that nature The Place cited out of St. Peter has no relation at all to this That of St. Paul to the Corinthians is as much foregin to it being only an excellent Metaphor to express our future state That to Timothy is indeed more to the matter in hand but the Apostle has prevented the objection by speaking positively of God's decree in respect of our Election Who has call'd us with a holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose ... which word the Author was pleas'd to overlook What has been said will give light to some difficulties which these Gentlemen judge to be unanswerable The 1st is taken from this very Chapter Joh. 17.3 and this is life Eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent The Author of the answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 22. is positive that the Father is call'd the true God exclusively to any other and that nothing can more effectually evince that Christ is not God but only God's Ambassador This is one of those very many Texts says the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 5. which directly affirm that only the Father is God The objection is not new It was made by the Arrians in the Council of Nice and exploded by the Fathers The truth is these Holy Men never understood the words as fixing and restraining the Deity to the Father with exclusion to the Son and the Holy spirit nor their sence to have any regard to either of them or else this would absolutely have decided the Controversy Nor is it comprehensible that the Fathers before the Council of Nice would have spoken so fully to the Divinity of Christ or that those of the Council of Nice and the Fathers after them and the whole Christian World durst have embrac't it as an essential part of our Faith if they had look't upon the sence of this Text to be no other than what is pretended by these Gentlemen The Good the wise the Learned cannot be conceiv'd to have willfully run into an errour contrary to the open and known sence of such a place of Scripture They constantly understood these words The Father the only true God to be spoken not exclusively to the two other persons but in opposition to the Gods of the Heathen those false Deities which had usurp't amongst them the place of the true Nor is it unusual in Scripture by the Father to mean not so much the first Divine Person as the Deity in general I will not spend time in setting down the many ways that this Text may be read in or what order the words might be made capable of to take off their pretended inconsistency with the Christian Hypothesis of three Persons subsisting in the same Divine Nature St. Basil and St. Chrysostom have effectually done it and shew'd how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have render'd only is rather comprehensive than exclusive in the dialect of Scripture I have a plain and obvious reason why the only True God must be understood in the sence of the Fathers in opposition to false Gods and not in exclusion of Christ and the Holy spirit and that is that Christ in Scripture is call'd the true God and the only Lord God which can never be if the only true God here must be restrain'd to the Father as these Gentlemen would have it 1 Joh. 5.2 and we know that the Son of God is come and has given us an understanding that we may know him that is true and we are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille he is the true God and Eternal life I take this to be positive and decisive that the only true God cannot be understood in relation to the Son or the Holy spirit since the Son is also call'd true God No says the Author of the Brief Hist p. 43. This is a very negligent translation and no sence can be made of the words The latter part of the Text ought to have been render'd we are in him that is true by his Son Jesus Christ and not in his Son Jesus Christ This Text plainly denys that Chirst is the true God The outlandish Socinians had made a miserable exception to this Text which these Gentlemen thought fit to forsake as ruinous But this is to the full as bad The translation is directly against them Therefore it is negligent and nonsensical The translators cannot be made to speak as they would have them Therefore they are careless and speak nonsence The particle in Jesus Christ ruines their opinion Therefore it must be by contrary to the Faith of all translations contrary to any possible construction of the place contrary to the sence of all Interpreters You see Sir how desperate is that cause which cannot support it self without these mean shifts and has nothing to oppose to a plain and deciding Text but the bold and presumptuous altering of a Particle I use these words which perhaps may seem too sharp because the thing of it self is so extraordinary and this Text in the original so infinitely clear that I durst give up the cause if of a thousand Translators strangers to the controversy any one does translate by and not in his Son Jesus Christ I think that Jud. 4. is much to be consider'd There is a description made of unhappy Men who are crept in unawares Their Character is to be ungodly to turn the grace of God into lasciviousness and to deny the only Lord God and Lord of us Jesus Christ That the whole is spoken of Christ appears from the Greek construction of the Phrase from the singleness of the Article and the continuation of the Text without the least punctuation The whole running thus denying Jesus Christ who is the only Lord God and our Lord. This is so obvious that to prove it is to lose time It not only asserts the Divinity of Christ but also shews how vain is the pretence that in the disputed Text the only true God should exclude the Son or the holy spirit As if any rational Man durst infer from thence that because Christ is call'd the only Lord God Therefore the Father is neither Lord nor God These Gentlemen have taken no notice of this Text in any of their writings that I have seen and so have say'd nothing to it But yet because a proof must be clear and candid and remove if possible all objections what can be oppos'd to it amounts to this That the old latin Interpreter and some Greek Manuscripts of a considerable Authority do not read the word God and that Erasmus has translated not the only Lord God and Lord of us Jesus Christ But God who is the only Lord and our Lord Jesus Christ Erasmus and one or two more Modern Interpreters who with all the care imaginable have endeavour'd to obscure or prevert all those Texts which speak openly of the
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
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
he was the expected Saviour then a lively application of this Text to his disciples Go and shew John again those things you do hear and see The blind receive their sight The lame walk the lepers are cleans'd The deaf hear The dead are raised up the Poor have the Gospel preach't to them He is God that should come He is God that should do this Christ is come and has done all this What consequence is more natural than that he is truly God To this these Gentlemen answer Brief Hist pag. 20. 1st That it does not appear that our Saviour intended to quote the words of the Prophet 2ly That admitting he did God is only said to come to the Jews in his Ambassador Jesus Christ And because in him and by him he gave sight to the blind c. They cite for this Joh. 14.10 Act. 10.38 To the 1st Whether Christ intended it or not is not at all material What we have to do is to prove that the Prophecy is fullfill'd in him If it is which is undeniable then he is the God who was to come and work these miracles in the behalf of mankind But that he intended it will appear not only from the exact correspondency of the Text but also from the constant tradition of the Jews who understood this place of the Messias and from it concluded that he was to work Miracles It was natural therefore in the Baptist who could not be ignorant of Christ's stupendous conception by which he was design'd to his Miraculous performances to send and ask whether he was he that was to come and as natural to Christ to give John no other answer than that those things were done by him by which the World was to be convinc'd that the Messias was come The 2d that God is come to the Jews in his Ambassador and Messenger Christ Jesus is a flat denyal to an express Text. The Prophet speaks of an immediate coming of a personal appearance of a Mighty expectation through the whole world He who is to come to appear to remove that expectation by his glorious presence is call'd our God Our God shall come he shall come If this be no more than to appear by his Messenger a less Prophet would have serv'd the turn Such vehement and positive expressions can never agree with so poor a shift Nor is it at all reconcilable with the opinion of the Jews who were so far perswaded that the Messias was a divine person and that he was the God spoken of here that several of their Doctors have thought from the last verse of this Chapter that he should actually deliver them who were already in the place of Eternal Torments But what an unlucky strain is the citation of Joh. 14.10 The Father that dwells in me he does the works And Act. 10.38 God was with him Who doubts that God was present to the Holy Jesus who doubts that God was with him since we contend with all the Fathers and Doctors of the Christian Church that the Eternal word of the Father assum'd his nature The citation of St. John absolutely destroys what they would infer from it Christ tells his Disciples that if they had known him they had known the Father also Philip upon this begs that he would shew them the Father Christ Answers he that has seen me has seen the Father He gives presently the reason of the Answer I am in the Father and the Father in me That is there is in us a distinction of Persons He is the Father I am the Son There is an Unity of nature I am in him and he is in me This is not my own Assertion The Father that dwels in me he does the works The works that the Father does in me are a proof of what I say He resumes the whole Argument Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me Or else believe me for the very works sake Believe me who say that it is so with us But if thou will not believe upon my own Authority be convinc'd by those Miraculous Operations which are an invincible proof of what I say The 40th Chapter of Isaias is to the same purpose only it seems more plain and express It has besides the unanimous consent of the Jews who understand it to be a Prophecy of the Messias Christ is represented here as our God in such expressions as shew the whole Oeconomy of the Gospel and are applicable to no Mortal Man So great a truth is usher'd in with a splendid Preface Verse 3 4 5. by which the four Evangelists have prov'd the Mission of John the Baptist the foreruner of Christ in which we have the advantage that the proof of the one is a proof of the other O Jerusalem that bringest good tidings lift up thy Voice with strength ...... say to the Cities of Judah behold your God Behold the Lord God will come with strong hand ...... He shall feed his flock like a shepherd He shall gather the Lambs with his arm and carry them in his bosom Christ then is the Lord God seen by the Cities of Judah To him the character of strength does agree who was to conquer the Prince of this World Joh. 12.31 To him does that of the Shepherd answer exactly who said of himself Joh. 10.11 I am the good shepherd of whom St. Paul said Heb. 13.20 that he is the great shepherd of the sheep and St. Peter 1. pet 2.25 The shepherd and Bishop of our Souls Nor can it be so much as pretended here that God came in his Ambassador and Messenger Christ Jesus That wild notion has not so much as the least place here The Lord God who was to come was to be seen by the Cities of Judah He was to be preceded and have his ways prepar'd by the Illustrious Forerunner The Baptist who was invested in that glorious office was on that very account call'd Luk. 2.67 The Prophet of the Highest Let any one compare candidly these expressions The Lord God and the Highest Esay says the Lord God will come Zacharias says And thou child shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways The Baptist was the immediate Prophet of Christ Christ was the Lord whose ways he was to prepare That Lord is the Highest whose Prophet he was and the Lord God who was to be seen and whose ways were to be prepar'd This is another place which these Gentlemen have taken no notice of and so have said nothing to it The 45th of Esay is wholly taken up to prove the unity of the divine nature v. 6.18 22. I am the Lord and there is none else I am God and there is none else opposing in this the vanity and multiplicity of the Gods of the Heathen As a consequence of that Unity the Almighty challenges the praises and adorations of all his Creatures v. 23. I have sworn by my self that
the confession of their Adversaries Some of them had preserv'd the gift of miracles which expir'd soon after Such an assertion had it not been true would have better become a pack of Villains than Holy and Reverend Men. 2ly How durst the Nicence Fathers declare this to be the Faith and Anathematise whosoever was against that sacred wise Divine and Catholick Faith had this Faith been new and unknown to the Fathers before nay had a contrary Faith obtain'd then in the Christian World This is a monstruous supposition that within 300 Years after Christ the Nicene Fathers should presume to obtrude the belief of and declare a Doctrine to be Faith which the Primitive Fathers were not so much as acquainted with To give more strength to this and prevent an objection which perhaps may have some colour and occasion another Criticism I freely own that not only the Arrians but even some of the Orthodox complain'd that the words Consubstantial and Consubstantiality were new and unscriptural But this confirms what I have said the newness and unscripturalness of the words but not of the sence being asserted They agreed in the truth and antiquity of the Doctrine but only differ'd about these two words which by being new and unscriptural were not thought so fit to express it I beg your pardon for insisting so long upon this But I was forc't to it 1st Because this very place of that Letter you have often urg'd to me 2ly To shew that how great Criticks soever we are we must be just and equitable and value reasons above Criticisms If these Gentlemen write for the Unlearned they are much out of the way these things are above their reach And if for the Learned they must own that this has not made one Learned Man of their side It is a sort of Chicane which Men of sence abhor 6ly These Gentlemen would have us prove those Terms by Scriptures which we own to be unscriptural They challenge us to find in the New Testament the word Godman Trinity Incarnation nay whole Propositions in Terminis The Author of the Letter now cited pag. 10. pretends it as a great Argument of their side that Tertullian is the first amongst the Latins and Clemens Alexand. amongst the Greeks who first us'd the word Trinity We might as well ask and with as little reason where is the word Vnity in respect of God or Sacrament or Hierarchy and several more which all the World receives and yet are no Scriptural words If we do but find the things exprest by the words as that God is one that there is Baptism and the Lord's Supper that there is an order of Men appointed to administer holy things the words are a natural consequence and founded in the things themselves Is it not highly unjust to ask us where we find a Trinity if we can prove three Divine Persons That besides the Father whom they acknowledge to be God the Son also and the Holy Spirit is God To wonder at the word Eternal Generation since if we prove Christ's Pre-existence and Pre-eternity He cannot be the Son of God but by way of Eternal Generation To stare at the word Incarnation as such an unheard of thing since if Christ is God and yet has taken our nature He must be Incarnate These are poor mean and a sort of Mob difficulties These Grievances being consider'd I beg nothing but what is equitable 1st I beg that if we prove the thing in question that is the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy spirit we may have no quarell about the words Trinity and Incarnation 2ly That no particular Interpretation of any Protestant Author may be brought against us as Interpretation either of our Church or any other considerable body of Protestants 3ly That if a Text is capable of a various reading and of a double sence that sence and reading may be preserv'd which is prov'd to have been the ancient reading and the sence generally receiv'd in the Churches of God A sence new and unknown to all the Ages of the Church cannot be the sence and that possession which we and all Christian Societies are in of those Texts cannot be disturb'd without something more forcible and authoritative than the witty fancy of an Interpreter 4ly I beg that the Fathers may be heard as Witnesses of an unquestionable integrity and that this at least may be a real prejudice against these Gentlemen that they have not only oppos'd the Faith of their Age but also that of times past 5ly That a Criticism alone the doubting of a Book the denying of a place the wrangling about a Particle without some considerable reason to back it may not be look't upon as an Answer 6ly That not only some one particular Text which we alledge be consider'd but that all our Texts be taken together with the weight of the important reasons which inforce the belief of our Mysteries This granted I conceive that it is no difficult matter to convince a candid Opposer that the New Testament is clear for the Divinity of Christ We will begin by that which is the foundation of our Holy Religion Matt. