is not there meant This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. He who is the First-born of every Creature is the same who shed his Blood ver 14. for the Redemption of Men as I noted before Now he who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men can be no other but Jesus Christ Man but this very Jesus Christ Man is there stiled the First-born of every Creature by whom all things were created c. as we translate the Words Therefore this cannot be meant of the Creation of the World which is the Work of God not of a Man Yes you 'l say for He is God as well as Man and therefore may be said to have created the World I answer Where have you found in Scripture that Christ is God as well as Man I know He is called Man in the Writings of the New Testament but I could never find him there stiled God-Man as He should have often been if He was both Does the Apostle make a distinction between his two Natures does he say we have Redemption thrô his Blood as He is a Man and that He is the First-born of every Creature and has created all Things as He is God Not at all but only tells us That the same Jesus Christ in whom we have redemption thrô his Blood is the First-born of every Creature and by whom all Things were created c. Why should we contrive a distinction of our own when the Apostle makes none But 2. I cannot but wonder that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ since we have no Warrant from Scripture for it I mean that the Scripture does never say in express Words that Christ has created Heaven and Earth which is the proper Description of the Old Creation or of the Creation strictly and properly so called and the Description usual in Scripture when it speaks of that Creation as it is said that God the Father of Christ has I do observe so great a difference between the Expressions of the Sacred Writers concerning the Creation of the World by God and those Expressions which are supposed to import the same Creation by Christ that I cannot forbear alledging some places concerning both I omit those of the Old Testament which are so many and will insist only upon some taken out of the New God saith St. Paul Acts 17. 24. that made the World and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth dwelleth not in Temples made with Hands And Acts 4. 11. Lord thou art God which hast made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and all that in them is Acts 14. 15. We preach unto you that ye should turn from these Vanities unto the Living God which made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and all things that are therein And Rev. 14. 7. Fear God and worship him that made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and the Fountains of Water This is the true and proper Description of the Creation of the World Were it ascribed to Christ in such express Terms we could not doubt that Christ had created the World which if the Apostles had believed they would undoubtedly have taught us so great a Truth and that both in express and plain Terms and often No Christ is never said to have created Heaven and Earth the Sea and all that is therein In this very place the Apostle does not say that the First-born created Heaven and Earth but All things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth and the All Things of which he speaketh he limiteth to all Thrones Dominions Principalities and Powers visible and invisible which shall be explained hereafter This second Reflection that this Text contains not the proper Description of the Creation of the World used in Scripture being added to the foregoing that this Context speaks of Christ as Man ought to perswade any unprejudiced Man that the Creation of the World is not here attributed to Christ The Primitive Christians were so far from believing that Christ created the World that as the Father only is called God in the Apostles Creed so He only is stiled Maker of Heaven and Earth 3. As the Epistle to the Galatians is an excellent Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans so the Epistle to the Ephesians must be made use of for the right understanding of the Epistle to the Colossians The Design and Scope of those two Epistles is the same so that we must look into the Epistle to the Ephesians to find out the true Sense of this controverted Text in the Colossians Now he that seriously compares these two Epistles with one another will find that Coloss 1. 15 16 17 18. must be interpreted by Ephes 1. 20 21 22. and Ephes 1. 10. is a true Commentary on Coloss 1. 20. Coloss 1. 18. runs thus And He is the Head of the Body the Church who is the Beginning the First-born from the dead that in all things he might have the preeminence To which answers part of the 22d verse in the Ephesians in these Words And gave him to be Head over all things to the Church Col. 1. 15 16 17. runs thus Who is the Image of the invisible God the First-born of every Creature for by him were all things created as we translate the Word that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him and he is before all things and by him all things consist To these Verses do answer the 20 21 and part of the 22d verse of Chap. 1. to the Ephesians in these Words He God raised him from the dead and set him at his own right Hand in the Heavenly Places far above all Principality and Power and Might and Dominion and every Name that is named not only in this World but in that which is to come and hath put all things under his Feet Now in the Epistle to the Ephesians we see there is not the least intimation of the Creation ascribed to Christ but only of his exaltation above all the Orders of Angels and all earthly Powers which plainly shows that the Apostle meant not the Creation of the World in the forecited Verses of the Epistle to the Colossians Nay were it so he would speak Non-sense In the Epistle to the Colossians he would tell us that Christ has created all the Orders of Angels the visible and invisible Thrones c. which plainly shows that He is thereby as far above them as the Creator is above his Creatures but in the Epistle to the Ephesians he would tell us that Christ has been exalted far above all the Orders of Angels and all Earthly Thrones and Powers which undeniably proves that He was not so before Now what is a Contradiction if this be not to say that Christ created them and that the Father set him far above them We must therefore of necessity explain
