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
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
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
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 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
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
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
and a personal union Can God appear in our nature without taking our nature Can God be seen as a Man without being made Flesh The application of Joh. 1.14 a dreadful Text to these Gentlemen is not all answer'd The Dean says that even the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He Tabernacl'd amongst us fullfill'd that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle or Temple in Jerusalem by his dwelling personally in our humane nature They run here to their Crambe recocta their wild explication of that place of which we shall see the poverty hereafter The Dean having said that the lamb slain from the foundation of the world could not be understood of God's decree the ordinary evasion of these Gentlemer ...... But that it was slain in Types and Figures ever since the fall of Adam in those early sacrifices offer'd after the fall which were Typical and Figurative of the sacrifice of Christ They cannot deny the matter of fact But maintain pag. 48. that they were of humane institution and no Types or Figures of the sacrifice of Christ The reason they say is that the scripture is silent about it Such a reason from such Men is surprising who know that the Religion of the first Men being all traditional no account could be given in scripture of any positive Precept But that those sacrifices were no Figures of the sacrifice of Christ is very strange if it be granted that there is no redemption but by Christ That no sin is forgiven but by the vertue of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross That all men have sinned and come short of the Glory of God That as it is natural to men to adore the Majesty of God it is also natural to implore of him pardon of Sin That both these were the design of Sacrificing in the first Men and consequently that as their Sacrifices were of no validity but in respect of the great Sacrifice offer'd by the Son of God so they must of themselves have been Typical and Figurative The Dean has said that which is the Doctrine of the Fathers and generally of all Christians His notion is true and genuine and those Gentlemen have not answer'd it He asks again what account can be given of the Jewish Priesthood and Sacrifices which is becoming God if God is propitiated by a Man subject to the same Sins and Infirmites The difficulty is solid For the High Priest of the old dispensation being a meer Man He was a Metaphorical Priest He must be then the figure of a Priesthood and of a Priest more perfect and if the High Priest of the new dispensation was no more than a Man for this these Gentlemen suppose notwithstanding the great addition of Grace and Glory made to him This High Priest is still Metaphorical and Typical as well as the other This contradicts the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 7. v. 2. and foll The law made Men Priests which had Infirmities and offer'd daily for their own sins and then for the people's But Christ our High Priest was holy undefil'd separate from sinners and made Higher than the Heavens That is above any created being He is able to save to the uttermost them that come to God by him Nothing that is a meer Man is able to save Nothing that is a meer Man is without Infirmities the very notion of a Creature implying deficiency and want Therefore if he is no more he is still Typical and Figurative This objection is not nor can be answer'd with all the turns of Wit and Eloquence in the World The union of the two natures in that one adorable Person answers it presently and wholly They are not willing to come up to this But yet this truth is so clear and the Argument so pressing that it has extorted from them in the same place that God has made Christ as it were God by his unspeakable gifts What is all this what has he made him half a God or three parts God or nine parts in ten God If Christ is no more then a meer Man how is he made as it were God If he is God How is he made as it were God Is this jargon or gibbrish I understand how a man can be made as it were a King and yet be no King I apprehend how Moses could be a God to Pharo by working in him with his wonders an awful sence of him from whom he spoke But how a man can save his fellow creatures to the uttermost a meer man satisfy for the sins of mankind be made as it were a God and yet be no God do those things which none but God can do and are the inseparable properties of his Divine nature and yet be no God is to me wholly incomprehensible Let these Gentlemen who are so strangely afraid of an imaginary Idolatry have a care lest they lead their