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This is the ancient profession of our Faith and ingenuously acknowledg'd to be such by the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milb pag. 16. He cites for this Tertullian de bapt c. 13. He might have cited Theodoret lib. 1. c. 12. St. Basil de Spir. sanct and Arrius himself who is a Witness of this in the Confession of his Faith given to Constantine and reported by Socrates lib. 1. c. 26. The Orthodox from this Text conclude three Persons to be spoken of These Gentlemen only two The Father who is God and the Son The Holy Ghost they will have to be no more than the Energy of the Father They are positive in the Brief Hist pag. 25. That neither the more learned of their Opposers nor the Fathers of the first 400 Years insist on this Text to prove the Divinity of the Lord Christ and of the Holy Spirit The matter of fact is a vast mistake and the very supposition is impossible This place having been cited so often by the Ancients and modern to prove the Persons of the Trinity must of course in their Hypothesis be an Argument for their Divinity They agree with us that the Son spoken of in the Text is Christ Jesus whom they will have to be the Son of God by all other titles but that of Nature and Essence They say of him that he is the Son of God by his miraculous Conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin By his Mission to preach to Men and reclaim them from their Sins by his Glorious Resurrection being begotten to a new Life and his Admission to a Blessed Immortality whence as God's deputy he is to come to judge the quick and the dead
equal with God by equalling himself with God Thus you see Sir your Friends are so taken up with their new Creation that they assume to themselves a power to create a new sence to some words a sence which they never had nor can never have Coloss 2.9 The Apostle has asserted this Sacred truth in few words but comprehensive v. 3. In him Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge v. 7. The Colossians are to be rooted and built up in him v. 8. Philosophy will rather deceive than inform them The traditions of men and the Elements of the World whether the weak notices of the Gentiles or the observances of the Jewish Oeconomy are all insufficient None but Christ can supply their wants and make them truly knowing and good St. Paul gives this reason for it For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily Our translation comes short of the energy of the Greek Text which should have been render'd thus For in him dwells the whole fulness of the Godhead Essentially a notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usual in the Scriptures This proves then all that the several sorts of Hereticks have deny'd of Christ A Communication not of power or Vertue as in Moses or the Prophets but of nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine Nature A Communication not Figurative Sacramental or representative but real and substantial A Communication not partial transient or begun in time but the whole nature the whole fullness of the Godhead A Communication supposing a distinction of Persons against the Sabellians him who communicates and him to whom it is communicated Col. 1.19 For it pleas'd the Father that in him the whole fullness should dwell A Communication which clearly shews against Arrians Nestorians Socinians the Hypostatical Union of the two natures in Christ For it is in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his adorable Person in Christ the word made Flesh that this Divine Nature dwells with all the Properties Attributes Qualifications which belong to it All human apprehensions and expressions being infinitely short of this inspir'd way of speaking of St. Paul all the fullness of the Godhead bodily To this the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 39. answers somewhat confusedly contrary to his Custom He says that the fulness of the Godhead is the fulness of the knowledge of God which he pretends to prove by Eph. 3.19 where the Apostle wishes that they may be fill'd with all the fullness of God This Christ had and he has fill'd us Christians with it He says that this knowledge dwelt in him bodily in opposition to that imperfect umbratile and unsincere knowledge of God which the Apostle affirms v. 8. to be found in the Philosophy and Philosophers of Greece who in St. Paul's time were in great Esteem amongst the Colossians He adds that this is the Interpretation of the most Learned and Orthodox Interpreters It is true that some Interpreters whom these Gentlemen always honour with the Title of most learned if they but speak what pleases them have oppos'd these words not only to the Philosophy of the Greeks but even to the law which was only a shadow of things to come Christ being the Body as the Syriack reads the 17. v. the substance and perfection of knowledge and there being as much difference between their Doctrine and his as there is between the shadow and the body But two things this Author has not taken notice of 1st That these most Learned Interpreters do only deliver this as a secondary interpretation leaving the Primary which I have laid before you in its full force 2ly That this Interpretation really supposes and resolves it self into the first The Apostle desires the Colossians to avoid the vain Philosophy of the Greeks that science falsly so call'd and the rudiments of the World those imperfect ways of men's invention to bring and reconcile them to God even all the Ceremonial Law which though prescrib'd by God himself yet was only in order to somewhat better and that they should stick to Christ be rooted and built up in him in whom and by whom they should be fill'd and compleated He gives the reason of this because in him are hid the treasures of wisdom and knowledge and he is the head of all Principality and Power and all this is true because he is not only a wise and a rational Man according to the World for such were the Philosophers Nor a Man sent from God for such were Moses and the Prophets but he was God himself come down in our Flesh for in him dwells the whole fullness of the Godhead bodily Substantially Essentially I am satisfy'd that this Author does not believe the application of Eph. 3.19 to have any solidity But there is in the disputed Text the fullness of the Godhead and in this the fullness of God These two words are alike and therefore must be made to jump When he cannot but know that all the Interpreters even the beloved Erasmus and Grotius tell us that the Apostle means no more by this than that Christ may dwell in our hearts by Faith and that we may have as much of the favour and grace of God as we can I beg to know with what candor he has translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God by the Deity or The Divine Nature which though sometimes Synonymous yet cannot be so here But what can more effectually prove the communication of the Divine Nature to Christ than that he is the only begotten Son of God Joh. 1.18 No man has seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he has declar'd him A title peculiar to Christ and expressive of all that can be conceiv'd of him his Consubstantiality his Co-Eternity his Equality with the Father These Gentlemen think it a very strong Argument that Christ is not God because in the Apostolical Creed the unchangeable rule of our Faith the first Article gives the name of God only to the Father I believe in God The Father and the second does not say and in God the Son but and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord not considering that the word only Son the same with only begotten here is a fuller expression of his Divinity than if the name God had been given him in the Article For this would not have satisfy'd these Gentlemen They would have been apt to say still that the first Article is spoken of him who is only and eminently God and the second or third of a God by deputation of one not truly God but only honour'd with the title of God This would not have remov'd the objection nor prevented that of the Tritheists who seeing every Person in the Creed nam'd God would have concluded not a Trinity of Persons in one God but Three real Gods Whereas the All-wise God has effectually obviated this by proposing the Divine Nature
Omniscience and Omnipotence It is incomprehensible that the generality of Socinians should contend that Christ is to be pray'd to which is the assertion of the Author of one Brief History pag. 33 and worship'd with divine worship and yet deny him to be God To give Divine worship to a creature is a plain and inexcusable Idolatry Strange that the force of truth should extort from them that he is to be ador'd and yet that he is not God the only being whom we ought to adore The English Socinians see the force of this consequence therefore they deny that Christ is to be pray'd to But one cannot read without indignation this assertion of the Author in their defence pag. 33. It appears says he by St. Austin and Photius that Origen deny'd that the Son was to be ador'd or pray'd to He cites Origen lib. 8. contr Cels who says he expresly deny'd that Christ is to be invocated he adds that it cannot be doubted that Origen spoke the sence of the Catholick Church of his time This Author then is positive that neither Origen nor the Church in his time believ'd it lawful to pray to Christ But he should have taken the pains to read the place which he has cited He must have been convinc't that he has cited at random and that Origen has no such thing The 8th Book alledg'd with so much assurance by the Author has not a single line which seems to have a tendency to this On the contrary it has invincible proofs that Origen and consequently the Catholick Church of his time did think it not only lawful but even necessary to pray to Christ The Father begins that very Book by imploring the help of God and of the word the only begotten of God on himself who having finish'd the 7th was now writing the 8th Book against the lyes and slanders of Celsus Having asserted the Pre-Existence and Eternity of Christ his most intimate Union with the Father he says pag. 386. Edit Cantab. We adore one God and his only Son his word and his image with our supplications offering our prayers to God through his only Son to whom first we address them beseeching him that as he is a propitiation for our sins he would like our High-Priest offer to the most bâ—â—â— God our prayers intercessions sacrifices c. pag. 3 5. None is to be pray'd to but the most High God and to only begotten the first born of every Creature the word of God pag. 422. We sing Hymns only to God who is above all things and to God the word his only begotten Son This shews the practice and belief of the Church oâ— that time and of the very Primitive Church before to adore Christ in those Hymns made in his praise Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem says Pliny to the Emperor lib. 10 Epis 97. to sing an Hymn amongst themselves to Christ as God An authority brought by Tertullian Apol. c. 2. which teaches us that all that Pliny could know of their Religious rites was that they met before day ad canendum Christo ut Deo to sing Hymns to Christ as to their God I know that these Gentlemen who under pretence of Critising will alter any writings have pretended to read Christo Deo to Christ and to God But I know this to be a willful mistake the ancient and genuine reading being Christo ut Deo Thus Eusebius citing this very place of Tertullian Chron. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated by St. Jerom in Terâ—ullian's own words to sing to Christ as God A practice which the same Eusebius Hist lib. 5. c. 28. says to have been of Justin Martyr Miltiades Tatianus Clemens Melito Jrence The earliest and best times of Christianity having given this testimony to Christ's Divinity and to the Prayers offer'd him But how could it ever enter into these Gentlemen's heads to deny praying to Christ upon such unconcluding Argâ—ments as the Answerer to Mr. Milbourn and the Author of the Brief Hist have us'd when they cannot but see it practis'd in Scripture Luk. 17.5 Lord increase our haith Mark 9.24 Lord I believe help thou my unbelief Nor will the mean evasion serve that it is no more than recommending our selves to one another's Prayers What Creature dares to say to another Creature without Blasphemy or Idolatry increase my Faith help my unbelief Acts 7.59 They ston'd Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive my Spirit If this be not praying adoring and exercising the highest act of trust imaginable there is no such thing in the World Compare this place with 1 Pet. 4.19 commit the keeping of their Souls to him ..... as unto a faithful Creator and tell me the difference between committing our Souls and offering our Spirit to be receiv'd The answer of the Author of the Hist to this pag. 32. is so strange that had I seen it in any Book but his own I wou'd have said that it is a Satyr upon him and a gross slander 1st Says he the name God is not in any Greek Copy True But does not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray to implore or as the Latin Interpreter to invocate imply the word God since the very action has God for its object The Prebendaries of Westminster are gone to pray therefore they do not pray to God because the word God is not nam'd in the Proposition This is all foolish since the very nature of the thing imports that it is to God to whom they make their addresses 2ly He says that the Greek render'd Grammatically makes this sence O Lord of Jesus receive my spirit which is false trifling ridiculous and not worth a reply 3ly He pretends the meaning to be only this Stephen call'd upon God and say'd Lord Jesus because at the same time he saw Jesus in a Prophetick Vision standing at the right hand of God This is sillily and falsly alledged Stephen call'd upon God and said He who he spoke to was he whom he call'd upon Whether he saw him or no is not the question But the offering his departing Soul into his hands and praying that he would receive it into his mercy is the stress of the Argument and is praying adoring relying upon him acts of such a nature as cannot without Blasphemy and Idolatry be offer'd to any but God 9thly Can any thing more visibly infer the Omnipresence and Omniscience of Christ than Matt. 18.20 Where two or three are gather'd together in my name there am I in the midst of them Matt. 28.20 and lo I am with you always even to the end of the World Mark 2.8 When Jesus perceiv'd in his spirit that they so reason'd within themselves he say'd unto them why reason ye these things in your hearts Joh. 2.29 he knew all men and needed not that any should testify of man for he knew what was in man 1 Cor. 4.5 who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and
