Consent of the learned World made venerable Essence Substance Hypostasis Generation Spiration Procession And yet these Gentlemen not only pretend to Reason but would so monopolize it to themselves as to make their Adversaries the most unreasonable people in the World Reason in all their Writings is the Word To it the most express Revelation must be made to stoop and God must not be Judge of what he commands man to believe But man assumes to himself to know whether what God commands is agreeable to the Principles of his Reason I know that they would seem to exclaim against this and that in the Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation pag. 1. they complain that they are charg'd with exalting Reason above Revelation They apologize for it in the Observations of Dr. Wallis's Letters pag. 16. But how can this be reconcil'd with this Assertion Considerat on the Explicat of the Doctr. of the Trin. pag. 5. If Heaven and Earth were miraculously destroy'd to confirm an Interpretation which disagrees with the natural and Grammatical sense of the words it will for all that remain a false Interpretation Which in plain English amounts to this that though Heaven contradicts an Interpretation by the most forcible sort of Argument which is a real Miracle and such as the Destruction of the whole World yet if it does not agree with that natural or Grammatical sense which our Reason makes of these words The Miracle will be true but the Interpretation false I am willing to give to Reason all the weight and admiration that it deserves it being the distinguishing Character of man and that by which he ought to be guided in his spiritual and temporal Concerns But there is a rational way of using our Reason which when strain'd beyond its bounds is no more Reason but extravagance and obstinacy When the greatest Authority in the World imposes on us the belief of that which our Reason cannot penetrate or understand It is not the work of Reason to reject it because the Notion is unintelligible and in our imperfect way of Reasoning offers seeming Contradictions But the truest and noblest Exercise of our Reason is to submit to that Authority and when we are satisfy'd that God speaks man is never so rational as when he yields without any inquiry into what he is pleas'd to reveal I say seeming Contradictions for admitting the Divine Revelation no Contradiction can be real We may imagine that indeed it is so because we are men who know very little and in the state of sin and weakness that we are in meet with a thousand obstacles to our perceptions But supposing that God has deliver'd it there can be no such thing as a Contradiction because howsoever I apprehend it it still comes from him who cannot contradict himself The Question once more is not of the Unity of the Divine Nature The Orthodox are as stiff as they in the point The Question is Whether the Trinity of Persons destroys or no the Unity of that Divine Nature The Orthodox must carry it if they can prove that the same God who has reveal'd the one has also reveal'd the other For if he has done this our duty is to adore in an humble silence what we cannot understand and those very Contradictions which we fansie in the thing reveal'd ought only to be to us sensible proofs of our ignorance and deep arguments of humiliation The Socinians then are in a great mistake and instead of writing Books after Books to shew the pretended inconsistencies and contradictions in the Revelation they ought to prove plainly that it is not reveal'd at all For if it clearly appears that it is so the pretended Contradictions must lye at their door but the Revelation will still be safe and certain It is strange that ingenious men who meet with so many things unintelligible in Nature will have nothing to be so in Religion They will submit to Philosophical proofs and Mathematical demonstrations which are at most but natural Evidences and will reject the greatest and most certain Evidence which is Faith Nothing can take them from reasoning and nothing will bring them to believe Whether the thing is is the Question How it is does not at all belong to us How the Father communicates his Essence to the Son How the Holy Ghost proceeds from both How three Persons subsist in the same Divine Nature can be no part of our inquiry If we can but be satisfy'd that God has so reveal'd himself to us that he is God that in that Deity which is one there are three equally adorable Persons we have nothing to do with the How Let us adore and believe the thing and reserve the manner to a better and a happier life where we shall know even as we are also known 1 Cor. 13.12 Those Reverend Persons who out of condescension to querulous men have undertaken to give Explications of the Trinity in Unity never pretended to go further They never thought that this could be Geometrically prov'd They built upon the Revelation and endeavour'd to find every one that way which seem'd to them the aptest to reconcile what these Gentlemen call Contradictions But left the thing it self as incomprehensible and relying on his Authority who reveal'd it The Socinians are not candid in the matter They endeavour to disprove the Athanasian Creed They pretend to answer the late Archbishop