chief of the Orthodox Interpreters have thus explained this Context of the Colossians Among the Ancients St. Cyril Fulgentius Procopius Gazeus and even Athanasius himself Of the Moderns Salmero Montanus Grotius and many more Before I put an end to this I must observe that our Author is greatly mistaken in his Explication of Col. 1. 18. The Apostle says he proceeds from Christ's Creation of the natural World to his Mediatory Kingdom Which proves that He did not speak of that before I see the Author does not observe his own rule p. 146. To consider in expounding Scripture what goes before and what follows It was no hard matter to see that the Apostle at Ver. 16. speaks First in the general of Things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth Visible and Invisible but then afterwards he explains what he meant by the Things that are in Heaven viz. all the Orders of Angels this he doth in the latter part of the same Verse and what he means by Things that are on Earth He tells us fully at Ver. 18. viz. the Church The 18th Verse being an Explication of some part of Ver. 16. it appears not to have been Paul's Design to proceed from Christ's Creation of the World to his Mediatory Kingdom Thus I have done with the famous Context of Col. 1. 15 16 c. The Author of the Brief History had proved that Christ was God's Minister and Servant because He was appointed or made by God the Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession To this the Author I am now considering Answers But here is a Restriction to his being High-Priest and therefore no danger of Blasphemy tho He be God For we may observe that thô the Jewish High-Priest was but a Man yet he was a type of an High-Priest who is more than Man even the eternal Son or Word of God as some of the Learned Jews acknowledge This is indeed an admirable Answer Christ has been appointed by God an High-Priest which seems to prove that Himself is not God No says the Doctor you are mistaken for thô the Jewish High-Priest was but a Man yet He was a Type of an High-Priest more than Man of an High-Priest who is the eternal Son of God How does he prove it As some says he of the Learned Jews acknowledge And what then if some Learned Jews have spoken non-sense must we speak non-sense too One would expect the Author should prove by Scripture and not by Jewish Writers that the Jewish High-Priest was a type of an High Priest who is the eternal Son and Word of God The Jewish High-Priest being a Type of Christ was a Type of an High-Priest more eminent and greater than Himself in all respects thô he were not God He goes on For the Son of God is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father If you ask him why he will answer Philo Judaeus who often calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-Priest says so and shows that the Garments of the High-Priest were Figures of Heaven and Earth Which seems to signify that the eternal Word which made the World is the true High-Priest Here comes upon the stage one of his Learned Jews Philo by whose Testimony he proves that the second Person of the Trinity is the only proper Mediator and Advocate with the Father But Philo being Plato's Follower did not believe such a Trinity as the Doctor teaches Sure there is a great difference between Plato's three Principles and the Doctor 's Trinity But if there were not must we believe Philo Judaeus rather than St. Paul who plainly tells us in direct opposition to Philo that as there is One God so there is One Mediator between God and Men the MAN Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. As for the Garments of the High-Priest which Philo will have to be a Figure of Heaven and Earth and our Author's Story about Jaddus both which our Author alledges as Arguments at least as Congruities whereby to prove the Divinity of Christ I shall so far trust the Judgment of the meanest Reader as to take no notice of them That which follows is no less ridiculous I am sure says the Author the Apostle distinguishes Christ from High-Priests taken from among Men and makes his Sonship the Foundation of his Priesthood Heb. 5. 1 6. The contrary to both these is true and evident also in the Text he cites The Priesthood is the Foundation of the Sonship and Aaron and Christ are there made Instances of High-Priests taken from among Men. The Objection therefore remains still that Christ being an High-Priest appointed and made by God cannot Himself be God He goes on As for his next Objection from 1 Cor. 3. 23. Christ is God's I know not what he means by it for there is no doubt but Christ is God's Son God's Christ God's High-Priest serves the Ends and Designs of God's Glory and what then Therefore he is not God by no means he may conclude that He is not God the Father because He acta subordinately not that therefore He is not God the Son The Author of the Brief History meant I suppose this that as you are Christ's in that Text signifies Men are subject to Christ so Christ is God's must signify Christ is subjected to God and therefore not Himself God This I think is good Sonse and a good Argument But can it be said that the second Person of the Trinity who is the supream God nay One God with the First is God's Son God's Christ God's High Priest serves the Ends and Designs of God's Glory All these Titles denote a dependance upon the Father and a real subjection to Him which cannot agree to any Person who is indeed Himself a Supream God Here is another sensless Answer to a good and strong Objection P. 158. His next proof is That God calls Christ his Servant in the Prophet Isaiah But it is his Servant in whom his Soul was pleased which is the peculiar Character of his Son and is that very Testimony which God gave to Christ at his Baptism This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased I desire here the Reader to observe the Doctor 's accurate way of reasoning This is the Objection Christ is called God's Servant therefore He is not God No this is a mistake says He for Christ is God's beloved Servant P. 159. He says in answer to the Objection from Phil. 2. 8 9. Because He voluntarily condescends below the Dignity of his Nature does He forfeit the Dignity of his Nature But I ask can it be said of the Supream God with whom is no Variableness neither Shadow of turning that He has condescended below the Dignity of his Nature P. 159 160. He goes on in a florid way of Speech to show how inconsistent it is that Christ were He a meer Creature should be advanced to that Power and Authority whereunto He has been promoted Hereupon I observe
this ought to be the Interpretation of this Passage if the Author's Assertion be true Now I think the true meaning of this Phrase the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity should be this the Father is the first God as the Son is the second God and the Holy Ghost the third God This Author may say so if he pleases I shan't contradict him for that 's the Consequence that flows naturally from his Principles But I shall deny that the Father may be called the God of Christ if Christ be the supream God as well as his Father how can the supream God have a God over him The term God relates only to Creatures God cannot be said to be the God of any but Creatures this common Sense and the whole Current of Scripture teaches Yes you 'l say the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity I answer therefore you may in your Hypothesis call him the first God but by no means the God of the Son or Spirit to whom He is not Superiour in Power Authority or other Divine Attribute The Author speaks an unintelligible Jargon in his following Paragraph which I think there is no need to insist on Therefore I shall here leave it to every rational Man to judge whether we ought to rest satisfied with such a trifling Answer to the propounded Objection The second Objection p. 155. If our Lord Christ were indeed God it could not without Blasphemy be absolutely and without Restriction affirmed of him that He is the Creature the Possession the Servant and the Subject of God To this the Author answers thus That Christ is called a Creature he proves because He is the First-born of every Creature Col. 1. 