REMARKS On Several Late Writings Publish'd in English by the SOCINIANS Wherein Is show'd the insufficiency and weakness of their Answers to the Texts brought against them by the Orthodox IN FOUR LETTERS Written at the Request of a Socinian Gentleman By H. DE LVZANCY B. D. Vic. of Doverc and Harwich LONDON Printed by Tho. Warren for Thomas Bennet at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1696. THE PREFACE THE design of the following Letters was to instruct a private Gentleman who by reading Socinian Books had got a mighty prejudice against the Sacred Doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation He desir'd that he might have the liberty to communicate my Papers to some of his Friends of that perswasion But this being lyable to many inconveniences it was thought much fitter at once to expose them to publick view Whether he will be convinc'd by these Writings must be left to God who best knows the ways of working upon the minds of men Whether there is matter enough to convince him is left to the judgment of the World The general means to clear a Controversy are Reason and Authority I humbly conceive that the first has nothing to do in this dispute For how can we argue from the Principles of natural reason in a point wholly Divine and Supernatural and how can the Philosopher of this World conclude with any certainty in that which is above all the inquiries and decisions of Philosophy I ever thought the Socinians extreamly in the wrong with their pretended contradictions in the belief of our Holy Mysteries and the Letter to both the Vniversities much the worst of all their Writings It being certainly neither just nor candid to use Topicks though never so ingeniously turn'd altogether foreign to the matter in dispute and to give an air of probability to that which when truly stated and consider'd is of another nature than the thing propos'd to us I take it for granted even by these Gentlemen themselves that Faith and Reason are two different things and consequently that that which is the object of Faith cannot be the object of Reason Of what use then can those Arguments be which are call'd Demonstrations against the Doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation Those perpetual descants upon the impossibility of Three being One and One Three of the same substance unbegotten begotten and proceeding of a part of God being incarnate and another not incarnate All this and ten thousand Objections more are a fallacy and an imposition on Mankind The case here being of another nature not tryable at the Bar of our corrupt Reason but call'd to another and a more infallible Tribunal On the other side though it looks much like Charity and Condescension yet it is certainly an Inadvertency to have pretended to answer these Gentlemen in their own way and to run with them upon the same false scent of reasoning on those things which we ought only to believe and adore The Socinians may write till Doomsday to prove the Vnrâ—asonableness and their charitable and learned Answerers may do the same to prove the Reasonableness of our Christian Doctrine I mean keeping still within the compass of natural reason and yet this great truth will never be clear'd because indeed neither of them embrace the true Method to clear it The way then of Authority is both the plainest and the safest It has that advantage that the other is even resolv'd into it For there is nothing so highly rational as a submission of our Reason to an Authority which all sides own to be infallible We all agree that the Divine Scriptures are the rule of our Faith We all acknowledge them to be the word of God and this very name commands naturally and of it self a veneration which no human Writings though of never so much strength and clearness can force from us It is then from thence and only from thence that we ought to reason and conclude in this Sacred Controversy The consent of the whole Christian World must be a strong inducement to a modest Socinian to mistrust all his Arguments To oppose all that has been and is Great and Good in the Church of God in a point of Faith is too much for the most presuming Disputant But when the Authority of God speaking in those Scriptures which we all contend to be the Revelation which he has made of himself to us is superadded to the universal consent of the Church all the reasons which we can pretend to oppose to this ought to be no more to men of sence than talk and noise The Church asserts the Vnity of the Divine Nature in which three distinct and equally adorable Persons subsist The Father The Son and the Holy Ghost of which the second was Incarnate and in the fullness of time became Man To say that this is false because incomprehensible is a lamentable consequence Nor is it sufferable to reject the belief of these Mysteries because our poor narrow and corrupt Reason is pleas'd to state contradictions in a subject so far above our capacity and to say as those Gentlemen urge vehemently that we cannot believe that of which we can have no notion or Idea is much worse since besides that we have little or no knowledge at all of the ways operations and manner of Existence of an Infinite Being to suppose a notion or an Idea of the thing propos'd is to destroy Faith which Heb. 11.1 is the evidence of things not seen that is an assurance and certainty of that which is imperceptible to us because above the reach of our understanding supplying by the Authority of the Revelation that notion or Idea of which these Gentlemen argue an absolute necessity The only way then to satisfy our selves is to hear what the Scripture teaches concerning this For if the Church speaks the language of the Scripture it speaks as God has taught us and to speak after God is the most certain and excellent way of speaking in the World The Challenge of the great Athanasius to the Arrians and of St. Austin to the Hereticks of his time was the most reasonable Proposition in nature to a people who own'd Christianity and that is that laying aside human reasoning and relying upon the veracity of the Divine Oracles they should inquire not what man propos'd but what God has say'd in the matter If the Scripture is positive that God is one and yet asserts the Father to be God the Son to be God and the Holy Ghost to be God If it says that the Son has taken our nature upon him The Church speaks as the Scripture has taught and the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is the Doctrine of the Church because it is first that of the Scripture Being perswaded then that the dispute must at last be put upon that Issue and sensible that any thing else that is propos'd of both sides though it shews the great parts and abilities of the Disputants can yet give
has been us'd by all the Fathers is the only method to come to the Knowledge of the truth This will be prov'd by the reading of both Testaments For if those things are spoken of Christ which can relate to none but Man and at the same time those things are spoken of him which belong to none but to God shall we presume to separate what God has united shall we run to the extreams of the Old Hereticks who would not admit of a real humane nature in Christ and offer'd an incredible violence to all those texts which represent him as a Man Or as the Socinians who denying his Divinity put to the torture all those places which speak of him as God To take off at once the authority of the Old Testament and make ineffectual those glorious predictions of Christ which tell us what he was before he was in the World They confidently assert in the brief History pag. 22. That the more learned and Judicious Trinitarians confess that the â—rinity and the Divinity of the Lord Christ and of the Holy Spirit are not indeed taught in the Scriptures of the Old Testament but are a revelation made in the new Nay 't is the more general opinion of the Divines of all sects and perswasions They cite for this some Authors and amongst them Tertulian adversus Prax. Which I would beg of them to read more exactly It is the fault of these Gentlemen to be vastly large in their citations and to pretend to have Authors of their side who are really against them The mistakes I hope are not willful but they are somewhat frequent Neither the ancient or modern Doctors ever said that the Old Testament had nothing in it by which Men might be induc'd to the notice of a Trinity of persons in God and of the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit They have said indeed that the Jews had no explicite or clear Knowledge nor no explicite or direct belief of those mysteries Which is true The revelation of the Trinity in Vnity being the previledge of the Gospel and a considerable part of that Grace and truth which came by Christ Jesus Joh. 1.18 No Man has seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father he has declar'd him How could the Old Testament be the form of and the introduction to the new if those truths were not adumbrated in the one which are clearly reveal'd and explain'd in the other How comes it to be a maxim receiv'd amongst the Old Jewish Doctors that whatsoever is recorded in the Law in the Prophets and in the sacred Books Indicant sapientiam point at Christ the ineffable Wisdom or Word How does St. Paul lay this as an Aphorism Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes How comes he before Agrippa and Festus solemnly to declare that he says nothing but what Moses and the Prophets have assur'd should be How come the Apostles and Evangelists to take most of their arguments from the Writings of the Prophets St. Austin treats this at large against Faustus lib. 12. c. 46. Eusebius Praep. Evang. l. c. 3. St. Cyprian Praefat. ad Quirin tells him that the sacred Writings of the Old Testament are of great use ad prima fidei lineamenta formanda To form the first lineaments of our Faith Origen against Celsus lib. 2. calls this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most strong demonstration and Lactantius Instit lib. 5. c. 3. Disce igitur si quid tibi cordis est non solum idcirco à nobis Christum creditum Deum quia mirabilia fecit sed quia vidimus in eo facta esse omnia quae nobis annunciata sunt vaticinio Prophetarum Be sensible then if thou hast any honesty or conscience left that Christ is believ'd by us to be God not olny because he has done miraculous things but because we have seen all the things fulfill'd in him which have been announc'd to us by the Prophets Non igitur suo Testimonio cui enim de se dicenti potest credi sed Prophetarum Testimonio qui omnia quae fecit passus est multo ante cecinerunt fidem Divinitatis accepit It is not then by the Testimony which he has given of himself for who can be believ'd who Witnesses for himself but by the Testimony of the Prophets who have Prophesi'd long before all that he has done and suffer'd He has receiv'd that Men should believe his Divinity The first proof which offers it self out of the Old Testament is that expression of the Almighty Gen. 1.26 Let us make Man in our image after our likeness It is undenyable that in the text as well as in the translation God is pleas'd to speak in the plural number And as we cannot admitt a multiplicity of Gods in a nature which is so entirely one so we cannot but see a kind of consultation in the Divine Persons It is visible that God does not speak to himself or to any created being who cannot concurr in any manner to the creation of Man It being an incommunicable property of the Divine nature And it is an impiety to think that God should speak in the air and to no purpose What is meant then by the Vs but that Son by whom he made all things and without whom nothing was made that was made Joh. 1.3 and that Holy Spirit which moved upon the Jaâ—e of the Waters Gen. 1.2 This the Fathers urg'd agâ—iâ—st the Arrians Thâ—se Gentlemen answer Brief History pag. 8. 1st That this is done according to the customs of Princes and great persons in all languages that is in an oratory and figurative way 2ly pag. 15. that God speaks to the Angels who were present not as adjutants but spectators of his work The presence of Angels is prov'd out of Job 38.7 This second reason is singular and the verse to prove the presence of Angels strangely dragg'd in But it ruins it self For if the Angels are not adjutants to the work How comes God to say Let us make Man This does not at all reach the difficulty The first is as bad that thiâ— is done according to the Custom of Princes It is strange that God should have laid the Custom aside in the formation of all the rest of the Creatures and us'd it only 〈◊〉 â—hat of Man For to say that it is the same as v. 3. let there be light v. 6. let there be a firmameâ—â— c. it is only a gloss and a comment against which the sence of the words stands unmoveable It is stranger 〈…〉 and Custom which in its 〈…〉 the Majesty of any divine 〈…〉 in a way which to these 〈…〉 to the unity of his nature I farely ask whether it was custom which caus'd God to alter the manner of his expression in all the Verses before or else a design to speak somewhat in this mysterious to us The first is
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
Luciferum genui te Before the morning Star was I have begotten thee The fourth his Eternal Priesthood Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck Wherein is impli'd that intercession mediation and sacrifice of himself which had he been no more than a meer Man must have been ineffectual These Gentlemen take no notice of the 2 and 4. verse and in my opinion answer strangely the 1st and the 3d. What they say to the 1st in the brief Hist pag. 18. consists in this 1st That the words of our Saviour are David in Spirit calls him Lord saying the Lord said unto c. That is David in the spirit of Prophecy foreseeing Christ calls him his Lord not because Christ is God for then himself could have made his enemies his foot-stool But because not only the spirit of David and of all Saints but even Angels were to be made subject to him as the reward of his most holy life and obsequious and acceptable death 2ly That when the Psalmist says The Lord said unto my Lord it is to be understood thus The Lord has in his decree said or he has decreed it shall be so I appeal to themselves whether this is to answer or only elude an objection For it is notorious that the spirit in which David speaks is the spirit of Prophecy David being a Prophet speaks what God has reveal'd to him It is false that he calls Christ his Lord or that he speaks to Christ He calls Christ Lord sayes our Saviour but not his Lord. This is a real mistake and the reason given for it of the spirit of David of Saints of Angels made subject to him is another He must speak of Christ as God or else the Prophecy says nothing The Lord in one place is of the same importance and signification as the Lord in the other Neither the words nor the sence nor our Saviour give to David any other part in the Prophecy but the relating that the Lord the Father has said to the Lord the Son the Christ Sit thou on my right hand An argument which invincibly proves the Son Coeternal and coequal to the Father Nor does the saying till I make thy Enemies thy foot-stool take any thing off its force since the Apostle 1 Cor. 15.25 Says of the Son himself that He must reign till he has put all Enemies under his feet The second part of the answer that the Lord said to my Lord is to be understood The Lord has said in his decree or has decreed it shall be so is a wild strain'd unnatural and new explication If men will give themselves the liberty thus to comment on the most express and clear Texts of Scripture nothing can be sacred or certain in Religion Our Saviour asks the Pharisees Matt. 2.24 What they think of Christ whose Son is he They answer him plainly The Son of David Christ replies again How then does David call him Lord If he is no more then the Son of David How does David declare him to be Lord and this by the greatest authority in the World even the Lord calling him so If he is the Son of David without running to a decree which indeed should rather be admitted here then he is without a decree the Lord being as much the one by nature as the other These Gentlemen are desir'd to produce