the Bishops of Worcester and Sarum They ridicule Dr. Wallis They insult the Dean of Paul's They are rude to Dr. South but still are clamorous about the How can it be and are not serious in proving that it is not These Gentlemen have pretended that by denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost they make the Scripture plain intelligible and obvious to the meanest capacities They think after this to have remov'd all those difficulties which the Clergy call Mysteries but are not so in themselves In the impartial account of the word Mystery pag. 3. By the means of Mystery Divines have made Religion a very difficult thing that is an Art which Christians are not able to understand and thereby they raise themselves above the common Christians and are made necessary to the People improving that Art to their own benefit Passing by the incivility of the reflexion I dare affirm that denying the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit nothing is easie nothing is plain in Religion That the Scripture is the darkest Book that ever was written and that no Christian can find the satisfaction of his mind and the peace of his conscience It may be said with a great deal of truth that the stream of the Scriptures runs that way that the belief of the Holy Trinity and the union of the two natures in Christ is the Key to all difficulties and that distinction so much laught at by these Gentlemen of one thing said of him as God and of another as Man which
whether Christ has seen Abraham The Jews say thou hast not for thou art not yet fifty Years Old Thou art much posterior to him But I tell you says Christ I am so far from being posterior that I am anterior to him Before he was I am Now we must judge of the answer by the question The one ought to have relation to the other or else it is all cross purposes which must not so much as be thought of here To deal candidly do the Jews ask Christ whether he is so much later then Abraham in time or only in the decree of God It is certainly in time Thou art not yet fifty Years Old Therefore Christ speaks also of a priority of time and not of decree Before he was I am Besides admitting of that decree Christ could not have said that he was in the decree before Abraham For Abraham in whose seed all nations were to be blessed was in the decree before the seed it self Abraham's coming into the World was in the decree before Christ's appearing in the Flesh This Author has cited St. Austin but neither his words nor the place where they are to be found If he means in his tracts on the Gospel of St. John He will find that he has made use of this Text to confirm an Hypothesis which runs through all his writings that God having decreed to save Mankind in the Mediator Jesus He is the first of the Elect the first of the decree and in that sence consequently before Abraham and all Men besides but this still upon the supposition of the Union of the two Natures in his Person which if these Gentlemen had observ'd they durst not so much as have nam'd him nothing in the World overthrowing their Doctrine so effectually as this The 1. Pet. 1.20 and Rev. 13.8 are altogether foreign to the question They regard his Office but not his Person His mediation in the behalf of us Sinners but not his Nature The 3d Part of the Answer that the Jews did not apprehend Christ and that he did not intend or care they should is a Proposition which if admitted ruines the whole Oeconomy of the Gospel It makes the God of Incomprehensible Mercies to be guilty of the most refin'd sort of Cruelty to proffer the Patient a Medicine which must undoubtedly Cure him and at the same time to make him incapable of taking it Certainly they cannot but see the horrour of such an Answer Before I leave this Text I must take notice of the words of the Author spoken of Abraham with so much caution and to so little purpose He saw it says he as coming not as present He foresaw as he desir'd the time that it should be The nature of Prophecy is to make present to the sight of the Prophet that which by being future is wholly out of his reach It is that which makes it miraculous But in the case of Abraham he did not only desire but had a clear Revelation of the day of Christ He saw it and the ineffable prospect of the glory of the Messias and of the Infinite Blessings Mankind was to receive by him fill'd him with an incredible Joy This is the true sence of the place But what can more substantially evince the Pre-existence of Christ before all things than that all things are created by him That he has given Being to whatsoever exists That he is not only their Creator but also their Preserver and that whatsoever exists is maintain'd and supported by him What will become of that poor assertion which fixes his Existence to the first moment of his Conception if it can be made plain that he was before any thing that is and existed before any thing did exist For the effect naturally supposes the Pre-existence of the cause Any work that is done implies the being of the Workman who did it and if the World is created by Christ If the Scripture fully and clearly teaches him to be the Creator of the World The Socinian foundation must be sandy and ruinous