few followers into a real one I leave this to your serious considerarion and remain SIR Your Humble and faithful Servant L. THE Second LETTER SIR IF the Old Testament seems express in the assertion of the Divinity of Jesus Christ and if the Prophets have shew'd that the expected Messias was God It must be expected that the New is positive in it and that the Evangelists and Apostles clearly deliver that great truth I hope that you will be made sensible of it and that the answers of your Friends will appear as unsatisfactory to the Texts of the one as I humbly conceive they are to those of the other I ever thought that if this Doctrine is not fully expres't there we must not think any more to see with our Eyes or to hear with our Ears All must be resolv'd into a monstruous uncertainty and we have no ground left where to rest if this is not firm and solid That these Gentlemen should be so Zealous against it and agreeing with us in the truth of the holy Scriptures should use so much learning and industry not to see that which is so visible is to me no small cause of admiration We must in this adore the judgments of God and pray to him that he would give them Grace to employ their excellent parts to a better use and do as much for the truth as they have done against it They have been led to this by the presumptious assertion of some in the Roman communion and in particular by Dyonisius Petavius a better Chronologist than a Divine who to raise not so much Tradition as these Gentlemen mistake him as the power of the Church in deciding Controversies have thought that our mysteries could not be prov'd by the plain authority of Scripture If this is true the Primitive Christians could give no account of their Faith before the determination of Councels and were left unarm'd and without defence against the insults of Hereticks which is unreasonable to the highest degree and a thought unworthy of that Providence which makes the Church its peculiar care No Sir
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
effectually as that place Isay 44.6 I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God This Text is of the New as well as of the Old Testament St. John begins his Revelation by wishing us peace from him which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty Nor indeed can we have a clearer notion of that supreme being which we call God than that he exists before and after all things v 8. I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending says the Lord which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty This is a Title which nothing that is Created can pretend to and an Explication of the Sacred Name Jehovah which in the sence of the Hebrews extends to all the durations imaginable and shews that in the change of all things he is permanent and incapable of alteration This suppos'd I conceive it obvious that if Christ assumes that name to himself if he says of himself that he is the Alpha and Omega The first and the last If he often takes that Title willing to be known by it making it the ground of a solid encouragement to his Disciples in their Sufferings for his sake and if what he says can reasonably be diverted to no other sence it cannot be deny'd that he is God with the Father To see whether this is true read Rev. 1.11 I am Alpha and Omega the first and the last v. 17. Fear not I am the first and the last Rev. 22.13 I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last and because these Gentlemen are so fond of Articles and build such mighty things upon them all this is spoken with the same Articles as in v. 8. when it is spoken of Almighty God Which though in truth and reality is no proof at all yet it is so to them who lay so great a stress upon it I will add two remarks to this The 1st is that acclamation which in both Testaments is made to none but God v. 6. to him be Glory and dominion for ever and Chap. 5.13 and every creature which is in Heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea and all that are in them heard I saying Blessing honour glory and power to him that sitteth on the Throne and to the lamb for ever The 2d is that admirable description made of Christ Rev. 19. which tells us v. 13. that he has a vesture dip't in blood and that his name is the word of God that Eternal word which Grotius owns created the World and all that is in it which was made Flesh and this same Prophet says washt us in his own blood after he had taken our nature upon him who has on his vesture and on his thigh a name written King of Kings and Lord of Lords a title which belongs to none but God which none but the Almighty can assume He alone being the source of power and from whom all other power is deriv'd All this the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 44. pretends to evade by saying that v. 11. is not in the Latin nor in any good Greek Copy It is true that it is not in the Latin and that it is