any one of the Fathers or ancient Writers who has understood this place of any such imaginary decree The third verse is so pressing that all they have to say to it is that both the place is obscure and the many versions made of it They like that of Castalio best which cuts the Gordian knot and substitutes other words and sence to that of the Prophet I think that the Greek is very clear the old Latin very clear Justin Martyr Tertullian St. Chrysostom St. Jerom St. Austin and most of the Fathers very clear who have read as we have said before and are to prefer'd to a version as new and as inconsiderable as its Author In the ninth Chapter of Isaias v. 6 7. We have these words Vnto us a Child is born unto us a Son is given and the Government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be call'd Wonderful Counsellor The Mighty God The Everlasting Father The Prince of peace That they are a Prophecy of the Messias The Chaldee Paraphrase and several learned Jews have positively asserted From them Eusebius Basil the great Theodoret St. Cyrill Procopius St. Jerom and the generality of the Fathers have prov'd the Divinity of Christ And indeed those Epithets which make up the character of this Son that is given can become no creature They are all the names which belong to God and by them as he reveal'd himself to men Which of the Sons of men can be wonderfull or secret mysterious as the Angel expresses the name of God to Manoah Jud. 13.18 Which can be the Councellor the Director the Guide the light from whence all Wisdom is deriv'd Which can be the mighty God the God of strength and power Which can be the Everlasting Father or as St. Jerom reads the Father of the age to come that is The Author and giver of immortality Which can be the peaceable Prince or the Prince of peace in whose hands is our present or Eternal peace In a word to which of us mortals can any of those Emphatical expressions be attributed without absurdity or Blasphemy To this those Gentlemen answer Brief Hist pag. 20th 1st That this can be no Prophecy since Isaias speaks of a Prince actually born and the Prophet liv'd 700 Years before Christ 2ly That this Text is never appli'd to Christ by the Writers of the New Testament 3ly That the Text is to be understood of Hezekiah 4ly That it is extravagantly render'd into English In the answer to Mr. Milbourn they say almost the same things only add this flourish That they affect no monstrosities but are govern'd by the obvious reason and possibilities of things For the 1st That it can be no Prophecy since it speaks of a Prince actually born is to suppose that which ought to be prov'd and can never be certainly made out But granting that it can have these Gentlemen forgot what they said in their answer to an authority of the 45. Ps 6 7. That the Prophetical Poet at the same time that he prais'd and courted Solomon who was certainly then actually born might also Prophesy of Christ A Prince then may be actually born and what is said of him may also be a Prophecy St. Austin against Faustus lib. 12. cap. 46. pretends and really in a very solid way of reasoning that not only the Prophets did announce Christ But the very Nation of the Jews that very People their very government and administration were all a Prophecy Per Propheticam gentem per Propheticum populum per Propheticum regnum and yet the one actually in being the other actually born before
the one it is also to the other and not the Branch the Prince is here describ'd 4ly It is against the true reading of the Septuagint and the old Latin Translation To the 3d that is Jer. 33.15.16 granting the reading of the Text as it is in our Bible which indeed the Hebrew favours It is so far parallel to this as to be a renewing of the promise made by God in the place already cited The sence of the Prophet is that Jerusalem shall be call'd the Lord our righteousness by containing him that is being fill'd with his glorious presence who is really the Lord our righteousness As Jacob Gen. 33.20 erected an Altar and call'd it Et-elohe-Israel God the God of Israel And Ezek. 48.35 and the name of the City from that day shall be Jehovah shammah the Lord is there But what can be more positive and home to the question than the testimony of Baruch chap. 3. the 3. last verses This is our God and there shall be no other accounted in comparison of him He has found out all the way of Knowledge and has given it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved Afterwards did he shew himself upon earth and converst with Men. To offer an enlargment on this Text is to do it an injury The 1st of these verses asserts the unity of God The 2d his great wisdom and goodness to his people The 3d his visible appearing to us in our nature and this not by a sudden apparition vanishing as soon as it is offer'd and leaving the Soul in suspence about the truth of the object but by a continu'd living on the Earth If there be but one Person in God as these Gentlemen so stiffly maintain and that is the Father there must have been an Incarnation of that Person since he has appear'd upon Earth and convers'd with men which they and with a great deal of Reason will by no means admit But the whole Scripture says That God has sent his Son into the World That he has appear'd to put away Sin and we all agree that the Holy Jesus is that Son How then can we deny his Divinity since it is said of him who has thus appear'd This is our God and there shall be no other accounted in comparison of him This is so express that we must not expect to be put off with Grotius or Christ being call'd God as Moses or Solomon or the rare Notion of God coming to us in his Ambassadour Jesus Nothing of this will do and therefore the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 22. answers first That the Book is Apocryphal Secondly That those who admit the Book reject those verses as suppositious Thirdly That the Original Greek may be render'd Afterwards this Book of the Commandments of God and the Law which endures for ever was seen upon Earth and turn'd over by men First That the Book is Apocryphal is an Answer cannot be made by these Gentlemen because it is cited against them by the whole Societies of Christians who believe it to be Canonical But freely granting that the Book is such I must beg leave to say That it is nothing to the purpose Any man of ordinary reading knows that Apocryphal signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncanonical or out of the Canon of the Sacred Books That sort of Writings though not kept in Armario as Tertullian expresses it cap. 3. de hab muli yet were look'd upon with much reverence by them and particularly by the Hellenists They were daily in their hands and the greatest Authority in the World next to the uncontested Scriptures There is a vast difference between being uncanonical and rejected and the saying That this Passage is taken out of an uncanonical though a Sacred Book takes nothing off the force of the Objection These Gentlemen who are so pleas'd with Criticisms that it will with them bear down the plainest Authority in the World must give me leave to Criticize for once I say then That of all the Apocryphal Books none was so like to become Canonical as that of Baruch It is somewhat more than a probable Conjecture that this Book was once read with that of Jeremy whose Disciple Baruch was The ninth of Daniel has lead several Learned men into that Opinion For after he has cited Jeremy v. 2. and began that fervent Prayer for the preservation of Jerusalem He seems to transcribe Baruch Compare Baruch 1.15 16 17. with Daniel 7 8 c. Baruch 2.7 8 9. with Daniel 9.13 c. Baruch 2.11 c. with Daniel 9.15 Baruch 2.15 with Daniel 9.18 I will add to confirm this That several of the most ancient and Primitive Fathers have often cited Jeremy and yet the Texts us'd by them were taken out of Baruch which gives some ground to believe that the Works of these two Prophets were once joyn'd together To the second Objection we must be forc'd to say That no part of it is true First it is not true that ever those Verses were look'd upon as supposititious by them who either admitted or rejected the Book Secondly it is not true that ever these words were a marginal Note no ancient Copy being without them and the rest being only Conjecture instead of Reason The third Objection is the highest Unsincerity imaginable Their Translation is forc'd unnatural and what is worse notoriously false There is nothing in the Text of a Book of Commands or of a Law which endures for ever There is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viam disciplinae as the Vulgar translates it To say not what they have pretended to impose without either Reason or Truth but what can be strain'd from this That the way of Knowledge has shew'd Himself to men and convers'd with them is a bold and ridiculous way of Translating The fifth Chapter of Micah is an eminent Prophecy of Christ The first part of the second Verse gives an account of his Birth and of the place to which God had promis'd so great a Blessing But thou Bethlehem Ephratah though thou be little amongst the thousands of Judah yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel The second part soars higher and tells us That though he is born as a man yet he has that which no man can pretend to and though he has such a visible Being yet he has another which is invisible and eternal whose goings forth have been from old from everlasting or From the days of Eternity This Text has a double advantage First that the Chaldee Paraphrast the Thalmud and the generality of the ancient Jews have follow'd in this the sence of their Forefathers and understood this Text of the Messiah Secondly that from Mat. 2.6 and Joh. 7.42 this invincibly appears to have been the Tradition of the Jews one of the great Obstacles to their Belief that he was the Messias having no other ground than that contrary to the received Opinion That the
7. are a repeated assurance that God will put an end to their Captivity The 8. is a solemn Declaration that he is resolv'd to protect them The Lord of Hosts assures them that he is sent to revenge their quarrel and v. 9. that he will certainly do it and that they shall evidently see that he is sent by the Lord of Hosts For thus says the Lord of Hosts After the Glory has he sent me to the Nations which spoil'd you For behold I will shake my hand upon them and they shall be a spoil to their servants and you shall know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me That the Lord of Hosts is the Almighty That he and none but he assumes that name is granted of all sides It is also granted that God is one and that besides him There is no God And yet this Text represents The Lord of Hosts sending The Lord of Hosts An expression parallel to that of Ps 110.1 The Lord said to my Lord. It must be said then that though a plurality of Gods is inconsistent yet certainly the Divine Nature admits of more than one Divine Person It must be confest that The Lord of Hosts who sends is the Father That The Lord of Hosts who is sent is the Eternal Word the Son and that though there is but one God yet that Revelation which he has made of himself tells us that there is several Persons in that one God The Author of the Brief Hist pag 22. answers 1st That these words as they are in the Latin and English are hardly sense 2ly That neither of these words thus says the Lord of Hosts are words of the Lord of Hosts himself but of the second Angel who at v. 3 4. spoke to the first Angel and to Zechariah 3ly That the verses should have been thus render'd from the Hebrew Thus says the Lord of Hosts afterwards shall be Glory instead of after the Glory i. e. after you are departed out of Babylon v. 7. you shall have honour and peace and you shall know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me i. e. to punish them and give you peace and glory To the 1st and 3d It is hard to accuse Translations exactly agreeable to the Original of Hardly being sence when they cannot be made to bear with our opinions In this the Author is unhappy that the letter of this Text is plain and has scarce any difficulty What he says afterwards shall be glory may be a sort of a Paraphrase but is certainly no Translation But the weakness of this will be evident by the reply To the 2d He insists that Thus says the Lord Hosts are not the words of the Lord of Hosts himself but of the second Angel who speaks to the first I beg to know whether it is the Lord of Hosts who says v. 10.11 Sing and rejoice O Daughter of Sion for lo I come and I will dwell in the midst of thee says the Lord. Can any one who is not obstinately resolv'd to contradict all mankind say that it is an Angel speaking to another And many Nations shall be join'd to the Lord in that day and shall be my people and I will dwell in the inidst of thee and thou shall know that the Lord of Hosts has sent me Is it not he who is sent by the Lord of Hosts whose people they shall be who will dwell in the midst of them Once more is it an Angel to whom many Nations shall be join'd and who will take them for his people He that speaks is without any evasion the Lord of Hosts and He plainly and positively declares that the Lord of Hosts has sent him This Author did catch at a kind of a Notion which he thought to find in the Verses before but is so absolutely overthrown by these last that no rational solution can be offer'd to them This is one of the Hammering Texts urg'd by the Fathers against the Arrians and understood by the Jews of the Messiah The 12th of Zechariah not only represents Christ as God but even God suffering for us It supposes his Incarnation and consequently the union of the two natures and the Divinity being impassible it shews palpably that he has assum'd a body to suffer in It is one of those Texts which prove themselves and are plainer than any sort of Explication v. 10. The Almighty speaks thus I will pour upon the House of David and upon the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of Grace and supplications and they shall look upon me whom they have pierc't That none but the only true God pours the spirit of Grace and supplications is indisputably true It is the act of an infinite power and mercy which can be in none but him and yet that very God says that they have pierc't him To prevent the understanding of this Allegorically piercing him with our sins as the Jews did of old and of late in the person of Christ which is the poor shift of the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 22. of Grotius before him and of the Blasphemous Theodore of Mopswest before Grotius St. John tells us who is he that has been and shall be seen thus pierc't Rev. 1.7 Behold he comes with Clouds and every eye shall see him and they also which pierc't him A description of Christ coming to judge the World It is to give God the lye to say that he has not been pierc't since he does so positively assure it They shall look on me whom they have pierc't But the Scripture shews this to have been done in Christ Therefore Christ is that God who has been pierc't These Gentlemen will say No Because God may say that he has been pierc'd and Christ too may have been pierc'd and yet be no God But if it can be prov'd that this is a direct Prophecy of Christ that the Me where lyes the stress of the argument is spoken of Christ and of none else it must be litterally true that he has been pierc'd and that he is God The famous passage of Joh. 19.37 is express to this The Evangelist having shew'd all along the accomplishment of Prophecies in Christ fixes to him the sence of this place And again another Scripture says they shall look on him whom they have pierc'd This is so decisive of the question that the Author of the Brief Hist pag 22. reduces himself to this miserable shift that this is appli'd to but not interpreted of Christ These Gentlemen who pretend so much to reason are now and then unreasonable Can any thing be appli'd to Christ and not interpreted of him or interpreted and not appli'd to him They complain that we talk gibbrish and have a jargon of our own Pray what is this Or will they say that it is only to allude at the place of the Prophet and not to interpret who can advance this with any candor that reads the place cited St. John has prov'd all along that Christ is the Messias