The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 1st Chap. v. 2. says positively that Christ made the World He has in these last dayes spoken to us by his Son by whom also he made the Worlds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But here we are stop't short by the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 41. who tells us That Grotius the irrefragable Grotius says that we translate ill by whom and that we should read for whom That it was a Maxim amongst the Jews that the World was made for the Messias If this fails he tells you that others insist that this is an allegory that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be translated Ages by which are meant the Gospel Ages or times Thus sinking Men grasp at any thing that appears let it be shadow or substance With what considence can Men substitute a reading contrary to all the Translations extant which read by whom Per quem says the old latin the Syriac and all the Fathers To prove the truth of their Translation they have an empty notion that it was believ'd amongst the Jews that the World was made for the Messias which indeed is the opinion of a few late Rabbins follow'd in this by Grotius who in his interpretation of the Scripture has wholly departed from the ancient Jews Whereas if these Gentlemen desire it It will be made out that it is the constant tradition of the Jews that the World was made by the word the Son of God This destroys the Allegory to all intents and purposes and really it is so raw and so dragg'd that it easily destroys it self If there were no place but this for the Creation of the World or of the Worlds or of the Ages for these are all one they might with more colour fly from the letter to the Trope But we may say that there is scarce any thing in the Scripture more inculcated than this Through Faith says St. Paul Heb. 11.3 We understand that the Worlds were fram'd by the word of God Heb. 1.8 But unto the Son he says thy Thorne O God is for ever and ever ....... and thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth and the Heavens are the work of thy hands They shall perish but thou remainest and they shall wax old as does a garment and as a vesture shall thou fold them up and they shall be chang'd but thou art the same and thy Years shall not fail There is then 1st A general assertion of the Apostle We believe that all that is has been made by the word and this as a true Creator without any pre-existent matter So that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear 2ly He brings the Almighty speaking to the Word to his Son and thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth Is this a Trope an Allegory or a reality Is it a real or a Metaphorical founding of the earth
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
it and therefore they forsake the allegory and come to the matter of fact that Christ was actually in Heaven before he came to preach the Gospel You see what it is to espouse a wrong notion They are resolv'd upon asserting that Christ had no being before he he was conceiv'd in the Blessed Virgin The objection made to them is so plain that they can by no means evade or deny it But yet rather than submit they run themselves into a groundless I must beg their pardon If I say a senceless supposition of our Saviour being taken up to Heaven about the 30th Year of his Age. 1st There is not one word of it in the writings of either the Evangelists or Apostles 2ly There is not so much as a Father or an Ecclesiastical Writer ever made that conjecture no not Hebion the Jew not Marcellus of Ancyra nor Theodore of Mopswest not Photinus himself 3ly There never was any Ascension of Christ into Heaven taught or believ'd in the Church but that which follow'd the Resurrection nor no other coming from thence but when he took our Flesh and when he will come to judge the World 4ly I appeal to any one who will judge equitably of things whether it is probable that the Evangelists who have descended to so many minute and particular actions of Jesus Christ would ever have omitted a circumstance of so mighty a weight as this of so great a necessity and a glorious introduction to all the rest No say these Gentlemen but they did not know it This was done before he had call'd them to be his Apostles Oh stange was not the adoration of the wise Men His sitting in the midst of the Doctors His being Baptis'd of John His prodigious Fast His Temptation in the Wilderness and so many other parts of His Life before his calling them to that Office How came they to know all this and not this imaginary Ascension found out sixteen hundred Years after the preaching of the Gospel But though Christ did say nothing to them of it yet he hinted it I deny that he did His coming from Heaven had no relation but to his being there before his assuming our nature But supposing that he did which is false For if these Gentlemen cannot prove a thing they will endeavour to hint it I ask of them whether Religion can be built upon a Hint and what account we can give of the Hope which is in us if it is resolv'd into Hints This Pre-existence of Christ is fully prov'd from Joh. 8.56 and foll v. He tells the Jews that Abraham rejoiced to see his day that he saw it and was glad They