the Texts which They give up to their Opposers ought to be placed in a Class by themselves they ought to be reckoned among the Proofs that are brought for show and Ostentation of Number or to fill up the spare Pages of a Book or in a popular Sermon not in such a Book wherein the Author professes to deal only with the Learned and to urge no other Text but what is indeed an Argument on his behalf The short is our Opposers litigate with us concerning the sense of these Expressions I and the Father are one God is my Father I am in the Father and the Father in me We show hereupon from express Scriptures that all these things are true of all the Faithful and are said of them no less than of our Saviour We show farther that they are interpreted in Holy Scripture to be an Oneness of Design and Love an In-Being by Obedience and Love on the part of the Lord Christ and Believers and of Protection and Love on the part of God and that the Lord Christ may be so the Son of God and his only Begotten as that still he is but a Man and not God We show that all this is confest tho not by the wrangling Pulpit and trifling Systematicks and Catechists yet by the chief Interpreters and Criticks and first Reformers even among our Opposers themselves On the contrary those that interpret the before-mentioned Expressions of our Saviour as if in them he meant to say that he is God such do advance an Interpretation that destroys the Unity of God contradicts manifest Reason and has no Vouchers but the Jews I say none but the Jews for Trinitarians can produce no Text of Scripture nor any Profane Author that can possibly be understood to mean by such Expressions what they mean namely a numerical Oneness of Nature an In-being by Mixture of Persons and a Natural Generation out of the very Essence of God Upon these Texts therefore we have as much advantage against them as possibly we can have even Reason the Current of Scripture the Authority of their own Criticks and of all Profane Writers The next Trouble he gives us out of the New Testament is from John 20.28 Thomas answered and said unto him unto Jesus My Lord and my God Socinus himself Wolzogenius and Slichtingius learned Unitarians do not only grant but they contend that it was indeed the Intention of Thomas to call our Saviour his Lord and his God but 't is in no other sense than the Author of the 45th Psalm calls Solomon God Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever To which he adds speaking to the Queen concerning her Husband Solomon Hearken O Daughter forget thy own People and thy Father's House So shall the King greatly desire thy Beauty for he is thy Lord God and worship thou him So 't is in the Version of the Psalms in the Book of Common-Prayer which Translation I judg our Author will not disclaim And so also St. Jerome translates Ipse est Dominus Deus taus adorabunt eum but the Translators imployed by King James have left out the word God from those words to the Queen He is the Lord thy God But seeing Solomon had before been called God Thy Throne O God is for ever 't is undeniable that in this Psalm he is called both Lord and God and his Queen is bid to worship him that is to honour him for such was the Language of the Eastern Nations to their Kings and Persons in Eminent Dignity The Prophets Moses and Samuel are called Elobim or God Exod. 7.1 1 Sam. 28.11 13 14. In that last Context King Saul ordered the Woman to call up Samuel and Samuel appearing she called to Saul and told him that now she saw Elohim God ascending up Saul thereupon asks her What form is he of the Woman replies He is an old Man It appears by this that besides their Kings and Magistrates the Jews gave also the Name Elohim to the Prophets But that was the very word used by the Apostle Thomas to our Saviour the Greeks translate it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the English by the word God Therefore when 't is used of a Man we are not to suppose that the Speaker intends to call such Man God or that he owns him for a Person who is true God but he uses
An ACCURATE EXAMINATION OF THE Principal Texts Usually alledged for The Divinity of our Saviour AND For the Satisfaction by him made to the Justice of God for the Sins of Men Occasioned by a BOOK of Mr. L. Milbourn CALLED Mysteries in Religion vindicated London Printed in the Year 1692. THE PREFACE TO Mr. L. MILBOVRN SIR I Began to read your Book with very close attention and regard but when I had gone over some part of it I perceived you were not so qualified that you might reasonably undertake to intermeddle in these Questions or deserve to be heard concerning them If in defect of other necessary Endowments of a Writer you please your self however in the bulkiness of your Book you may be advised for the time to come that on the contrary every Trifle is so much the better by how much the shorter it is and that a verbose Trifler is nauseous even to Friends In your Dedication you say the Bishops ought to use a just Severity against and to frown effectually upon such whom the late Act of Toleration excludes from all Benefit thereby that is they ought to fall to persecuting the Socinians for the supposed Errors of their Conscience Truly Sir we are beholden to you But what if the Socinians against whom you publickly excite the Bishops should write the