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
true and genuine If I may be allow'd a digression I would willingly know where these Gentlemen found that Constantine dy'd an Unitarian If by an Unitarian they mean that he own'd the Unity of the Godhead I hope we shall all dye in that faith But if by it they mean a Socinian a denyer of the Divinity of Christ It is a gross and a palpable untruth I would also be satisfi'd whether Eusebius of Caesarea whom they so truly call'd the Admirable did not subscribe the Nicene faith To return In an answer to a loving Cosen pag. 3. We hear of nothing but Fathers Tradition Councils c. pag. 8. This general Observation concerning the Fathers is sufficient to make me refuse their testimony and look upon them as no good Interpreters of Scripture and unfaithfull Guardians of Tradition We are then in a very sad case Our Translations are dishonest and the Holy Fathers are no good Interpreters of Scripture and unfaithfull Guardians of Tradition Our Translations and the Fathers should have spoke as these Gentlemen and then all had been right Where will of necessity such wild notions lead Men and when will the dispute end if they are admitted For my part I am of Mr. Chillingworth's mind and think that it is both the safety and honour of the Protestant Religion to cry out The Bible The Bible a place of that eminent Man so often and so justly commended by these Gentlemen I am perswaded that the word of God ought to be the rule But then I am satisfi'd that no Scripture is of private interpretation That this Bible must be well understood and that Tradition is the greatest human Authority in the World I take this point to be so clear particularly to Men of learning that if any Society of Christians could produce for what they have to say for themselves such a Tradition as Vine â—ius Liâ—inensis has establisht and is the true notion of Tradition we must all come over to it This is so just in it self that these very Gentlemen cannot forbear expressing their joy when what they produce is not altogether their own and has some great names to introduce it They speak then with a certain sort of assurance which they have not at other times I do not know whether I am as other Men or wheit is a singularity in me but if I have never so pretty a notion and find it contradicted by the concurrent testimonies of Men who have united a profound Piety to an admirable Learning such as are the Basil's The Chrysostom's The Theodoret's The two Gregorie's The Eusebius's The Cyrill's The Jerom's The Austin's and many more If I sind primitive and General Councils exclaiming against me If I meet in my way almost all that has been valuable in the last and this present Age in the Common-wealth of learning Though I might perhaps maintain the notion and spin it into a Letter or a small Book not perhaps without some Admirers yet I presently strike and think it both most honourable and conscientious to call the pretty thing in 5ly I have a just value for Criticks though whether a Critick is Master of any one sort of Learning is a great Question to me But to make Criticks the Judges and Criticisms the Touchstone of Faith is insufferable Like Anatomists they dissect till they leave neither Form nor Figure A Criticism is much different from a good reason Allowing one to be good a hundred amount generally to no more than a probability They are a sort of Arrows shot at random which sometimes hit the mark and generally go above or below it I insist the more on this because it is the Palladium of these Gentlemen When a Text is plain and stares in the face then comes out the Criticism This is the dissecting Instrument which runs through the Text till wrangling arises about a Particle or a Punctuation and makes the substantial part of the dispute to vanish When Reason is oppos'd to Reason and Argument to Argument the stander by may in a very short time feel the impressions of truth But when a plain Authority is evaded by a Criticism and this Criticism perhaps answer'd by another For these Gentlemen are great but not the only Criticks There is jarring and clashing and not one step made towards the truth In the Letter of Resolut concern the Doctr. of the Trin. and Incar p. 10. the Author says and he is very much in the right that we pretend That the Trinity and Incarnation are Traditions deriv'd down to our times through all the intermediate Ages and by all the Churches professing Christianity The rational way to prove the vanity of the pretence is to shew that there was a time and some Church or other where these Doctrines were not believ'd Instead of this he spends three pages to prove how we have differ'd and do differ amongst our selves in the explication of these Doctrines which rather supports then weakens the Argument It does evince that we agree in the thing though not in the manner of explaining it which is that that I insist on with the rest of my Brethren the Divines of the mob as these Gentlemen call us But this is only to criticise at large All the Criticks says this same Author in the same Letter without excepting one who have made a judgment of the writings of the Fathers for the first 300 Years and particularly which of those writings are genuine and uncorrupted which wholly feign'd or otherwise corrupted I say All the Criticks constantly make this a Note of forgery or corruption if those writings speak any what expressly or evidently of these Doctrines If the Criticks mean that the writings of the Primitive Fathers which speak of those Mysteries in the Terms us'd by the Schools long since the Nicene Council are supposs'd They are in the right But this Criticism is against those Gentlemen themselves It regards only the manner of the expression not the thing express'd But if the Criticks mean that the Trinity or Incarnation were unknown to and were not the Doctrine of the Fathers before the Council of Nice which is that which these Gentlemen must make the Criticks to say or else they say nothing I beg leave of these Gentlemen and of all the Criticks not one excepted to tell them that they are invincibly mistaken I have no criticism to offer here nor will I sill this small writing with citations of these Fathers it being the thing in question Though I conceive with submission to the high and mighty Criticks that most of these citations may be prov'd genuine I have only two plain Reasons to offer 1st With what equity and assurance did the Nicene Fathers declare their decrees to be according to the Doctrine taught by the Fathers who had preceeded them if the Trinity and Incarnation was not the Doctrine of those Fathers The Council was an August Meeting of the most learned and Religious Persons in the World even by
But that for all this he is a Man and no more than a Man he has no other Existence no other Nature We on the contrary besides all these titles insist on that of Nature We say that he is the Son of God after a manner incommunicable to any Created Being I suppose that if the Pre-existence and Pre-eternity of the Son can be prov'd his Equality with the Father his sameness of Nature and a communication of those names by which the only true God is known to us the assertion will be justifi'd For all that we conceive of God being that he exists before all things that he has neither beginning nor ending that he is above all things that he is infinite in perfections That he is the Creator and in a most eminent way the Lord of all that is If this is made out of the Son in vain those Gentlemen struggle to reduce what is said of him to their poor wayes of explaining how he is the Son of God since none of their explications can amount to any part of this 1st Then to prove his pre-existence that is that he had a being before he was conceiv'd of the Virgin read Joh. 6.62 What and if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before The design of the whole Chapter is to convince the Jews that they ought to receive him The Argument he uses is that he is come down from Heaven He tells them that he is the food of their Souls That their Fathers indeed had meat sent from above but that it could not keep them from Death But that he brings them bread of so great a vertue that it would procure immortality That this bread is his Flesh which he gives for the life of the World His hearers were scandalis'd at this The discontent affected even his Disciples Till Jesus to convince them that he came from Heaven tells them positively that he was there before and that as a proof of this they should see him ascending thither again There is not nor can be a more easy way of Arguing You doubt whether I come from Heaven to feed and preserve to save and redeem you What greater proof of this can you desire then to see me ascend to Heaven where I was before and from whence I descended If Christ then was actually in Heaven before he was born these two truths cannot be deny'd 1st that he had another Nature besides the human since he had another existence 2ly That he must have existed before the time assign'd by these Gentlemen to be the first of his Existence that is his Conception in the Virgin If Christ was not before he was born how can he say that he was in Heaven If Christ was not in Heaven how does he offer them to let them see him ascending thither again The Apostle takes this for granted Eph. 4.9 He proves by Christ's ascending to Heaven that he descended from thence Whether he alludes or no to this place is uncertain But he looks upon Christ being come down from Heaven and having been actually there as a principle agreed on by all Men. How that he ascended what is it but he also descended first and v. 10. He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all Heavens c. He then who ascended from us to Heaven did first descend from Heaven to us Joh. 6.33 The bread of God is he which comes down from Heaven Joh. 3.31 He that comes from above is above all ... He that comes from Heaven is above all Joh. 16.27 I came forth from the Father and am come into the World again I leave the World and go to the Father This Doctrine is not only of the Scripture but it may be said to be one of the first notices of Christianity there being scarce any Sect or denomination of Christians but believes that Heaven is the place from whence their Redeemer is come A notion so plain so easy so consistent with the whole revelation of the will of God that Photinus Bishop of Syrmium the Socinus of his Age was not only condemn'd by several Councils but Anathematis'd also by the several perswasions of Christians and even by the Arrians and Semi-Arrians themselves What these Gentlemen oppose consists in this The Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn says pag. 25. That Christ was actually taken up into Heaven and took his instructions from the Father before he enter'd upon his Prophetical Office That this is intimated by the very place which we have examin'd by Joh. 8.38 but particularly by Joh. 3.13 No Man has ascended to Heaven but he that is come down from Heaven even the Son of Man who is in Heaven That the word is must be read was that Erasmus Beza Camerarius read it thus That the Evangelists have not spoke of the time of this assumption because it was before their being call'd to be his Disciples that Christ never told them of it but only hinted it in some discourses The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 27.28 Cites the same Authors for the word was He tells us That the must Orthodox Interpreters understand it metaphorically But that the Socinians understand this Text litterally and say that 't is here intimated that before our Lord enter'd upon his Office of Messias He was taken up to Heaven to be instructed in the mind and will of God as Moses was into the mount Exod. 24.1 and foll and from thence descended to execute his Office That the same thing is also hinted Joh. 6.38 Joh. 8.40 When I see such answers to a place of that importance so express and so positive and from Persons of so much Learning I ask my self whether I dream or am really awake I am tempted to lose all the respect which I have for them and begin to think that it is not reason and conscience but obstinacy which makes Socinians 1st The Authors before cited do not say that it ought to be read was but that it may be read thus Qui est in coelo says Beza 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel qui erat in coelo Beza in Joh. 3.13 These great Criticks are not sensible that the was is as much for us as the is I hope they have read the advice of this Learned Man in the notes on this very Verse Having discourst of the Union of the two natures in Christ He concludes in these words I thought fit to make these short remarks against a sort of Men who are not asham'd in this our Age to fetch back from Hell the detestable errors of Nestorius and Eutyches oppos'd by the vast labours and studies of all the Fathers and condemn'd with the clear and unanimous consent of the whole Church 2ly I deny that the most learned Interpreters have understood it in a Metaphorical sence This is another of those Gentlemen's boundless citations A Metaphorical sence of these words is ridiculous impertinent and inconsistent with the thing it self They see
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
contrary He speaks of the place where the Gospel was written but not a word of the occasion of St. John's writing it The testimony of Origen is resolv'd into that of Eusebius who reports it and that of Eusebius himself is nothing against St. Jerom since the Author of the answer owns that the same Eusebius relates this writing of the Gospel of St. John to assert the Divinity of Christ from the institutions of Clem. Alex. Who is in the right then The Author of the Answer who says that St. Jerom cited an Ecclesiastical History which he never saw or St. Jerom who by the Author 's own confession has taken these words out of Clemens preserv'd by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History The case is very plain The Author of the Answer to Milbourn is mistaken But then he must fall foul upon Clemens Alexand. an ancient Writer and a Learned Man He makes Photius upon whose Characters of Men no Critick ever rely'd to give him a very ill one Not observing that Eusebius accuses him of neither Impiety nor Error and that Clemens Alex. has said nothing in this but what most of the Fathers have said not indeed as to the particular matter of fact of St. John's being desir'd to write but as to the other that the design and principal part of his Gospel is to assert the Divinity of our Saviour Is it not on this that St. Cyprian Lactantius Tertullian Gregory the Nazianzene St. Chrysostom Basil the Great have insisted Was not this very Chapter admir'd both by Christians and Heathens Was it not the Hammer of Arrianism in the Council of Nice as afterwards of Nestorianism of Eutychianism and of all the unhappy Sects which disturb'd the peace of the Church But that cannot be says the Answerer pag. 22. The Gospel it self will best decide the Question If St. John has more overthrown the Divinity of Christ than confirm'd it then certainly he has not writ this Gospel to assert it Right but how will this be prov'd He thinks that it will easily be done by shewing out of this Gospel that Christ is the Messenger of God that the Father taught him and commanded him Joh. 17.1 2 3. Joh. 12.49 and 14.10 c. This I confess proves the humanity but how does it destroy the Divinity of Christ How is it against the design of St. John to delineate him truly God because he has represented him truly Man He is not God because he is Man is an ill way of arguing The Arrians themselves were too sharp to fetch their Arguments against the Divinity of the Saviour from his humanity Prove him only a Man a meer Man without any other nature or else all this reasoning is a begging of the Question But what is all this to the accusation laid on St. Jerom St. John has shew'd in his Gospel the Humanity of Christ Therefore St. Jerom is in the wrong to assure that he was intreated by the Asian Bishops to speak more expresly to his Divinity This is at best a sort of a very slender consequence Thus it is Sir that the Socinians are baffl'd by false and senceless translations supported by fictions and