presently come to the How can it be Abraham himself being dead so many hundred Years before and himself not yet fifty Years Old Jesus answers that for all that it was as he said He assures it with a repeated asseveration Verily Verily I say to you before Abraham was I am or as the Syriack and other Translations read I was If Christ Jesus had no other existence but from the Virgin Mary How comes he to say that he was before Abraham He could not be before Abraham as he was the Son of Mary He could not exist according to the human nature before he was a Man If he existed then as he says positively that he did it must be as he was that God who in the fullness of time was pleas'd to appear to us Thus Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase on this place You are much mistaken in the reckoning of my Age for I have a being from all Eternity and so before Abraham was born c. I cite this Reverend Person by reason of an aspersion laid on him by these Gentlemen in a letter to a loving Cosen pag. 14. They make the Doctor to look upon the mystery of the Holy Trinity as a thing altogether useless and uncapable of moving the heart of Man He could not find says the Author a place in his large practical Catechism for the great spring of the Trinity That the sence given to this Text is true and genuine appears from the behaviour of the Jews at v. 59. Then they took up stones to cast at him Had the assertion been capable of a figurative sence it would never have mov'd them to such a degree They certainly understood him of a real and actual existence Their objection thou art not yet fifty Years Old was of that natural Age which they thought Christ had not yet attain'd They took the answer to be litteral and therefore judging the thing to be blasphemous and impossible they would have ston'd him And that the answer was litteral is undenyable Notwithstanding my Years says Christ I have seen Abraham This were indeed impossible to see him who has been dead above 1800 Years if I had no other being but what you see It would be Blasphemous if I were no more then a Man born in time to take that upon me which belongs only to God and to call the things that are not as though they were But I tell you that I was before Abraham I had a being of my own and I did actually exist before he was born I take this to be evident and conclusive This Text is one of those dangerous places which are like to overthrow the Socinian Fabrick and therefore these Gentlemen do all that they can to elude its force They have been so judicious as to forsake the ruinous and impertinent answers of Chrellius and their other outlandish Friends and have reduc't themselves to this The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 29. allows the reading I was Grotius owns it and therefore it could not be handsomely deny'd To the rest he says 1st That Abraham saw Christ's day in the spirit of Prophecy He saw it not as coming but as present He foresaw as he desir'd the time when it should be 2ly That Christ is here said to be before Abraham not actually but in the councel decree and ordination of God And that St. Austin has confess'd it He cites for this 1 Pet. 1.20 The lamb slain from the foundation of the World and Rev. 13.8 The lamb slain from the foundation of the World He adds That the Jews did not apprehend in what sence Christ spoke But neither did he intend or care they should ..... They being averse from Truth and Piety he often so spake to some of them as to perplex and affront their blindness .... and not to instruct them He alledges for this Luk. 8.10 The 1st Part of the Answer is to no purpose Who doubts but that Abraham saw Christ in the spirit of Prophecy The question is not how Abraham did see his day and rejoiced but How he could exist before Abraham Before Abraham was I was I had a being before Abraham was born That 's the point to be insisted on The 2d Part that Christ was before Abraham in God's decree and ordination is also to no purpose The question is
and working the Heavens Do created beings perish and decay really or Metaphorically Is the World's destruction real or only Figurative No Man ever indulg'd his fancy to that degree as to call this an Allegory It is then a real and actual Creation Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth It was done in the beginning before any thing did exist or began to be The consequence then is as bright as the sun that as he who has given a beginning to any thing is before that thing which he has given a beginning to so Christ is pre-existent and before all created beings since it appears by the express Authority of the Scripture that he has given a being to the whole Creation I pass by that Elegant Description of an Eternal Being who is always the same incapable of change and not mov'd even in the general destruction of all things But hold says the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 17. You are in a mighty mistake This seems indeed appli'd to Christ Heb. 1.10 But Thomas Aquinas observes that it may be understood of God only not Christ Grotius tells you and so do Estius and Camerarius that this Text must be referr'd to v. 13. Hold again says the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 10 11. This