15. But here he should have remembred his Absolutely and without Restriction for Christ is so the First-born of every Creature that He is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore no Creature Surely an absurd Consequence I say on the contrary Christ is the Image of the Invisible God and therefore a Creature Let us see which of us is in the right Every one may plainly see that when St. Paul calls Christ the Image of the Invisible God he means that He is a Visible Image of an Invisible God and therefore he added the Epithet Invisible which otherways had been useless not to say ridiculous For then the Sense of the Apostle's Expression must be this Christ is the Invisible Image of the Invisible God Now the Nature of an Image is to be visible to every ones Eye or else it is no Image But if Christ is called the Image of the Invisible God because He is the second Person of the Trinity this second Person being as Invisible as the first it follows that Christ is an Image of God as Invisible as the Original which is ridiculous No no the Man Christ is the Image of the Invisible God by reason of his unspotted Holiness and of the supream Power and Authority conferred on him He is the Brightness of God's Glory and the express Image of his Person but such an Image as was Visible while He lived upon Earth and may now be seen of all the Inhabitants of Heaven Besides it does plainly appear by the Context that St. Paul calls Jesus Christ Man the Image of the Invisible God Who the Father saith he at Ver. 13. has delivered us from the Power of Darkness and has translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son Ver. 14. In whom we have Redemption thrô his Blood even the forgiveness of Sins Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the First-born of every Creature There you see that He who is the Image of the Invisible God is that dear Son in whom we have Redemption thrô his Blood but He who shed his Blood for the Redemption of Men must be Jesus Christ Man therefore Jesus Christ Man is the Image of the Invisible God Now let any unprejudiced Man judge which of these two Consequences is right either this of the Author Christ is the Image of the Invisible God therefore no Creature or mine Christ is the Image of the Invisible God therefore a Creature He goes on He is so born before all Creatures as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies that by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth and He is before all things which is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Begotten before the whole Creation and therefore no part of the Creation and by him all things consist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things were not only made by him but have their Subsistence in him Now let us suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to signify born before all Creatures I deny that therefore Himself is no part of the Creation The plain meaning of born before all Creatures is that Christ was born before any other Creature As these Words Adam was born before all Men do not signify that he is no Creature or no Man but only that he was the first Man created Therefore I say supposing that these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are well translated by born before all Creatures I may with great reason draw a Consequence contrary to the Author's thus Christ is born before all Creatures therefore He is part of the Creation Himself The Author is very unhappy at drawing Consequences Here is another as false as the former That this does not relate to the New Creation as the Socinians would have it is very plain For 1. In this Sense Christ if He were a meer Man was not the First-born of every New Creature For I hope there were a great many New Creatures that is truly Good and Pious Men before Christ was born of his Virgin Mother What supposing the New Creation by the Gospel is here meant can't Christ as a meer Man be the First-born of every New-Creature being the Messias the Author and first Preacher of the Gospel the Head of the Church the Fountain from which the Holiness of every New Evangelical Creature does spring In a Word being the Author of this New Evangelical Creation can't He also be the First-born of every New Evangelical Creature Those Socinians that he speaks of by the New-Creation mean nothing else but the New-Creation wrought by Christ and his Gospel and therefore either this Author imposes on them or is not fully acquainted with their Opinions or has no great Skill in Reasoning I see the Author does not understand the above-cited place Therefore I think it worth while to explain it the rather because 't is one of the strongest Holds of the Trinitarians and to show that instead of favouring their Opinion it overthrows it In order thereunto 1. I will prove that the Old Creation that is the Creation of the World is not intended in that Text. 2. I will set down what I take to be the true Sense of that whole Context 1. That the Creation of the World
out into all the Earth and their Words into the ends of the World which every one knows and confesses are meant at Psal 19. 4. of the Heavens and other Works of God which as it were preach his Wisdom and Power and Goodness to all Nations And thus St. Matthew at Mat. 13. 35. puts a Trick upon us when he applies to Christ the Words of Psal 78. 2. I will open my Mouth in Parables Which the Psalmist speaks of himself not of Christ Is our Author so little acquainted with the Writers of the New Testament as to be ignorant that they very often cite the Texts of the Old not as Testimonies and Proofs of what they say but by way of Allusion and Accommodation Such is the place in question the Apostle thought fit to accommodate the words of the Psalm to the matter he was treating of which was an elegant way of writing and very much practised by the Antient Jews as may be seen both in the Talmud and Rabbins Let us hear J. Calvin on this place Lastly says he we must not be too scrupulous about the Literal Sense of this Psalm seeing the Apostle only alludes to the Psalmist's words even as he applies a place of Moses to the matter in hand at Rom. 10. 6. God himself can be no Type says our Author pag. 203. for the Type is always less perfect than the Anti-type and therefore whatsoever is said of God must belong to his Person and cannot belong to any other But what then We do not say that God is a Type of any other in this Text nor did the Apostle cite the Words as such we only say that what is spoken of God in the Psalm is by the Apostle applied to Christ by way of Accommodation as several other Passages of the Old Testament are both by him and other sacred Writers as is confest by all Interpreters The next Place is Heb. 1. 6. When he bringeth the First-begotten into the World he says and let all the Angels of God worship him Which last Words are commonly thought to be quoted out of Psal 97. 