legends exclaims this Author He should have said thus it is Sir that the Socinians are mistaken Their zeal for their opinion transporting them too far Thus it is that two Eminent Fathers are abus'd who were the admiration of their Age and the veneration of ours The truth is this Chapter pinches so hard that these Gentlemen are always uneasy at its least approaches They have done all that Men can do to make it ineffectual having left nothing unattempted no turns of wit no strains of fancy no observations no Criticisms no Shifts no Evasions But all to no purpose For truth is great and irresistible it is plain and evident it comes from God and easily overcomes all the oppositions Men make against it Joh. 1.1 and foll In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God The same was in the beginning with God That this is spoken of Christ and that Christ is the word is agreed of all hands The first assertion then of the Evangelist is that Christ was before all things that he existed before they had a beginning There is a great Emphasis in the word was which does not express here a created a dependent being but a Superior an Eternal and Divine Nature Thus Jehovah render'd by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is gives the true notion of God and thus it is said of the word that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Fathers explain'd it did subsist in a most eminent way and incommunicable to a Creature To make this good St. John says that he was with God He could not exist in any Creature whatever let it be never so great noble or perfect because he existed before any thing was Created before the World was Joh. 17.5 He could not be in time because no time was yet when he was Therefore he was in God and with God from Everlasting Who before all Ages says the great Ignatius a Man of the Apostolick times Epist ad Magnes was with the Father and was manifested in the last times The unchangeable word says St. Austin Epis 49. quest 2. residing unchangeably with the unchangeable Father From thence the Greek Fathers understood the admirable description of wisdom to be of no other then the Eternal word the Son of God Prov. 8.22 and those expressions I was set up from Everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was before his works of old when there were no depths I was brought forth I was by him I was by his sides says the Chaldee Interpreter all these expressions they understood to be no other then this and the word was with God This is so plain that I cannot but wonder at the Stir these Gentlemen make about the words Inexistence Eternal Generation Personality as if they were hard and unknown terms the result of Men's Fancies and a Jargon as they are pleas'd to call them The word or the Son for they own these words to be Synonymous in Scripture is said to be from ever with God Therefore he exists in God and I think this is Inexistence A Father and a Son naturally and of necessity suppose a Generation or else they can be neither Father nor Son This is Generation The Father and the Son are both Eternal therefore the Generation must be so too But the Father is not the Son nor the Son is not the Father therefore there is a foundation for Personality The Evangelist proceeds and lays this 3d Axiom declaring the Divinity as he had done before the Eternity of the word and the word was God What can be more express or positive What consequence can be more natural The word was in the beginning or ever the Earth and the World was He was with God and existed in him Therefore he must be
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
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
For. But if you speak of the spiritual it must be render'd By. These Ifs are much like the Hints spoken of before which Christ gave to his Disciples that he had been taken up to Heaven before he came down to preach the Gospel There is another Criticism of a vast importance For if it be admitted says the Author as it ought to be admitted it turns the whole context against us and utterly overthrows the orthodox Belief We should have translated was Flesh which makes a vast alteration in the Question He proves this by the 6. v. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is render'd not was made but was Yet after all this This ingenious Man spares us the trouble of shewing the vanity of this and gives up this Text. In the answer to the late Archbishop pag 54. we do not care at all says he whether our Opposers read here The word was made man which is His Grace's reading or as we do The word was man 2ly As to their difficulties The one is the case of the unlearned the other is that of Transubstantiation Upon the Question what the Unlearned must do in this difference of readings he Answers That he must stick to theirs and that his reason will give him that it is the true because the thing being impossible and contradictory ours must be false This is a plain begging of the question and once more it is to suppose that which they are to prove This is still the How with which we have nothing to do and which all Mankind cannot resolve because God proposes it as the great object of our Faith and not of our reason They ought to prove that it is not reveal'd by all the ways by which a reading can be prov'd not to be true as we do their pretended Cricisms but not by imaginary consequences altogether foreign to the thing propos'd I conceive that there are two sorts of unlearned men The one are absolutely illiterate and incapable of any examination not only of these disputes but even of points a great deal more obvious then these A sort of people who are religious not by reasoning but believing not by inquiry but Tradition Not so much by the conviction of their minds as an impression of God's Grace upon their hearts These can never be Socinians They have a strong and an invinible inclination to believe as the Church believes It is an unsuccessful undertaking to propose to them the various readings of a Text. The other are Men of a good natural and improv'd sence of a better education and of a freer conversation with all sorts of people but yet destitute of learning to judge of things themselves I say that if they are equitable they are less in danger of being Socinians then the other A place of Scripture is alledg'd which not only the Church wherein we live but all the Churches in the World have read and understood in the plain sence which the words bear and this from the beginning of Christianity and there comes in this or at the end of the latter Age a witty Criticiser who pretends to acquaint the World that all the Holy and learned Men who have liv'd hitherto and live to this day have been surpris'd and have surpris'd all Mankind and that this place is not to be read or render'd as they have done but as himself does I say there is no equitable Man who though unlearned is yet a Man of sence or understanding but will acquiesce in the receiv'd Doctrine and look upon this new reading or rendring as a design or at least a mistake The case of Transubstantiation is yet more unreasonable and yet These Gentlemen are never weary of urging it If you will believe the Trinity you must believe Transubstantiation You reject the one because it is impossible Therefore upon the same account you must reject the other This is my body is as express against you as the word was God and the word was made Flesh is against us But 1st Is it not a great injustice that these Gentlemen who are as much against Transubstantiation as we are and know that it is not to be found in these words this is my body should make use against us of a Topick which they themselves own to be false There is not any one point in Religion which some Heretick or other has not attempted There has not been an Heresy if we believe St. Jerom but has pretended to defend it self with some place of Scripture What should we say of one who believes none of their assertions to be true and all the places which they cite to be misunderstood by them and yet would make use of every one of them to prove that no part of Religion is true This is exactly the case of these Gentlemen They argue against us from a Doctrine which they detest and would infer a parity from a Text which they are satisfy'd does not at all prove that which the Church of Rome would prove by it Let them but go round with this and in a short time there will be no such thing as Religion God forbid that I should think that they design it but this is the unhappy Consequence of that sort of Ratiocinations 2ly The Author never consider'd the weight of his assertion pag. 29. That in this point the decisions of the Church in Councils and the mere letter of Scripture are against us For if the Church of Rome could make it out clearly and substantially that the letter of Scripture and the decisions of the Church are of their side not only we and the whole body of Protestants but these Gentlemen themselves must go over to it But either of them is false There is no such thing as the letter or the mere letter of Scripture or any decisions of the Church of any Antiquity for Transubstantiation I appeal to this very Author for the truth of this who however in the height of dispute has let this to slip from his pen is too learned not to know the contrary 3ly If the dispute between us and the Church of Rome about Transubstantiation is truly stated it signifies nothing to the matter in hand and that the objection is really against them There is no difference between us as to the presence of Christ in the Sacrament This is admitted by all the Societies of Christians who pretend to a name in the World The French Protestants who have stray'd in this particular from the Doctrine of the Fathers more than any other have freely acknowledg'd it in the admirable writings of Mr. Claude against the great Monsieur Arnauld The sober Church of England and Enemy to all extremes has kept strictly to this that Christ is truly and indeed in the Sacrament without pretending to explain the manner of that presence She has own'd that it is Divine and Incomprehensible and look't upon it as a Mystery according to the name given to the Holy Sacrament by the Fathers of Dreadful
Sacred and Divine Mysteries The Church of Rome and some others have presum'd to go further and to six the manner of Christ's being in the Sacrament I demand then with what equity these Gentlemen can make that Objection and repeat it with as much earnestness as if they reason'd upon an undisputed Principle The Trinity and Incarnation we believe The How can it be we acknowledge incomprehensible We do the same of Christ's presence in the Sacrament The Revelation concerning all this is plain and express We pretend to no more It is disingenuous and obstinate to deny that any thing is because we cannot shew how it is Had we deny'd the presence of Christ in the Sacrament the Objection had been of some force But denying only Transubstantiation that is the manner of that presence it is altogether wide of the question Having done with this Author I pass to that of the Brief History who did not think this Answer of Mr. Milbourn's Adversary solid enough to embrace it But after some cursory animadversions on the Churche's Exposition shelters himself under Grotius's Wings and delivers that learned Man's Opinion It is needless to transcribe it all that he says pag. 26 27 28. amounting to this Grotius understands as we do the Creation here spoken of to be that of the Natural World He explains the words in the beginning as we do when God created all things or when all things began to exist He makes as we do that word to be not only Pre-existent but Eternal He understands as we do the word to be with God and to be God He reads as we do all things were made by him and for him He renders as we do The word was made Flesh acknowledging that Flesh is the usual Scripture Phrase for Man and saying also in the Explication of the 10th Verse that in process of time the word come to be Incarnate You will say then where does he differ from the Orthodox For as yet nothing appears contrary to the sence receiv'd in the Christian World He differs only in this that he makes this word to be only a property and an Attribute of God i. e. his Wisdom and Power but not a Divine Person I wonder that this Author would embrace an Exposition which really ruines all their little Criticisms their charming Allegories and brings the question to this only difficulty whether the word is no more than an Attribute or whether he is a Person Whatever Grotius in other places has done for these Gentlemen he has certainly given up the cause here by cleaving to the litteral sence of the words which indeed he could by no means avoid I will only propose these difficulties 1st If the word here is no more than an Attribute or Property how is he constantly spoken of here by he and him The world was made by him The world knew him not It is ridiculous to say that it is in the same manner that Prov. 9.1 Wisdom is said to build her House and David calls God's Commandments his Councellers Since in those places is a visible and a design'd Metaphor But Grotius owns here a real actual natural Creation of the World which admits of nothing Figurative 2ly If the word is no more than an Attribute of God what can be the meaning of the Evangelist In the beginning was the word and the word was God What is there in this so singular and to what can this lead us The Wisdom of God was before all things and the Wisdom of God was with God That is God was wise before the World was Created Certainly St. John means somewhat more than this Why not in the beginning was the Power the Mercy the Truth the Holiness of God For all this God was before things began to be 3ly What can be the design of this and the word was God Who ever heard any one say that Wisdom is God and Power is God Nor will it serve here to say as the Author of the History That all the Attributes of God are God or that the name Jehovah is attributed to Angels and that Moses is call'd God Either of these answers destroys the other For if the Attributes of God are God then Wisdom is the supreme God and not as the Angels or Moses Or if Wisdom is call'd Jehovah as the Angels and God as Moses then all the Attributes of God are not the Supreme God 4ly If the word is no more than an Attribute what can be made of this He was in the world and the world knew him not He came unto his own and his own receiv'd him not Living in the World unknown to the World coming to and rejected by Men cannot be said of Wisdom If it could bear that sence the Evangelist says nothing since before the Gospel before Moses before the Flood the Wisdom of God was despis'd by Men. 5ly The following words can never be spoken in the sence of an Attribute So many as receiv'd him to them gave he power to become the Sons of God even to them who believe on his name Can sence be made of wisdom giving us power or believing in the name of wisdom 6ly If wisdom is no more than a qualification how comes this and the word was made Flesh I remember that these Gentlemen value themselves much upon this notion of the Author of the Impartial Account of the word Mystery that they cannot believe the Trinity because they can have no notion of a Trinity I humbly beg a notion of Justice Prudence Holiness or as here Wisdom made Flesh I humbly beg a notion of an Attribute made Flesh 7ly And we beheld his glory the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father I again humbly beg to know whether the Attribute Wisdom is the only begotten Son of the Father I beg a notion of the Glory of God's Wisdom to be seen by human Eyes No says the Author you mistake it is the Glory of the Man on whom the word did abide But I must beg his pardon and tell him that this is too great an imposition on the sence of Mankind Any one who knows somewhat more than his A. B. C. knows that The word is the subject of all that is said here It is of the word that it is said that he was in the beginning that he was God that he was with God that he made the World that he was made Flesh that his Glory was seen as of the only begotten Son of God He must not He cannot admit the word to be the subject of all the other Propositions and deny him to be the subject of this I beg your pardon for having been so long on this Text. But the Answers of your Friends being of so great an extent though of so different a nature it was fit to shew how weak and unsatisfactory they appear I then prosecute the Argument and offer some others to your consideration I think that nothing proves the Eternity of God so