is an Allegory and must be understood as the new Heavens and the new Earth spoken of Esay 65.17 and 66.22 2 Pet. 3.13 Revel 21.1 which all the Trinitarian Interpreters have understood of the Gospel state of things in opposition to the Jewish which is antiquated and done away agreeable to the assertion of Christ Matt. 24. If this is not satisfactory there is another shift ready He tells you That others of his party take this as an Apostrophe conversion and devout address to God not intended of our Saviour The Allegory has so much the more weight that it comes from the Allegorical Hugo Grotius to whom may be appli'd what the 5th General Council said of Theodore of Mopswest that rather than be convinc't He would turn the plainest truths into Allegories But for all that these Gentlemen are in the wrong St. Peter speaks of the end of the World and of the destruction of all things in the last day The 24th of St. Matthew is of the same strain and though several learned Men have understood these places of the destruction of Jerusalem yet they have agreed that it contains also that of the whole World Christ answers his disciples first says Tertullian de Resurr car follow'd in this by very many of the Fathers of the time of the ruine of Jerusalem and then of the end of the World The notion of the Apostrophe or address to God is scarce worth any notice and time is too precious to spend it in answering trifles of that nature It is like that of Socinus and I believe flows from it that these words are not spoken of the Son because with the conjunctive particle and there was not rursum again An ordinary measure of common sence will shew the vanity of this Let ten thousand People read this Chapter and these two Verses in particular But to the Son he says Thy Throne O God ... and thou Lord in the beginning hast laid but will think them to be spoken to the same Person No not that plain Countryman who hearing his Parson read these words of St. Paul thought it not robbery did fancy that the It was not in the Original Ans to Mr. Milbourn pag. 36. I must beg these Gentlemens Pardon If I am forc't to say that they are guilty in their Disputes of an unparallel'd Injustice The Scripture speaks of a real Creation It mentions one also which is Allegorical Some Interpreters and not all the Interpreters according to their large way of talking have understood the places which they have cited out of Isaias and the Revelation of this last Therefore right or wrong they must be appli'd to the first Rather than give up the Argument they will give over the litteral sence of a Text which is capable of no other and run to the Metaphorical which by no means can agree with it It is confest on all hands that the Prophet in the words in dispute speaks of a real actual Creation and of a real actual Destruction of the Word It is also confest that the words are addrest to the real actual Creator of the World to that Eternal God who in the change and alteration of all things is himself incapable of change This they themselves do not deny The Apostle brings in the Father speaking to his Son attributing to him that real actual Creation as to the real actual Creator and because this is plain evident and unanswerable then the Apostle must be made to speak in an Allegorical and Figurative way This is such a method of arguing which I durst almost say is scandalous I honour Grotius but I would borrow an impertinence of no Man to elude a visible Truth That this Doctrine of the real and actual Creation of all things by Christ is not deliver'd obscurely or by the by but is the constant and universal Doctrine of Scripture appears from Colos 1.15 and foll v. Who is the image of the invisible God the first born of every Creature For by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they by Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers All things were created by him and for him and be is before all things and by him all things consist There is not a word in this but what invincibly proves the question and this after so clear a manner that it leaves no room for Allegories figures or any such poor shifts Passing by the first expression the image of the invisible God of which we shall have a further occasion to speak The Apostle says positively of Christ that he is the first born of every Creature that is born before all Created Beings which is the true rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primogenitus omnis Creaturae reads the old latin that is genitus ante omnem creaturam says Tertullian lib. de Trin. born before any creature The passage of that Father is home to the thing It was before any of these disputes and shews exactly the sence of the Western Church in the Primitive Times Quomodo Primogenitus esse potuit nisi quoniam secundum Divinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex Deo Patre sermo processit How could he be the first born but that in respect of his Divine nature The word proceeded from God the Father before any thing was created Origen lib. 2. contr Cels to an objection made by Celsus that he whom we assure to be God and suppose to suffer so willingly could not forbear cryes and lamentations answers That he does not discern the difference of the Scriptures Expressions That Christ speaks sometimes as Man and sometimes as God We have laid down says