Farce of your Life They know very well the several Scenes of it and the Part you have acted at Pembr Hall at London and afterwards at Yarmouth from whence 't is said you ran away Are you not aware that it were easy for them to make you a Town-talk as you have made your self a Country-talk and at best withdrew your self Your Preface has two Parts The First is an Apology for your Book the other is taken up in conplementing T. F. I will speak briefly to both I. That you have said but a little in a great deal that the Parts of your Book are ill put together that you have been impertinent in diverting to Matters that were beside your Text and Vndertaking all these you confess but you excuse the Meanness of your Performance by your Poverty and your Poverty you lay to the Charge of the People of Yarmouth who could not you say be made sensible of your Learning and Worth that is the meaning of what you have said at Pag. 1. of your Preface But such as know Yarmouth how populous and wealthy it is will not be perswaded out of it but that a Person of no more Learning or Parts than L. M. were he withal but Modest Peaceable and Exemplary might live at Yarmouth in quality of their Minister very handsomly and comfortably and besides be esteem'd and belov'd They tell us that seeing your Sermons against us have been so little liked at their Majesty's good Town of Yarmouth we ought to make trial how that discerning People will entertain our Pamphlets they have already refused the Evil there is therefore reasonable hope that they will chuse the Good and will rejoice in it The second Part of your Preface is all Complement on T. F. Thus you begin calling him pert Smatterer in Ignorance so says the Reverend Mr. L. M. and this was the best he could say when he undertook to give a Character of T. F. But I find that the most Reverend are in a very different Story concerning this Gentleman The Metropolitan of all England thought fit to say of him That Worthy and Useful Citizen Mr. T. F. Fun. Sermon on Mr. Gouge p. 63. What may be the Reason that T. F. is drawn in such different Colours I think 't is not hard to find the Reason Some because they heartily love God and reverence Vertue and Well-doing can think and speak respectfully even of those from whom they differ very widely in their Sentiments about the controverted Points of Christianity for God's sake they can cordially smile upon a good Man though they think him in an Error and they are of Opinion because the Holy Scriptures have said it that fervent Charity is greater than Faith But others measuring all Persons and Things by only the narrow Interests of themselves and their Party and wholly excluding God and the relation to him rail against their Adversaries giving all Men to the Devil that are of a Belief contrary to theirs Which brings to mind what Mr. Calvin has observed Vt quisque eorum pro ventre est maximè sollicitus ita pro fide suâ deprehenditur Bellator acerrimus i. e. As any of them are more concerned and afraid for their Bellies so he is found to bawl and rail loudest on behalf of his own particular Faith and Party Calv. Praef. ad Institut p. 7. Well but what might be the very meaning of this Witticism on T. F. pert Smatterer in Ignorance I suppose the meaning is T. F. has had his Education at London not at Cambridg or Oxford he knows nothing of Predicables Predicaments and Syllogisms nor has ever learned there to drink the third or fourth Bottle for his own share What an unhappy Education was this that his Friends took no care to make him a Fool and a Debauch that the Gifts and Impressions of God and Nature have not been effaced by a sort of Institution which sometimes to make a Scholar defaces both the Man and the Christian T. F. has only Reason and good Sense how unlucky was it that he should not destroy them by Logick and Metaphysicks However I am of Opinion T. F. will make his natural Talents go as far and do him as much Service and Credit as Logick and Metaphysicks and skill of the Bottle will do for L. M. or for his Cause The next Charge upon him is in these words The Socinians Hawker to disperse their new-fangled Divinity Hawker of all Men living L. M. should have forbore this word Hawker unless he has forgot because 't is a good while since how unluckily the hawking off Books succeeded with himself in a certain place which at present I forbear to name See Sir we can be affronted and abused without making haste to revenge our selves But why is our Divinity new-fangled It hath two such Marks of Antiquity by confession of our very Opposers that could they show either of them for their Divinity we would make little difficulty of coming over to their Party For first 't is acknowledged by the most Learned of our Opposers that the Patriarchal Ages and the Church of the Old Testament never knew the Doctrine of the Trinity We are confess'd by our Adversaries to believe concerning God as the Patriarchs and Prophets believed namely that there is but one who is God or that God is but one Person Secondly The Apostles Creed the only Monument of true Antiquity besides the Bible which the Christian Church has is owned too to be wholly Vnitarian for it gives the Appellation God to only the Almighty Father Maker of Heaven and Earth and speaks of our Saviour under no other Characters but those