7. To this Allegation the Socinian Historian answers The Apostle does not quote the Words of the Psalmist as if they were spoken of Christ but only declareth the Decree of God known to him by the Spirit for subjecting the Angels to Christ in the same Words that the Psalmist had used on another Occasion This is a very sound and judicious Answer yet our Author cannot rest satisfied with it for he answers But he proves this Decree of God by no other Revelation but the Words of the Psalmist nor pretends any other and if that don't prove it we have no other Yes we have for we know from Christ himself that all Power is given to him both in Heaven and Earth and consequently that he is exalted above all the Orders of Angels this the Scriptures often teach and it was believed by all Christians in the time of the Apostles So that when this sacred Writer sets before the Hebrews the eminent Glory of Christ he does it only to keep them in mind of it and to perswade them never to depart from the Doctrine of so great and glorious a Master As if he should have said You are not ignorant of the Glory Christ now injoys in Heaven how Thrones Powers Dominions c. are subjected to him for when God brought his First-born and beloved Son into the Heavenly World he said concerning him what had been said upon another Occasion Let all the Angels of God worship him let them honour serve and be subject to him This is the true and natural Sense of this Place to which I must add what has been already observed by others that it is probable this Place is quoted out of Deut. 32. 43. according to the Lxx and not out of Psal 97. For there we find the very Words of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And let all the Angels of God worship him But in Psal 97. we find only Worship him all ye Gods If this be true as I think it is our Author's Objection will fall of it self For those Words in Deut. are not spoken of God but of God's People the Israelites And if this can be said of God's People I hope it may be said of Christ too without concluding from thence that he is the Supream God The next Place is Isa 45. 23. I have sworn by my self Vnto me every Knee shall bow Which Words of God are applied to Christ at Rom. 14. 10 11. We shall all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ for it is written Every Knee shall bow to me and every Tongue shall confess to God To this the Historian answers In bowing and confessing to Christ at the last Judgment we are said to bow and confess to God not because Christ is God but because Christ then and there holds the place of God representeth him and acteth by his Commission So Men are said to appear before our Soraign Lord the King when they appear at the Bar of his Judges because the Judges act in the King's stead and by his Commission To this our Author replies But why does he confine this bowing the Knee to the last Judgment St. Paul indeed gives this as one Instance but does not confine it to this but in the Epistle to the Philippians makes it as large as the Exaltation of our Saviour Wherefore God hath highly exalted him c. And one may plainly see that the Historian does not confine the bowing of the Knee to the last Judgment He only explains the Words of the Apostle which relate to it But what then The Apostle makes the bowing of the Knee as large as Christ's Exaltation Phil. 2. What follows from thence That Christ is God! By no means It follows only that we ought to pay Christ an Honour proportionable to the Dignity bestowed on him in a word that every Tongue confess that he is Lord to the Glory of God the Father In which Words the Apostle plainly teaches us that the Honour we pay to Christ is subordinate to God and designed to promote God's Glory If then says he we must bow to the Person of Christ and confess him to be the Lord and this can be an Accomplishment of God's Oath Vnto me every Knee shall bow and every Tongue shall swear then Christ is that God who in the Prophet Isaiah swore That every Knee should bow to him This is just as if one should say If then the Irish must how to the Person of the Vice-Roy in Ireland and confess him to be the Lord and this be the Accomplishment of the King's Will Vnto me all the Irish shall bow and swear Allegiance then the Vice-Roy is that King who will have all the Irish to swear Allegiance to him This is a ridiculous Argument for as the Irish may bow to the Person of the Vice-Roy and look upon him as a Lord established by the King
A DEFENCE OF THE Brief HISTORY OF THE UNITARIANS Against Dr. SHERLOCK'S ANSWER IN HIS VINDICATION OF THE Holy Trinity LONDON Printed in the Year M. DC XCI OBSERVATIONS On Dr. SHERLOCK'S ANSWER TO THE Brief HISTORY OF THE UNITARIANS CHAP. I. Containing some General Observations WHen I see Men arguing against the Trinity methinks I hear a Papist inveighing against Luther or Calvin for questioning the Truth of Transubstantiation Indeed it appears to me very strange that Protestants should stand to the Principles of the Reformation only when they serve their turn and that they should be ready to part with them when they are not otherways able to defend a particular Opinion It cannot be denied that the Christian Church in succeeding Ages fell short of her first Purity in respect of Doctrine as well as Manners Now what other Remedy could be applied to such a Depravation than a sincere and careful Examination of the Points suspected of Falshood according to Reason and Scripture This proved so effectual a Course that Transubstantiation and some other Canonized Opinions were found to be meer Human Inventions and accordingly were rejected as contrary to the two above-mentioned Rules And who can assure us that the Reformation left no Error behind and that the Trinity is such an Opinion as ought neither to be doubted of nor to be reformed Shall we trust Men barely on their Word Or was it impossible that the Trinity should creep into the Church as well as several other false Opinions Our Principles therefore allow us to examine it and to inquire whether it be founded on undeniable Arguments especially being of such a nature that it contradicts Reason and by confession of all Trinitarians is no where set down in Holy Scripture in express Words Why should Men call us Hereticks and Libertines because we inquire after Truth and will have our Faith built upon a solid Foundation Was the Reformation so proper to Luther and Calvin c. that it ought no more to be thought of Or were those Reformers so infallible that they purged the Church from all Errors This I think would be an hard matter to prove Let therefore no Protestant be scandalized if having some Scruples about the Trinity we endeavour to free our selves from them by a sincere inquiry into the Grounds of it I begin with Reason and find that the belief of a Trinity does contradict it as much as Transubstantiation According to Transubstantiation the same Numerical Body may be in a Million of different places at the same time According to the Trinity three Divine Persons that is to say three Intelligent Infinite Beings each of which is God make but one God I cannot believe the First because Reason teaches me that one Numerical Body can occupy or be in but one place at one time I cannot believe the other because Reason tells me that Three are Three and not One and that it implies no less a Contradiction that Three Divine Persons should be but One God than that one Body be a Million Now who should not scruple an Opinion perfectly parallel with Transubstantiation and equally fruitful in Incongruities and Contradictions I come in the second place to examine Whether the Trinity be well grounded in Scripture Indeed Three are there mentioned the Father Son and Holy Ghost but how came Men to fancy that they Three are but One God Who taught 'em so Does the Holy Scripture plainly say that there is but one God yet there are Three Persons Father Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead One would think