that himself has one who is not only his Lord but his God He cites for this Joh. 20.17 I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God This is a bad reason and a Text misunderstood to support it The reason is bad for it is plain that if there is a Lord over him he is not the Lord of Lords God is call'd in Scripture the God of Gods and the assertion could not be true if there was a God above him Natural reason will teach any Man that none can be Lord of Lords but in an unlimited sence Any other absolutely destorys the proposition He has misunderstood the place of St. John which does not suppose any superiority in the Father above the Son but only express the sameness of his nature with him Christ shews how God is his Father and how ours His by nature in the same Deity says Epiphanius Her 69. and ours by Grace in the adoption Which Text St. Cyrill Cathech 7. and St. Chrysostom on this very place explain after this manner As he is his Father so is he his God and his God because his Father I will conclude this Argument of Christ's Eternity by Joh. 17.5 And now O Father glorify thou me with thy own self with the Glory which I had with thee before the world was Grotius observes that this expression before the world was is the common notion which the Jews had of Eternity Christ says in the preceeding v. that he has glorify'd his Father on earth This Glory which he has acquir'd to God consists in finishing the work which he gave him to do In this Verse he begs of the Father that as a reward of this he would also glorifie him He asserts to what kind of honour he desires to be promoted even that which he had with him before the World was He had then an Eternal an Essential Glory with the Father which this same Evangelist had before exprest by saying that the word was with God It is to this that he desires his blessed humanity to be rais'd He had then before an Eternal existence with God For the word was God and he claims that his mortal and passible nature my be assum'd to a participation of that honour dignity and glory which he had from all Eternity This Text is full and home But it receives a great addition from Joh. 12.41 Where it is said that Isaias saw his glory and spoke of him The Glory spoken of here is that of the Eternal God Isay 6.1 2 3. He describes not only his Throne and the numerous attendance of the blessed spirits but the two Seraphims who covering their Faces with their Wings cry'd one to another Holy Holy Holy is the Lord of Hosts a name which none but the true God assumes v. 9. The Prophet receives his commission in the words repeated by St. John which are a Prophecy of the incredulity and obstinacy of the Jews St. John declares then the Prophecy to be fulfill'd He does not leave us to conjecture of whom the Prophet speaks but tells us plainly that these things said Isaias when he saw his glory and spoke of him To this last Text the Auhor of the Brief Hist answers 1st That the most learned of the Orthodox Interpreters both Fathers and Modern have confest that the words of St. John are to be understood not of Christ but of God For God only is intended in the foregoing Verse to which the words of this relate 2ly That the best Greek Bibles read not his Glory but God's Glory For the first they must give me leave to observe again that this is one of their boundless citations and of those Characters of the most learned given at random as this very Author Brief Hist pag. 11. has honour'd Dyonisius Petavius with the title of the most learned of the Jesuits and another of these Gentlemen calls him the most learned of the most learned order contrary to the sence that his own Society has of the one though otherwise a Man of great worth and to the opinion which the learned World has of the rest The reason which they give that God is only intended in the foregoing Verse is nothing at all to the question The difficulty is not neither whether Isaias speaks of Christ but whether it is of him that St. John says that Isaias speaks and indeed he must be willfully blind who does not see that all this is said of him who departed from them v. 36. in whom they could not believe v. 37. of whom all this was Prophesi'd v. 38 40. even Christ For the 2d that the best Greek Bibles read God's and not his It is a great misfortune that so few people can see those best Bibles or read the most learned of the Interpreters and that all the ancient Copies that I know extant and all the Printed Editions read unanimously his and not God's But his answer to the Text which occassion'd this is much worse to Joh. 17.5 he says that the Glory which Christ says he had before the world was is only meant in God's Decree He adds pag. 31. but without citing where That St. Austin and several learned Interpreters not only grant but contend that it is so That the sufferings of Christ were to preceed his Glory 1 Pet. 1.11 that this Text ought to be understood as 2 Cor. 5.1 We have a building of God a house made with hands and 2 Tim. 1.9 The Grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began This is little to the purpose It has been observ'd already that St. Austin Aquinas and both the Disciples of these two great Men understand these words of a decree which I wonder these Gentlemen offer so much as to speak of It supposing what they so earnestly deny and that is the Personal Union of the two natures of Jesus Christ Read the Books de nat and Grat. de praedest de persev Sanct. Tract in Johan and almost every where and you will find it to be the System of these two Doctors to which they reduce not only this place but all others of like nature and indeed if you admitt of a decree you must go through with this as these two learned Men have done There is no other in relation to Christ can have any room in the Scripture What is more is only pretended to elude the force of an Argument Were these Gentlemen unconcern'd in the dispute and should they hear this Text cited Glorifie thou me ... with the Glory which I had with thee before the world was How would it make them merry to hear a decree pretended for that which cannot be conceiv'd but antecedent to that decree Had Christ said Glorifie me with the Glory which thou hadst appointed or decree'd for me It might have serv'd But Glorifie me with the Glory which I had with thee which was mine which I was in possession of before the Creation excludes any thing of
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.
They presently accuse him of Blasphemy and that upon a known and undoubted principle that none can forgive sins but God He does not at all excuse the thing or make himself a deputed God or a God by deputation a sort of God of these Gentlemens making He grants that none but God can forgive sins Then he convinces them by a Miracle and leaves them the conclusion to draw Which is easier to cure or to forgive He that does the one must be God with an Article too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he that does the other must be absolute Master of nature and that is God The Jews were so far perswaded that Christ by calling God his Father spoke of himself not as of a Son by adoption or any other title but as a Son by nature co-equal and co-eternal that they never understood him otherwise This is as clear as the Sun from Joh. 5. Christ cures a Man of an infirmity of 38. Years standing v. 9. But it being on the Sabbath day v. 16. The Jews presecuted him and sought to slay him He answers v. 17. My Father works hitherto and I work They take from these words a new occasion to accuse him At first they were only angry for his healing on the Sabbath but now v. 18. they sought the more to kill him ... because he said also that God was his Father His own Father says the Evangelist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making himself equal with God That Equality could not arise simply from calling God his Father This was the privilege of the Jews as it is now of Christians But they made it to consist in this assertion that as the Father was above the Sabbath the Divine nature not being confin'd to those rules which it prescribes to us mortals Christ saying the same of himself He made himself the Son of God equal to his Father Which equality of the Son with the Father the Jews suppose and acknowledge But seek to kill him because he pretended to assume it to himself This the Fathers urg'd against the Arrians Now Christ replies without any variation equivocation or subterfuge He is plain and proves all along the Unity and sameness of nature with the Father He says v. 19. that he can do nothing of himself which does not imply weakness and insufficiency as the Author of the Breif Hist has abus'd that Text pag. 6. but shews only that he can act from no other principle but that by which he exists That he has his operation from him from whom he has his being and as an infallible proof that this is the true sence of that place he shews an extent of operation as great as the Father What things soever the Father does these does the Son likewise This is the Divinity of Theodoret or rather of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria inserted in the first Book of his History It is that of St. Basil or the Author of the first Book contr Eunom and of the Generality of the Greek Fathers It is that of St. Hilary lib. 7. de Trin. It is that of St. Austin who tract 20. in Joann has these admirable words Whatsover the Son has to do he has from the Father the power to do it Why does he receive from the Father the power to act because he has receiv'd of the Father to be his Son He has his power from the Father because from the Father he has his Essence Christ prosecutes the Argument and shews how God has communicated all things to him even as a reward of his profound humiliation in taking our nature upon him v. 27. because he is the Son of Man But that notwithstanding his outward appearance in infirmity and weakness he has an Original and Eternal Being with the Father v. 26. As the Father has life in himself so has he given the Son to have life in himself St. Austin lib. 3. contra Maxim c. 14. He has given him the same life that he has Such as he has it himself he has given it him He has given it as Infinite as he has it in himself He concludes that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father the same honour being due to the same Divine Essence The sum of all is this Christ does not at all grant that he is an inferior or a representative God as these Gentlemen would have it by the concession that some Men are call'd Gods but concludes on the contrary that if Men are not guilty of Blasphemy by taking that name How much less is he who is and on every occasion asserts himself to be the true God This takes off at once the Objections from all those Texts which the Author of the Brief Hist thought unanswerable That he was faithful to him that made him that we are Christ's and Christ is God's That he humbl'd himself and became obedient That the Son shall be subject to him who put all things under him That his doctrine is not his doctrine That he intercedes with God for us and a great many more This Author lays a great weight on all those Texts which prove the Humanity of Christ His first Letter contains whatsoever the Evangelists have said of the passions and infirmities of our Nature We are so far from denying any part of this that we think it the greatest comfort Religion can give that Christ was truly Man We own it and Glory in it that Jesus Christ the Righteous our Advocate with the Father was in all things like us Sin only excepted But the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament speaking so fully to his Divinity with the Father in the communication of the same Nature and Eternal Being lead us not to say that he is not God because he is Man or that he is not Man because he is God This is not to interpret but to destory one Scripture by another They lead us to take both the parts of the Mystery as the spirit of God proposes it and to believe that he is truly God and truly Man In short these Gentlemen can never satisify any Man's conscience in this point nor can they justifie themselves to the Christian Church from whose Faith they have departed All that Wit and Eloquence which they are so much Masters of and all those Arguments which they have treated with so much accuracy being of no force against the proof◠alledg'd I will conclude this Letter of Christ's Pre-Eternity with this place of Origen contr Cels lib. 6. This Father speaks of the knowledge of God and how difficult it is to know him who has made darkness his Pavilion round about him He says that the Father is known truly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only by the Word He proves this by Matt. 11.27 Neither knows any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him For none says he can know him truly and as he deserves to be known who is begotten from all Eternity
are not pleas'd to observe that there is in the Text an actual comparison of two natures of Christ as Man and of Christ who is God blessed over all of Christ who in the first capacity is descended from the Jews and is a Jew according to the Flesh and of Christ who in the other has a communication of the Divine Nature and is God blessed over all It is easy to see says the Author of the Answer to Mr Milbourn that these expressions in the places cited by him are only as much as to say according to the Body I grant it But I affirm that it is easy to see that the Apostle speaks in those places Absolutely and without relation to any thing else and that here he speaks relatively to another being which Christ has This appears not only from the thing it self where there is an obvious comparison but from the very way of expressing of the Greek which our language cannot reach In all the places cited by these Gentlemen according to the Flesh is express'd without any Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to determine it to any sence than what really it has But when this is say'd of Christ There the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which it is compar'd to somewhat else The Apostle has it clearly Rom. 1.2 and 3. made according to the Flesh where the Flesh does not signify the body as the places which they have cited to elude the force of this Text but the humane nature of Christ in opposition to these words according to the Spirit of Holiness by which the Divine is express'd This explication is of St. Chrysostom on this place Theodoret and long before of Tertullian adv Prax. Made of the seed of David according to the Flesh says that Father Here is the man and the Son of man And declar'd to be the Son of God according to the Holy Spirit Hic est Deus sermo Dei filius This is the God and the word the Son of God This was the Divinity of Tertullian's time before the Council of Nice Having done with this Text I pass to Act. 20.28 St. Paul taking his leave of the Asian Bishops exhorts them pathetically to that diligence and care which is the source of all Pastoral Vertues He urges it on these two Motives 1st That they have receiv'd their power from the Holy Ghost 2ly That the Church which he exhorts them to feed is the Church for which God has been pleas'd to dye Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own blood This is spoken of a God by nature since according to the Socinian Rule God is nam'd here with an Article It is not only a God but the God He has purchas'd to himself a Church he has bought us with a price and because without remission of Sin there is no redemption and there is no remission without blood he has purchas'd us with blood But the blood of Goats and Calves the blood of others being of it self ineffectual and only Figurative he has shed his own blood for us This cannot be say'd of the Father who these Gentlemen deny and with a great deal of reason to have suffer'd Nor can it be asserted of the Holy Spirit since they assure him to be only a power and an energy and it is ridiculous to say that an energy shed