wanting in some few Greek Copies But being that it is in so many other places in all the Greek and Latin Manuscripts It is disingenuous to accuse this particular place and a candid opposer should have judg'd that it can be Attributed to nothing but the neglect of the Transcriber It is in all the aforesaid places and besides Rev. 2.8 spoken by him who was dead and is alive who lives and was dead and is alive for evermore A second Evasion and really much worse than the first is what he says pag. 20. of the Brief Hist to the 17. v. That Christ is the first and most honourable with good Men and the last the most despis'd by bad Men. He cites for this Hugo Cardinalis from whom Grotius and Erasmus have borrow'd it It is very diverting to see a learned Man as the Author of this History to cite in these disputes Hugo Cardinalis but what if the Cardinal if Grotius if Erasmus have understood these words in a manner so contrary to their real and natural sence I ask what is it to the matter in hand Is it less true because Erasmus and Grotius say that it is not so Will these Gentlemen be contented if instead of these three names we produce three hundred of a contrary Opinion a whole Body of Scripture Interpreters who understand the words in their litteral sence Briefly says the Author again pag. 21. Both Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ are the first and the last but in different sences Why does he not alledge those sences What corner of the Earth hides the precious Treasure A Text is produc't which is express cogent self-evident liable to no little Criticisms A title Attributed to Christ in its utmost latitude without any exception or restriction capable of no reasonable sence but the literal and instead of a substantial answer they tell us that a certain Author understands it so and so that it is capable of different sences and so bid us good night Thus any shift is made an Answer and a bare assertion becomes an Argument I have often endeavour'd to find out what might be the cause of so unfair a dealing in an Author who is certainly a Man of learning and is as sensible as my self that the Interpretation of Hugo is ridiculous and impertinent and that a general Allegation is no Answer The true reason I take to be this They have espous'd this notion that the Trinity and Incarnation are contradictory and impossible read this Author pag. 44 45. that is not so much the thing as the manner The How can it be Thus when we who are satisfy'd that if the thing is plainly and clearly reveal'd it becomes the object of our Faith and excludes any further inquiry into the manner when we bring those Texts on which no impression can be made by denying a word excepting against a Translation exclaiming against an Article or a punctuation citing any orthodox who by chance favours their explication of some particular Text though otherwise an utter Enemy to their Doctrine they leave no stone unturn'd But when a Text is alledg'd which as this stares in the face then any thing will serve they think that their strength is to sit still and rather say nothing then not to the purpose What they say to this place Rev. 19.16 King of Kings and Lord of Lords is of the same nature It is not only a magnificent description of the Almighty but a notion also so universal so innate to all Mankind that from this the most illiterate see the necessity of their Obedience to his Laws The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 44. says to this that Christ is so Lord of Lords as
Divinity of Christ are parties in the case even by the confession of our Adversaries and so not to be heard But in this it is visible even to the most zealous Socinian that he has grosly and shamelesly corrupted this Text. The word God not being in the Text is really an objection but if truely consider'd rather confirms than weakens the assertion For the only Lord can no more be restrain'd to Christ exclusively to the Father than the only true God can be restrain'd to the Father exclusively to Christ The word God adds nothing to the force of the expression The only Lord being a Phrase of as large an extent and as full an importance as the only true God This takes off at once all the other Texts depending from this on which this Author has so much insisted 1 Cor 8.6 Eph. 4.4 5 6. 