that Father who also writ before these disputes and shews the sence of the Eastern Church that in Jesus those expressions are to be found which belong to none but him who is born before any creature such as is I am the way the truth and the life others again which belong to none but to Man such as is but now you seek to kill me a Man who has told you the truth The firstborn here then is not the must beloved though understood so by the Hebrews and Hellenists in several places nor in respect of the Resurrection from the Dead as St. Paul calls him or in relation to his dignity as David is stil'd Ps 68.27 but in regard of his antemundane existence of his Eternal nature according to his Divinity say both Origen and Tertullian Nor indeed can it be otherwise For by him were all things created The first born can have here no other sence then born before all created beings Or else how could all things have been created by him He is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the great and holy Archbishop of Milan that by the words born and begotten he may be distinguisht and excluded from all that is made or created The Apostle not only asserts his creating power and his actual excercise of that power in general by saying that he has created all things but he also descends to a most exact enumeration of created beings Those that are in Heaven those that are in earth those that are visible those that are invisible even the Heavenly Hierarchy Thrones Dominions Principalities and Powers He repeats it again with this addition that as Christ is the beginning he is also the end of all Creatures the Alpha and the Omega a name which God alone assumes He gives a being to all that is and none is but by him But at the same time himself is the end of all their operations It is for his glory that they are created All things are created by him and for him He sums up the whole and asserts anew that he exists before any thing created and by him what is created is preserv'd And he is before all things and by him all things consist I wish these Gentlemen would shew me the difference between these last words and by him all things consist and those of the Apostle Act 17.28 in him we live and move and have our being which they own to be spoken of the Almighty I would beg of them to tell me whether any part of Scripture even the 1st of Genesis is more exact more litteral more circumstantiated then this I pray them if this be not a real Creation and a real Creator to let the World know by what plainer terms they can be inform'd I shall be thankful to any who will satisfy me substantially whether any thing that is said here can agree with the Son of Mary if he has no existence but that of the nature which he had of his Mother I protest I am asham'd to repeat what the Author of the Brief Hist calls an answer to this pag. 38. 1st He says That Christ is call'd the first born of every Creature not absolutely as if he was in being before all other Creatures but the meaning is he is the first born from the dead of all God's Creatures .... that thus in this very context is the first born explain'd v. 18. That Christ is call'd in the 18. v. the first born from the dead is freely acknowledg'd not only for the reason alledg'd by them that he rose to dye no more but many other more solid which they have not exprest for fear they should interfere with the belov'd System But what is this to the purpose Christ is the first-born all the wayes that the word can be understood in He is the first-born from the dead because the first of all Men he rose from Death to Life after so miraculous a manner He is the first-born of every Creature because he exists before any created being I deny that the 18. v. has any relation to this The design of the Apostle is to shew that Christ in all things has the pre-eminence He has it in the natural order of things because he is superior and antecedent to them He is born before all Creatures He has it in the Mystical and spiritual order because he is the head of the body the Church He is the beginning the source of all Grace He is the foundation of our peace He is the first born from the dead the first and great instance the visible assurance of that glorious immortality God has promis'd to our obedience But it is a fallacy usual in these Gentlemen's Writings to reason à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter to turn a particular into a general interpretation But 2ly says the Author of the Brief Hist in the page cited these words for by him were all things creâ—â—ed are not spoken of Christ but of God I commend them to own that those things can be said of none but God This in their own confession proves Christ to be God for all this is said of him What Have these Gentlemen receiv'd from above a power to put out People's Eyes and to invert the sence of all Mankind The contents lye thus Who God has deliver'd us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son in whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of Sins Who is the image of the invisible God the first born of every Creature For by him were all things created that are in