his own blood In can be say'd of none but the Son who having taken our nature upon him became our Mediator and High-Priest and by his own blood that blood which he shed for the Church obtain'd eternal redemption for us But that High-Priest that Mediator that Christ is say'd to be the God therefore he must be partaker of the Divine Nature and since the Father is the God and he is also the God there must be more persons than one subsisting in the Deity This is deciding and conclusive Yet the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 34. makes these exceptions 1st That in the Armenian Syriack and the most ancient of the Greek Bibles the reading is not the Church of God but of Christ 2ly That admitting the reading God in the vulgar Editions of the Greek yet some great Masters of the Greek Tongue have render'd the Greek words thus Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own Son's blood 3ly That admitting the Translation in our English Bibles some learned men particularly Erasmus have noted that the blood of Christ is here call'd the blood of God because it was the blood which God gave for the redemption of the World so Joh 1.36 This is the lamb of God that is the lamb of Sacrifice which God gives for the sins of the world These Gentlemen have the misfortune to call every thing an Answer 1st It is true that in some Copies these words have been read with some alteration but nothing at all to their purpose some few have read the Churc◠of the Lord others the Church of the Lord and God but none the Church of Christ They will much oblige the Common-wealth of Learning if they will produce any of these best and most ancient Copies A very learned Man of this Age has pretended to prove that the Church of Christ is not the language of the Scripture and that when the Church is spoken of by way of eminence as it is in this Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church it is often say'd to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God but never the Church of Christ And this Criticism they will find true if they give themselves the trouble to examine it The Syriack Interpreter is rather an Expositor than a Translator The Latin who is wholly a Translator and not an Expositor reads Ecclesiam Dei The Church of God The second part of their Answer that some great Masters of the Greek Tongue have render'd his own Son's blood instead of his own blood is a crying notorious and unpardonable falsification of a Text. What will be the end of our disputes if when we are press'd with the undenyable evidence of a Scripture we presume to add words to it and usher in that Sacrilegious attempt upon the word of God with saying some great Masters of the Greek Tongue When these Gentlemen talk of Syriack Arabick Coptick Armenian they may easily impose upon the simple but for Greek which is common to all professions in this Kingdom to tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his own proper blood is with his Son's blood to make the falsification Authentick by Attributing it to the great Masters of the Greek Tongue and call this an Answer to a solid Objection is a piece of an Incomprehensible Confidence 3ly Socinus and Chrellius were more dexterous who being press'd by this Text very fairly lay'd aside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own wherein lyes the stress of the Argument but call'd it as Erasmus has done the blood of God the Father that is the blood which God gave for the
redemption of the World They must forgive me if I say that this is a meer trifle God's own Lamb is the Lamb of God God's own Son is the Son of God And God's own blood is the blood of him who is God Tit. 2.13 was urg'd by the Fathers against the Arrians as a clear proof of the Divinity of Christ Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ The Author of the Brief Histor pag. says to this 1st That nothing hinders that we may believe that not only the Lord Christ but God himself will appear at the last judgment 2ly That the Glory of the Great God is the Pomp Power and Angels that God even the Father will cause to accompany Christ in that day Matt. 16.27 The Son shall appear in the Glory of his Father with his the Father's Angels The first of these two assertions is contrary to the Gospel Joh. 5.22 The Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son The second is as contrary as the first Matt. 25.31 When the Son of man shall come in his Glory .... Then shall he sit upon the Throne of his Glory But all this is nothing to the purpose and diverts instead of resolving the question The only difficulty which can be propos'd the Author of the History has declin'd We prove from this Text that the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ is the same Person That the Great God and Saviour are predicated or say'd of Christ This ought to have been deny'd and reasons given for it and this would have been to the purpose But This Author saw it was not possible and that the Greek dialect excludes in this place all the little Criticisms which come in heaps in other places I wonder that those great Masters of the Greek Tongue who did presume in the Text disputed of before this to put the blood of his own Son in the room of his own blood have not here added an Article and read The Great God and the Saviour J. C. and pretended some ancient Copies that Curcellaeus or some body else had seen This Text then is undoubtedly ours The Great God and Saviour of us is the same way of speaking as The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ The conjunctive Particle which unites God and Father uniting also God and Saviour Nor can they so much as dream here of a deputed God since there is an Article here and the Epithet Great added to it But nothing shews so much how far these Gentlemen are prejudic'd against the plainest evidence than their answers to Joh. 20.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord of me and the God of me Socinus says the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 32 and 34. with two more learned Unitarians contend That it was the intention of Thomas to call our Saviour His Lord and his God but it is in no other sense than Solomon Ps 45. Moses and Samuel That God is us'd amongst the Eastern People as the word Lord is us'd amongst us who do not design to make a Man a God because we speak to him with a name which we also use to God Yet though this comes from Socinus this Author is not willing to stand to it He says This interpretation is likely to be true but that divers learned Persons amongst their Opposers and even of old Nestorius and Theodore of Mopswest were of opinion that My Lord and My God are only words of admiration and thanks directed not to our Saviour but to God They are an exclamation expressing the Apostle's amazement to find his Master was risen He sends us to the Brief History The Author of that History is so little taken with the deputed God of Socinus that he has not one Syllable of it He says pag. 32. That Nestorius was of opinion that the words were not design'd to Christ but to God For though the Evangelist says Thomas answer'd and say'd to him yet the exclamation might be adress'd to God as its object and the answer to our Saviour ...... It may be admitted as true what others say O my Lord are words of congratulation to our Saviour O my God words of admiration and praise to God Thus these Gentlemen cut and slash the Scripture and shew how men who depart from the truth are inconsistent with themselves Socinus overcome by the evidence of the thing acknowledges the words to be spoken to Christ but contrary to his own rule though the words are with an Article and so must belong to the true God will have them to be understood of a deputed God or a God by Office Nestorius Theodore and these Gentlemen are convinc't that the God spoken of here is the Almighty But though the Text expressly says and â—homas answer'd and say'd to him My Lord and My God yet it must not be to him but to God himself They separate what the spirit of God has join'd and though it is as clear as the Sun that the word My God is say'd to him to whom the word My Lord is spoken being both join'd by the Particle and yet this will not do one part must be a Compliment to Christ the other a Prayer to God These Gentlemen would fain have new Bibles The Author of the Answer to My Lord of Sarum pag. 30. There will be no need of our Answers or Defences if there were but an honest Edition of the Bible ..... We have no reform'd Bibles none that have been corrected to speak the Doctrines of the Church rather than of the Gospel But 't is above 1200 Years that others have been Modelling the common Bibles by the Doctrines and Articles of our Holy Mother Church I think they do not ask enough I would have them also find out a new Language new ways for men to express themselves by I would have them procure an Act of Parliament by which it shall be Enacted that to Answer and to speak to a Man shall not be to answer and to speak to him but to some body else I would have them take such vulgar notions as these out of men's heads and create in them new methods of thinking and receving impressions from what they hear by being perswaded that though they receive an answer yet it is not to them that it is given Truly had I been in the Fifth General Council where this answer of Theodore was condemn'd by the Fathers syn 5. coll 4. I would not only have Anathematis'd the Impiety but also the folly and impertinence of the Opinion These two answers then invincibly consute one another Sâ—cinus confutes that part which would not have the words to be spoken to the Saviour and these Gentlemen confute that part which makes the God who is spoken to to be a deputed God They lead us to the true sence of this Text that Thomas an Apostle has fully acknowledg'd that Christ is truly and really God This
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
are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him None of these places can be understood of Master and Sir The first notion which they present to the mind is of a sovereign supreme and Divine Authority The name Johovah being given to Persons Angels places and communities is another miserable evasion Nay it is a substantial proof for us For if that sacred name was only given to places which God honour'd with his presence or to them in whom he spoke It shews that the presence of God was the only reason of the name It remains still proper to him and there being no prefence of God so great and so intimate as the Union of the two Natures and God appearing visibly so much in no Man as in Christ Jesus he is truly our Jehovah 4ly Who can think Christ a meer Man a meer Creature as these Gentlemen call him who seriously considers the words of St. Peter act 4.12 Neither is there Salvation in any other for there is no other name under Heaven given amongst men by which we must be sav'd Coloss 3.17 Whatsoever you do in word or deed do all in the name of Jesus Matt. 1.21 he shall save his People from their sins Eph. 1.7 in whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins I beg of them to leave Mankind to the common notices which they bring with them into the World and not to overrule that universal way of thinking which the Creator has given them Is this spoken of the Doctrine or of the Person of the Holy Jesus Does not all this suppose an excellency which no Created being can attain to Can saving redeeming forgiving atoning be the privilege of any creature If the Prophet speaking of men's natural death says Psal 49.7 that no man can redeem his brother nor give to God a ransom for him how much less can any one free us from the Eternal Condemnation due to Sin 5ly The coming of no Man into the World is express'd as that of Christ Leave one to himself out of the noise and prejudice of a dispute and in the reading of the Scripture he will easily see that it supposes knowledge Choice Pre-Existence in him who took our nature 2 Cor. 8.9 You know the Grace of our Lord J. C. that though he was rich yet for our sakes he became poor that we through his proverty might become rich Phil. 2.7 He took upon him the form of a servant was made in the likeness of men was found in fashion as a man Heb. 2.16 he took not on him the nature of Angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham 1 Joh. 5.20 and we know that the Son of God vs come 1 Joh. 3.8 For this purpose the Son of God was manifested appear'd to destroy the works of the Devil Heb. 9.25 he has appear'd to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself 6ly The Grace of God by which he pardons our sins and capacitates us for an Eternal Life is so peculiar to God that no Man has yet pretended to deny it But how often is it attributed to Christ Act. 15.11 but we believe that through the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they 2 Cor. 12.9 and he say'd to me my Grace is sufficient for thee for my strength is made perfect in weakness most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities that the power of Christ may rest upon me The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 37. is strangely Embarass'd to answer this He says That the words before the Text cited I besought the Lord thrice ..... are spoken to God not to Christ The power of Christ is the strength which he procures by his mediation with God The Socinians for the most part grant that the word or power of God abiding in Christ does qualify him to hear our Prayers I would ask this Author if the words are spoken to God what signifies this Socinian acknowledgment of Christ hearing our Prayers which overthrows all the rest And if they are spoken to Christ why did he not consider better before he deny'd it He saw and so must the most infatuated Person that the power of Christ is that Grace which is sufficient and was so earnestly pray'd for and that it is the Grace of him who was pray'd to and who answer'd the Apostle Gal. 2.8 He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision the same was mighty in me toâ—ard the Gentiles Eph. 2.13 But now in C.J. you who were sometimes afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ Tit. 3.7 that being justify'd by his Grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of Eternal life Rom. 16.24 The Grace of our Lord J.C. be with you all And more fully 2 Cor. 13.14 The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ the Love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all These two last places they have excepted against This last Text demonstrates says the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 31. that neither the Lord Christ nor the Holy Spirit are God for it plainly distinguishes them from God I say that it demonstates that the Lord Christ is God since he is the Author and giver of Grace and that the Holy Spirit is God since he communicates those graces to us which none but God can give and both are join'd to God who as this very Author explains it in this very place is the Father So that it plainly distinguishes them not from God but only from the Father and shews excellently the operations of the Three Persons The Author of the answer to My Lord of Sarum has foreseen this and therefore winds another way and says pag. 21. that it is true that Grace Mercy and Peace are pray'd for from the Lord Christ but that they are also pray'd from them who certainly are no Gods Rev. 1.4 Grace be to you and peace from him which is and which was and which is to come and from the seven spirits that are before his throne and from J. C. But he seems to make no difference between a Salutation and a Prayer The one is the introduction to what St. John had to say and from whom he spoke The other is the conclusion of a discourse which to make the more effectual he prays to Christ without whom we can do nothing to give us his grace to the Father to continue those repeated Testimones of his love to us and to the Holy spirit to influence us into the practice of the duty commanded I may wish peace and grace to any Man from all the Angels in Heaven but I must not pray for Grace Peace and Mercy to any created being This Author in the same page has given us a specimen how easy it is to extricate one self of the most substantial difficulties 'T is a folly to read or think There is a