1 Tim. 2.5 c. A 2d objection which indeed this Author has not made though he has scarce left a Text untouch't whether it made for his purpose or no and was a reason or only look't like one but is made by the Author of some thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Trininy is taken from Joh. 10.35 36. If he call'd them Gods unto whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of him whom the Father has sanctify'd and sent into the world thou blasphemest because I say'd I am the Son of God He does not say I whom the Father has begotten from all Eternity says the Author pag 4. of his own substance But I whom the Father has sanctify'd Which plainly shews that when he says he was the Son of God his meaning was that he was only so in a sence of consecration and of mission and consequently that his unity with the Father is not an Essential and natural unity but meerly moral and relative of works not of Essence which is really incommunicable pag. 6. I should think this passage written with the very finger of truth to be unanswerable were it not that I know the Orthodox are wont to darken the most bright light at the cost of sincerity and good sence and make no scruple of the grossest contradictions and absurdities so they may but cast dust in the Eyes of simple men Passing by the complement which is of a singular nature and a barbarous aspersion on persons whom they themselves own to have an extraordinary piety and learning I must beg leave to admire the difference of Men's perceptions This Author thinks this passage to be written with the very finger of truth and not to be answerable I think so too But he says against the Eternal being of Christ and I saw for it The cause of this difference between us lyes here He fancies that those Verses are an Explication of what Christ had said before v. 30. I and my Father are one for which v. 31. the Jews took up stones to stone him and which v. 33. they call Blasphemy and because that he being a man makes himself God and that to avoid their anger he declares to them that he is no otherwise God than those very Men who by their law are call'd Gods not because they are so indeed but because they have the Power and Authority of God communicated to them Now I think that these words are not an Explication Excuse or Apology for what he had said I and the Father are one But an open and free continuation of what was before and a new assertion of his Divinity This will appear if the whole context is taken together Christ had said v. 9. that he is the door that by him if any man enters he shall be sav'd Agreeable to this expression of Revel 7.3 He that is holy he that is true ... he that opens and no man shuts and shuts and no man opens v. 28. that he gives his sheep Eternal life and that they might not wonder at those Characters which can agree to no creature he carries yet the point higher He tells them v. 30. I and my Father are one That though they see him in the form of a Servant and in all things like Man yet he is God with his Father and partaker of the same Divine Nature This assertion to Men whose hearts were not purify'd by Faith seem'd strange and impious v. 31. They took stones to stone him He tells them with that unconcernedness which truth and innocence gives that he has done amongst them many miraculous works to prove this his Union with his Father He asks which of these works has provok'd their blind zeal to stone him They answer him v. 33. that it is not for any of those good and miraculous works But because being but a man he makes himself not A. God but God He does not at all excuse the thing or parts with his first assertion He pities but not fear their malice and uses a plain and forcible Argument to instruct them Though the name of God be Sacred and the most reverend appellation in the World yet your law says Christ will allow it to them who speak to you from him If it be so then and you cannot deny it because it is writen in your law Ps 82.6 I have say'd ye are Gods If Men are sometime allow'd to be call'd Gods How much more may I make my self God and this without the least danger of Blasphemy who am above any thing that is created to whom every Knee must bow of things in Heaven and things in the Earth and things under the Earth Whom the Father has sanctify'd not only by a peculiar designation as a King or a Prophet but by an Eternal Communication of his nature by which He and I are one and so sent me into the World to save you and the rest of Mankind If I did not do the works which none but the Son of God can do you might have some ground not to believe me But as long as I do these miraculous works it is to you a sufficient argument of perswasion You ought to believe that the Father is in me and I in him v. 38. That the Jews understood this answer litterally as they had done the allegation That they did not take it as an Apology for the pretended Blasphemy but a further proof of his being one with the Father appears by their not relenting but v. 39. Therefore they sought again to take him but be escap't out of their hands I beg leave then of this Author and of Calvin whom he has cited blaming the Fathers for misapplying this Text to say that the Fathers were in the right and that nothing can be more obvious than this It will be much confirm'd if we consider that this is not the only time that the Jews quarrell'd with Christ upon the same account and he always answer'd not by denying but justifying the assertion Mark 2.5 He tells one who was brought to him Sick of the Palsy Thy sins be forgiven thee v. 7.