indeed that such a Mystery and so necessary in order to Salvation were set down in Scripture in plain or express Words But the Scripture is perfectly silent about it there is not a Word to be found in the Bible of Three Hypostases or Persons in the Godhead The Father is in a thousand places called God distinctly from the Son nay the only true God The Holy Ghost is no where stiled God And the Son is so called in a few places as it were by the way and in such manner as plainly shows that the Title God is bestowed on him upon the same account as upon Moses even because of the Dignity and Power to which he was exalted by the Father's Liberality Indeed it can have no other meaning The Holy Scripture teaches us that there is but one God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ But if so How can the Son be that one God the Father Of this we are sure by the whole tenor of the Gospel that Christ was a Man The Gospel is nothing else but the History of Christ's Birth Life Death Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven Who would have thought that a Man should be accounted the Supream God without any such intimation from Scripture nay against the whole current of it We find in the Gospel that there is one God the Father of our Lord Christ one Son of God sent into the World to be the Revealer of his Father's Will and a Mediator between God and Man even Christ and one Holy Ghost who distributes and works all sorts of Miraculous Gifts for the confirmation of the Gospel The Father of Christ is the One true God Christ is only his Minister and Interpreter the Holy Ghost whether it be God's Power or his ministring Angel or Angels the Instrument which he makes use of to work Miracles None certainly but Men blinded or prejudiced could think that God's Minister and Ambassador were God himself and that two so opposite Beings as God and Christ should be one and the same Thing It is just as if one should say there is one King William and one Vice-Roy in Ireland the Lord Sidney and the Vice-Roy is that one King William Indeed this is a Doctrine so unreasonable and contradictions and so opposite to Holy Scripture that I think had there been no such thing as Platonick Philosophy the Trinity should never have been heard of I desire therefore the Trinitarians to abate a little of their Confidence Let them examine with an unprejudiced Mind upon what Foundations they build the belief of a Trinity and they will soon perceive how weak and frail it is Let them at last confess that the Scripture does not threaten eternal Damnation to those who disbelieve a Trinity And then if themselves won't part with their darling Opinion let them abstain from persecuting others Thirdly Trinitarians lay so much stress upon the Tradition of the Church concerning the Trinity that I think it worth while to undeceive them by shewing that there never was so great a Variation in the Church as about this Point I shall divide into three Periods all the Ages of the Church The First reaches to the Council of Nice The Second from the Council of Nice to the Schoolmen And the Third from the Schoolmen to our time And one that is never so little acquainted with the Writings of the Fathers of the three first Centuries cannot deny
the Context of the Colossians by that of the Ephesians and put such a Sense upon it as imports no true and proper Creation 4. Coloss 1. 19 20. being interpreted by Ephes 1. 10. is a Confirmation of what I have said hitherto The former Coloss 1. 19 20. runs thus For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell and having made Peace through the Blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things to himself by him I say whether they be things in Earth or things in Heaven To which answers the other Text Eph. 2. 10. in these Words That in the Dispensation of the fulness of time he might gather together in one all things in Christ both which are in Heaven and which are in Earth even in him No Man I hope will deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistle to the Colossians which we render to Reconcile ought to be interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text of the Ephesians which signifies to gather together in one or to sum up So that the meaning of both places is this that it pleased God in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head even Christ whom he set up Lord and King over them Now this does perfectly agree with what St. Paul says to the Ephesians concerning Christ's exaltation above all the Orders of Angels and his being Head of the Church for his Argument runs thus God has exalted Christ above all the Orders of Angels and made him Head of the Church for he had decreed in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head Christ But if the Text of the Epistle to the Colossians is meant of the Creation of the World this will be perfect Non-sense for thus it ought to run Christ has created all Orders of Angels and all Powers on Earth and was made Head of the Church for God had decreed in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under one Head Christ. No Man in the World can speak greater Non-sense than this would be were the Creation of the World ascribed to Christ in the controverted Text. I desire the Author to reconcile his explication of these Words that in all things he might have the preeminence with what follows That is says he at p. 157. that he might be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First upon all accounts before the Worlds and the First-born from the dead So the whole Argument according to the Author must run thus Christ was the First upon all accounts before the Worlds and the First-born from the Dead for God was pleased in the fulness of time to unite both Angels and Men under Christ as their Head Could any thing be said more absurd and ridiculous The Author's Skill in Scripture and Reason is I think alike 2. Having thus proved that the Old Creation or the Creation properly so called is not ascribed to Christ in this Context of the Colossians I come now to explain its true Sense as clearly as possibly I can Ver. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the First-born of every Creature The meaning of these last Words is not that Christ was begotten before all Creatures as this Author would have it but that He is the Lord and King of every Intelligent Creature in Allusion to the First-born of a Family who is Heir of all Things This I prove by the 17 and 18th Verses Ver. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And He is before all things is the Explication of the First-born of every Creature and signifies not that He is before all Creatures in order of time but of Dignity and Power being by God set over all the Orders of Angels and over the Church as their Head and King But if you don't rest satisfied with this parallel Place the 18th Verse will afford an undeniable proof of what I say There you find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rightly rendred in our Bibles That in all things He might have the Preeminence both in Heaven and in Earth among Angels and in the Church I say now these last Words ought to be the Explication of the two before-mentioned Expressions to be the First-born of every Creature and to be before all Things ought to be interpreted by his having the Praeeminence in all Things so that He is the First-born of every Creature is this He hath the Preeminence over every Creature Thus by the Context it self we find out the true sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the English we translate First-born of every Creature And thus too are these Words interpreted by the principal Critics among the Orthodox as they are called Gomarus Camero Piscator Drusius Vorstius Davenant Dally Grotius for they will have him also to be Orthodox Hammond I come now to the next Verse For by him were all Things created I have fully proved they cannot be understood of the Old Creation the Creation of Heaven and Earth and the Sea and of the Things in them which is the Creation properly so called therefore to reconcile this Verse with the foregoing and with the Words before cited out of the Epistle to the Ephesians He God set Him at his own Right-Hand far above all Principality and Power and every Name that is named The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Created ought to be rendred Modelled Disposed or Reformed into a new Order So that the Sense will run thus Christ is the Lord of every Creature for by him are all both Visible and Invisible Creatures even all Men and Angels Modelled or Disposed into a new Order being subjected to Him and His Commands As for Angels all the Orders of them whether they be Thrones or Dominions none of them are exempted from his Power and Authority he rules over them which is the meaning of Ver. 17. and they are all as it were compacted in one Body under his Conduct as for Men as He is the Beginning and the First-born from the Dead so He was also made Head of the Church his Body so that in all things He has the Preeminence He rules in Heaven and on Earth over Angels and over the Church which is the Sense of Ver. 18. This I hope makes a clear Sense agreeable to the whole Context and to the Text in the Ephesians I observe that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or He is before all Things is the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Or He is the First-born of every Creature So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or and by him all Things consist or are compacted into one Body ought to be the Explication of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by him were all Things not created as 't is rendred in the English but Modelled or Reformed I know not why Dr. Sherlock has called this a Socinian Explication as if it were devised by them to serve their Hypothesis the truth is the
't is God is thy Throne i. e. thy Seat Resting-place Establishment for ever Neither the Translation nor the Interpretation is the Historian's but by him taken out of Grotius whom no Man thinks to have ridicul'd the Scripture But let us suppose contrary to Grotius that the Hebrew Elohim ought to be taken in the Vocative Case thus Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever Yet the Interpretation of Grotius and of the Historian affords neither an absurd nor a trifling Sense The Words in the Psalms are by confession of the ablest Trinitarian Interpreters spoken of Solomon and are applied or accommodated to Christ by the Apostle and I think 't is very good Sense to say that God was the Resting-place Seat or Establishment both of Christ and Solomon But as I said let us grant that the Words should be thus rendered and interpreted Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever I draw from thence this Inference If Solomon tho but a Man is here stiled God then Christ who is a greater Man may be called so too But when he is here called God it is not meant that he is the Supream God unless the Supream God can be said to be anointed with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows which is plainly inconsistent with the Notion of a Supream God Besides he who is called God in this place is said to have a God by whom he is anointed which can by no means agree to the Supream God for he can have no God above him by whom he may be exalted being himself the most High The Apostle in the following Verses cites another Passage out of Psal 102. 25 26 27. which says our Author at pag. 201. is a plain Testimony of the Divinity of our Saviour The Words are these And thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the works of thy Hands they shall perish but thou remainest and they shall all wax old as does a Garment and as a Vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy Years fail not Now I say that the Creation of the World cannot be ascribed to Christ in this place This I prove by the Scope of the Apostle in this whole Chapter which is not to shew the Excellence which Christ has of himself but that which he obtained by Donation whereby he was made better than Angels as appears by ver 4. the Words are these Being MADE so much better than Angels as he has by Inheritance obtained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a more excellent Name than they The Greek Word which we translate obtained by Inheritance signifies no more than barely obtained the Words by Inheritance are useless and dangerous and false too for the Name Christ has obtained came to him by free Donation not by Inheritance And therefore it is that the most Famous Criticks render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by obtinuit sortitus est he gained or obtained I say therefore the Apostle's Scope is to show the Excellency that Christ obtained not by Nature or of Himself but that which he had by Donation and whereby he was made by God better than the Angels Whereupon in this whole Chapter he opposes the Glory which Christ had been indued with to the Glory of Angels and shews that His is more excellent and greater than Theirs So that suppose Ghrist had indeed created the World yet the Creation cannot be ascribed to him in this Place for if he had created the World he should have done it by a Power proper and essential to himself not by a Power received from another But the Apostle designs in this Chapter not to speak of what is natural or essential to Christ but of what he has received from God whereby he was made greater and more excellent than Angels Having thus shown that Christ is not said here to have created the World I must now declare in what Sense this Text of the Psalm is applied to him The preceding Words spoken of Solomon are accommodated to him to express the Glory and the Duration of his Kingdom its Glory because God has anointed him with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows its Duration because his Throne is for ever and ever By which glorious and lasting Kingdom Christ has been made much better than Angels and obtained a more excellent Name than they which as I said before is the thing the Apostle in this Chapter intended to teach us Now to the same purpose he applies to Christ another place taken out of Psal 102. and separated from the other only by the Word And by this other place or rather in the Words and Terms of this other place he confirms what he said before concerning the Duration of Christ's Kingdom and shews that tho all things be subject to change and alteration yet Christ's Kingdom shall be immutable and last for ever They the Heavens and the Earth shall perish but thou remainest and they all shall wax old as does a Garment and as a Vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy Years fail not These Words are used as a Confirmation of what went before Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever As for ver 10. Thou Lord in the beginning has laid the Foundation of the Earth c. The Apostle does not cite it as spoken of Christ or with intention to accommodate it to him but because it was necessary for explaining the word They They shall perish in the following words which he had occasion to use for expressing the Duration of Christ's Kingdom And now I appeal to any Reader whether this be an absurd Sense Is not this Explication clear and agreeable to the Scope of the Sacred Writer But is not the Sense which the Author would put upon this place both absurd and inconsistent Can it be said that Christ is made better than Angels and obtained a greater Name than they because he created Heaven and Earth that is being so before by Nature and from all Eternity he is afterwards made better and has a more excellent Name than theirs bestowed on him The next place he examines is Psal 68. 