Heaven .... All things are created by him and for him and he is before all things ... and he is the head of the body the Church c. I say what I have said before Let this be read to ten thousand Men and I give up the cause if any one of them who is not quite void of sence does not confess that this is spoken of the Son The mistake of those Gentlemen is so much the worse because it is willfull the Particles us'd here which join the whole and make it all of a piece and for by rendring it altogether impossible 3ly The Author says again that the most learned and Critical of our Interpreters do not think that Creation is in this attributed to Christ He cites some mordern and even some Fathers who do not read Created but Modell'd The sence which he makes is this That the Lord Christ is said to Model or order all things on Earth because of the great change he has introduc'd abolishing Judaism and Paganism and introducing Christianity in their stead He new order'd or modell'd the Thrones ..... and other Angelical Orders in Heaven in that he became their King and their Head whereas before the were immediately under God and gives them from time to time such Orders as to him seems good Thus that ingenious Man flyes from branch to branch without finding
where to rest He has found this in Grotius and has taken it up for want of something more solid If this way of criticising is allow'd there is nothing in Scripture capable of a litteral sence A warm Fancy and a great deal of Confidence will make the Sacred Book a continu'd Metaphor How easy would it be to do that with the first Chapter of Genesis which those Gentlemen have done with this and indeed with any thing in Scripture which is never so litteral He has cited Athanasius and Cyril but not the places where they read Modell'd Till they are quoted what can be said to it is that it cannot but be known even to them that both these Fathers with all the ancients and even the Arrians themselves acknowledge Christ the Creator of the natural World But if Grotius The Jesuit Selmero and Montanus have read Modell'd I cannot see what advantage comes to their cause from the rendrings of private Men. All the Greek Copies read Created The old Latin Created All the publick Translations that I know in the World read Created I am not sensible that there is any one place in Scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not render'd Creation and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Creator Nor do I understand why it should be Modell'd here and not every where else Must we say Rom. 1.21 That the invisible things of him from the Modelling of the World are clearly seen and not from the Creation Rom. 8.19.21 The earnest expectation of the thing Modell'd waits for the manifestation of the Children of God The Modell'd it self shall be deliver'd from the bondage of corruption For the whole Modellship groaneth and travelleth untill now must we say 1 Pet. 4.19 committ the keeping of their souls to him as unto a faithful Modeller Many more instances of this kind might be produc'd which if thus translated and why not thus in other places as well as here are down right impertinence But granting that rare word Modelling still it does not ruine but suppose the Pre-existence He is before all things and by him all things consist The things spoken of here are not reduc'd only to the preaching of the Apostles It includes that of the Prophets and reaches to all the Types of the Messias The Figures were to be Modell'd as well as the realities Not only the Generation which comes after Christ is sav'd by him but also that which preceeded him Christ then being the Saviour was to be the Modeller of both David and Solomon were Figures of Christ He must therefore have been before them to Modell them Joshua and Moses are said by all the Fathers to have been eminent Types of the Holy Jesus He must then of necessity have preceeded him to Modell him Adam was also a Figure of Christ and consequently to be Modell'd by him The natural Heaven and Earth are a shadow of the new Heavens and the new Earth wherein dwells righteousness Therefore Modellable by the Saviour Therefore he must have existed before them to Modell and to speak this Author 's own words to order dispose and prepare them to answer those great ends for which they were created I will say to the acute Author of this History once for all what the Answerer to Doctor Wallis tells that Reverend Person pag. 17. This may be call'd a fineness He means a finenesse a subtlety a querk nor an accurate reasoning or a solid and true Answer And pag 18. But so it is that they that maintain a false Opinion must answer to the present Exigent sometimes this thing sometimes the contrary Only truth is stable coherent consistent with it self always the same I will end this Letter with that wise reflexion and so remain SIR Your Most humble Servant L. THE Third LETTER SIR WHAT has been said concerning the Pre-existence of Christ is enough to overthrow the Socinian System and supposes his Pre-eternity We have this advantage that the one proves the other For if nothing is before time but what is Eternal there being no duration conceivable by us but Time and Eternity shewing that Christ existed before Time