not in earnest when they bring Sandius with his Catalogue of most Learned and Judicious Trinitarians since they cannot be ignorant that All the Greek Fathers concern'd in this dispute who understood I hope their own language better than any of us It being more than highly probable that the Author of the Brief History and of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn who are really accurate Writers can give a far better account of any English Phrase now in use and better understand the extent and importance of it than a Frenchman or a Dutchman who though never so Learned and Judicious will twelve or thirteen hundred Years hence Criticise Paraphrase and give another sence to that Phrase than what they gave themselves since I say all the Greek Fathers who understood the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thought these words an undoubted and clear testimony of Christ's Divinity The natural impossibility of the thing is an old objection made to Lactantius and confuted by that Father Negant Deo dignum ut Homo fieri vellet .... ut passionibus ut doloribus sese ipse subjiceret They deny that it is worthy of God to become man and subject himself to Grief and Sufferings This is the constant mothod of these Gentlemen always to return to the How can it be It is not so because it is impossible We say it is possible because it is so and it is so because it is reveal'd It is dinsingenuous to be ever parting from the point in Question which is the Revelation to the manner of the thing it self which is above our reach All these things consider'd which really are not worth answering may not I have the liberty to tell your Friends what they said to Monsieur la Motté pag. 10. T' is a very thin Sophistry this when an Author leaves off to speak to the vulgar and would needs undertake in this very passage Phil. 2.6 7 8. to speak to the learned he should bring something more substantial to blind such Eyes as theirs In short the stress of the difficulty lies here Whether to be in the form of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Signifies the nature or only the likeness of God such as Adam and all other Men have And whether the Translation is right thought it not robbery to be equal with God That the form of God is the Divine Essence is evinc't from the Authority of the Greek Fathers Theodoret Basil St. Chrysostom Theophilact who not only spoke their own language but were Men of an admirable Eloquence and purity of speech And indeed if we consider the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subsisting it cannot be otherwise It is against all the rules of Philosophy of sence of Speech if form is no more than an accidental form to use the word subsisting which implies of it self a communication participation or in-being in the same nature To say that a Man subsists in the form of a Man is not to say that he is like other Men or has the figure of a Man but that he is really a Man that he has human nature communicated to him To pretend that the form of God is only a communication of a Divine power of miracles c. If this flows from a communication of Essence as Matt. 28.18 All power is given me in Heaven and in earth Joh. 14.10 The Father that dwells in me he does the works Act. 2.22 Jesus of Nazareth a man approv'd of God amongst you by miracles .... which God did by him in the midst of you is a notion tolerable though very improper But if it is only a communication of a power foreign to us to which we have no relation and in which we are only instrumental such as was in Moses in the Prophets and Apostles is a ridiculous notion To subsist in a miraculous power that is to be a miraculous power is an irrational and unintelligible way of speaking The Great Erasmus then and the Illustrious Grotius from whom they have borrow'd this Explication are greatly and Illustriously mistaken To deal with candor I humbly beg what sence can be made of this Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus who being in the form of God a Man made in the similitude of God as other Men are yet became Man for your sakes To say that Christ making himself of no reputation was the concealing of his Miracles as these Gentlemen interpret it is unreasonable and contrary to the Gospel His miraculous Birth of a Virgin his Star in the East his being reveal'd to the Shepherds by the Angels his being Preach't by the Baptist God owning him for his Son his doing good amongst all Men his miraculous works the raising of Lazarus The prodigious Eclipse at his Death the continual attendance of the multitudes upon him made him the most Famous Person in the World The Gospel wholly contradicts the injurious assertion Matt. 4.24 Matt. 9.31 and 14.1 Luk. 1.15 Mark 1.28 That thought it not robbery to be equal with God is truly translated I have this to Offer 1st That the Generality of the Latin Fathers render'd it thus and that no exception was made against it by the Arrians to whom they produc't this Text. 2ly That all the publick Authentick and receiv'd translations read it as we do 3ly That the It which this sharp-nos'd Countryman smelt to be wanting in the Text adds nothing to its force and that thought no robbery is as home to the question as thought it not robbery since the natural sence of the words the very first impression which they naturally give is that Christ did not think to be a Robber Guilty of Theft and Injustice in equalling himself to God The other being strain'd a sence of yesterday and invented in these latter times to serve a turn 4ly That the first part of the Verse who subsisting in the form of God makes that sence impossible for if he subsisted in the form or nature of God how could he who was God arrogate to himself to be God 5ly That the translation of these Gentlemen committed not robbery by equalling himself with God is a most notorious falsification of a Text. I will not send them to School Boys and Lexicons to know the sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Civility and Breeding must never be Banish't from the hottest disputes I will only say en passant that Learned men use to Correct Lexicons and Dictionaries and not to be corrected by them But I appeal to themselves and beg of them to know 1st Whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify all the World over Robbery And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thought judg'd counted and therefore whether thought not counted not robbery to be equal with God is not an exact Translation 2ly I beg that they would produce any one Greek Author either Sacred or profane who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commit robbery I pass by that other strange stroke of rendring to be
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
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