18. Thou hast ascended on high thou hast led Captivity Captive thou hast received Gifts for Men Which St. Paul applies to Christ Whereupon our Author says The single Question is Whether Christ be that God of whom the Psalmist says that He ascended on High c. If he be not St. Paul has abused us for he applies that to Christ which was not said of him Here indeed is a very rash Conclusion Were this true it would follow that the Sacred Writers of the New Testament have abused us as often as they have cited any place of the Old Testament by way of accommodation Thus St. Paul has again abused us when he applies at Rom. 10. 18. to the Apostles these Words Their sound went
Men who only are capable of knowing not of this visible World As indeed the 11th Verse is a plain Explication of Verse 10. St. John expresses in this Chapter the same thing several ways He was in the World He came unto his own The Light shined in Darkness these are equivalent Expressions So also The World knew him not His own received him not the Darkness comprehended it not signify one and the same thing Thus the World was made by him is explained at Ver. 12. thus But as many as received him to them gave he Power to become the Sons of God and by Verse 4 and 9. So that in all this there was no Intention to saythat the Old Creation was the work of Je sus Christ CHAP. VIII HIS second Charge is That Socinianism makes the Jewish Oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable pag. 231. because if Christ were no more than a meer Man the Anti-type should fall very short of the Types contained in the Old Testament The Tabernacle and Temple says he was God's House where he chose to dwell by the visible Symbols of his Presence and was so contrived as to be the Figure both of Heaven and Earth for so the Apostle to the Hebrews expresly tells us the Holy of Holies was a Figure of Heaven But we must all confess that this was a very unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony for God who fills Heaven and Earth with his Presence to dwell in an House made with Hands had it not prefigured something more Divine and Mysterious The Temple then was a Figure and we must inquire what it was the Figure of Now a Typical Presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real Presence and God's Personal dwelling among Men for Presence and Habitation can signify nothing but Presence and a Figure must be a Figure of some thing that is real and nothing can answer to a figurative visible Presence of God but a personal visible Presence He goes on and applies this to Christ who at John 2. 19. calls his Body a Temple which says our Author was that in Truth and Reality which the Temple was but a Figure of that is God's Presence on Earth which he explains of his being personally united to Christ's Humane Nature But if Christ be not Incarnate adds he if the Divine Word be not personally united to the Humane Nature the Body of Christ is but a figurative Temple as the Temple at Jerusalem was and then one Figure is made a Type of another which is as great an Absurdity in Types as a Metaphor of a Metaphor in speech I do not remember I ever saw so much trifling so seriously urged in a weighty Question but I have undertaken the drudgery of making Reflections on it and therefore will consider what he has offered 1. That the Temple was a Figure both of Heaven and Earth I am content to admit the Apostle to the Hebrews may be interpreted to that purpose But that it was also a Type of Christ's Body we have no colour from Scripture to affirm it and the Author has offer'd no other ground for it but his own wandring Fancy The Author to the Hebrews who inlarges upon the Temple does not give the least Intimation of this why then should we contrive Types and Figures of our own without any reason for it If this be allowed we may make Types of any thing and increase Figures to an infinite Number If the Author is in love with cold and groundless Allegories every Body is not of his Mind and therefore he should keep them to himself But why should the Temple be a Figure of Christ's Body rather than the Ark God is said all over the Old Testament to dwell between the Cherubims it was the proper Seat of God where he gave forth his Oracles and made his Glory to appear by affording sensible Signs of his Presence If therefore such Allegories had any Signification of future Times and Things it would be more probable that the Ark was a Type of Christ's Body than the Temple the rather because we know already by a Divine Testimony that the Temple was a Figure of some-thing else But he will say that Christ calls his Body a Temple What then so St. Paul calls the Corinthians Ye are says he the Temple of God Was the Temple at Jerusalem a Figure or Type of the Bodies of the Corinthians Or does our Saviour say that he calls his Body a Temple because it was the Anti-type of the Temple of the Jews 2. Tho the Temple were not a Figure of Christ's Body yet it would be no unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony for God to dwell in an House made with Hands to appoint this the place of his Worship c. which our Author thinks to be inexplicable without admitting his Doctrine of the Trinity Who knows not that the Israelites were given to Idolatry and that the pompous way of Worship used among the neighbouring Nations agreed so much to their Fancies that it was necessary to comply with them in this thing that they might be kept from worshipping other Gods and the current of Idolatry be restrained Thus God in his infinite Wisdom thought fit to set up among his People a carnal and sensible Worship and to appoint an House where he would dwell after a particular Manner and afford visible Symbols of his Presence All this he did to accommodate himself to the gross genius of the Israelites and to perswade them to forsake Idols and to acknowledg no other God but himself This was the true reason of the Temple of God's dwelling there and the Glory with which it was sometimes filled and to affirm that all was done to prefigure Christ's Body is a Fancy which the Author might better have kept to himself 3. But suppose the Temple was a Type of Christ's Body yet there is no need God should be incarnate in Christ's Body to answer that Type The Scriptures tell us God was with Christ and in Christ which I hope might be done without an Incarnation or Personal Union as he was in the Temple As God spake in the Temple so he spake in and by Christ But besides all this Christ was greater than the Temple because God was always present with him which cannot be said of the Temple where the Signs of God's Presence were not always visible God's Dwelling in Christ was always conspicuous by the Oracles which he delivered and the Miracles he wrought But he objects a place of Scripture To this says he St. John plainly alludes The Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tabernacled amongst us fulfilled that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem by his dwelling Personally in Humane Nature This Argument or rather Congruity is grounded on two false Suppositions The first is that The Word was made Flesh
is meant of Christ's Incarnation The second that in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render he dwelt amongst us St. John alludes to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle I begin with the first It cannot be denied that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred was as well as was made Thus it is taken Luke 1. 5. and 24. 19. and even at Verse 6. of this Chapter Nor can it be doubted that the word Flesh signifies not only Humane Nature but very often Humane Nature as subject to Infirmities and Afflictions Now is it not more agreeable to Reason and Scripture to interpret these words thus And the Word Jesus was a Man like unto us in all things Sin excepted having the same Mortal Nature being exposed to the same Miseries and Afflictions than to say The Word was Incarnate which is a Language unknown to Scripture wherein we never find that God made himself Man and altogether repugnant to Reason And this I confirm by Heb. 2. 14. Forasmuch then as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood He likewise himself took part of the same that thrô Death he might destroy him that had the Power of Death even the Devil Here Christ is said to be Partaker of Flesh and Blood as pious Men are which cannot be meant in a sense of Incarnation for pious Men are not said to be Incarnate but the one and the other are Partakers of Flesh and Blood that is of Infirmities and Sufferings This he explains farther at Verse 17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his Brethren but his Brethren were not Incarnate But at Ver. 10 and 18. he expresly expounds this of Christ's Sufferings Ver. 10. It became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things to make the Captain of their Salvation perfect through Sufferings Ver. 18. For in that he himself hath suffered he is able to succour them that are tempted Mr. Limborck saw and confessed this that I have been saying his Words are these Theol. Christ pag. 226. The true sense of this place is that the Word was Flesh That is a true fleshly Substance subject to all the Infirmities that attend our Flesh that is to say He was Mortal Vile and Contemptible Which appeared more especially in the days of his Passion and of his Death which are called at Heb. 5. 7. The days of his Flesh 2. Our Author charmed with Allegories and mysterious Interpretations has found out that St. John alludes here to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and this he thinks God did to make the Anti-type answer the Type Christ's Body to the Tabernacle or Temple Since he is so much in love with Allegories it may be I may do him a kindness to help him to one which I have ready at hand it is this As the Tabernacle in the Wilderness had no fixed place to stand in as the Temple afterwards had but was carried from one place to another according to the several Incampments of the Israelites So Christ to fulfil that Type was always wandring with his Disciples having no where to lay his Head Mat. 8. 20. This Allegory is as probable and more natural than his without supposing an impossible Incarnation I cannot tell whether the Author will like it better than his own I am sure I like neither of them No no there is no Mystery in the Greek Word Our Version renders it well He dwelt among us So does Seb. Castalio Et apud nos Gratiae Veritatisque plenus habitavit And he full of Grace and Truth dwelt among us And the same word is thus used without any Mystery Rev. 12. 12. and 13. 6. where it is applied to the Inhabitants of Heaven By way of conclusion I will set down the sense of the whole Verse which is an Abridgment of the Life of Christ The Word was Flesh a mortal Man obnoxious to Sufferings and Death here is his Priestly Office He dwelt among us full of Grace and Truth here is his Prophetic Office We have seen his Glory here is his Kingly Office Thus therefore we ought to paraphrase the whole Jesus Christ was a Mortal Man Partaker of Flesh and Blood subject to the same Infirmities that we are in a word like unto us in all things but Sin And he dwelt among us preaching the happy News of Reconciliation with God and the Doctrine and Truth revealed to him by the Father But thô he were a Mortal Man a Man of Sufferings and Griefs yet we have seen his Glory shining in his Miracles his Transfiguration his Resurrection his Ascension into Heaven c. Such a Glory as was well becoming the beloved Son of God Having spoken of the Temple he comes to discourse of Sacrifices and tells us The true meaning of the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World is not meerly that he was slain in God's Decree for what God has decreed to be done is not therefore said to be done before it is done But this Lamb was slain in Types and Figures from the Foundation of the World ever since the fall of Adam in those early Sacrifices which were offered after the Fall which were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ But 1. Where has he found that those early Sacrifices were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ The Scripture is silent about it and the Apostle to the Hebrews who inlarges on the Sacrifices of the Mosaical Law does not so much as mention those that were offer'd before which is unaccountable if they were Figures of the Sacrifice of Christ 2. But he says He knows no Principle of natural Reason that teaches us to offer the Blood of Beasts to God and therefore he must think the Sacrifices of Beasts to be an Institution But suppose those early Sacrifices were an Institution does it follow from thence that they were instituted to be Types of the Sacrifice of Christ By no means God might have other Reasons for such an Appointment But since the Scripture does not mention the appointing of those Sacrifices we have good reason to believe that they were of Humane Institution for had God appointed them it would not it should seem have been omitted in Scripture 'T is reasonable to think that Abel and Cain thought fit to offer Sacrifices and Oblations to God to shew by such visible Marks the Sense they had of God's Majesty and to express the Reverence they ought to pay to him 3. To deny that the Lamb was slain from the Foundation of the World meerly in God's Decree because what God has decreed to be done is not therefore said to be done before it is done is no very accurate reasoning in a Divine because 't is contrary to the stile of Scripture Is there any thing more usual with the sacred Writers especially with the Prophets than to speak of things to come as if they were come to pass already by reason of their certainty and the immutable Decree of God