it self was implies his Eternal Being That by him all things were created the Arrians themselves could not deny forc'd to it by the great evidence of the Texts alledg'd before But whatsoever creates is infinite in the general confession both of Divines and Philosophers It supposes an unlimited power in the agent which nothing can resist and every thing must obey at whose Call matter is produc'd and presents it self to be actuated into what form he pleases But if whosoever creates is infinite and Almighty and whosoever is infinite and Almigthy is also Eternal The same Texts which so evidently prove the Creation of all things by him do also prove his Eternity But even passing by all this I presume to say that if Christ's Eternal Being is not clearly and plainly deliver'd in Scripture there is nothing plain or clear in the World I will begin by the 1st of St. John An Authority of that weight and extent that all that is dispersed in the other Books of the Sacred Writers concerning the nature of Christ seems to be collected in this There is no complaint here of mutilation of Sentences of alteration of words As it was deliver'd at first so it has been preserv'd a clear and a lasting testimony of this Sacred Doctrine I admire what makes the Author of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 20 21. so angry with St. Jerom for saying that at the request of the Asiatick Bishops St. John Writ his Gospel to assert the Divinity of Christ which this Father pretends not to assure upon his own credit but that of the Church's History This Author says That Irenaeus 200 Years older then St. Jerom is silent about it That Origen the great searcher of the Monuments of Antiquity gives no such account and Eusebius himself who has preserv'd what is said here of Origen who besides had read Hegesippus and whatever History St. Jerom could have read says that the design of St. John in writing his Gospel was to supply the omissions of the other three Evangelists Yet after all this the learned World knows that St. Jerom was a serious and a candid Person of a temper not to impose or be impos'd upon of a quick apprehension vast parts prodigious reading well acquainted with the affairs of the Eastern Church and of whom it is not imaginable that he would either cite a Book which he had not seen or give credit to a History that had not been genuine and authentick The answerer calls it in vain A Legend a Fiction a great Romance of an Ecclesiastical History cited by St Jerom and seen by no body but himself No Man of sence or learning will believe any thing of this A negative proof goes a great way but it must be better grounded then this Irenaeus does not say it it is true but he says nothing to the
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
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.
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
in that to Mr. la Motté to venture upon any thing that comes first to hand and to want that candor and modesty that cool temper which the Author of the History has and would be a great Ornament to his Parts and Learning One thing more I have to say before I conclude this and it is that besides those Arguments which have been lay'd before you no Man can seriously read the sacred writings but he will find those things say'd of Christ and to Christ which no meer Creature is capable of 1st He is represented to us in such a height as transcends all Created Beings Phil. 2.9 10. That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in Earth and things under the Earth 1 Pet. 3.22 Angels and authorities and powers are made subject to him Matt. 28.18 All power is given me in Heaven and Earth Joh. 15.16 All things that the Father has are mine Joh. 15.5 without me you can do nothing He commands the Sea the Winds the Devils c. He gives to others the power that he has Mark 16.17 18. In my name shall they cast out Devils c. All this looks like Omnipotency If he is not God men are naturally lead to Idolatry by seeing in a Man all that we adore in God and by which he is known to us 2ly Some men are call'd the Sons of God as Adam the Angels and just men who are all God's adopted Sons But Christ is call'd the Son of God so very often so very Emphatically with so great a solemnity that it is unconceivable how this can be say'd of one who has no other relation to God but to be the work of his hands or the object of his favour Act. 8.37 And Philip say'd if thou believ'st with all thy heart thou may'st and he Answer'd and say'd I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God In the great uncertainty who that miraculous Person was whether Elias or John the Baptist or any of the Prophets St. Peter makes this confession Matt. 16.16 thou art Christ the Son of the living God Christ himself replies that on this confession the Church is buil't on this the salvation of men depends v. 17. That this is not the result of natural inquiry and that Flesh and blood has not reveal'd it to him but my Father which is in Heaven A declaration made not only by poor men here below but come down from above once at his Baptism Matt. 3.17 a second time in the glory of his transfiguration Matt. 17.5 This is my beloved Son An homage which the very unclean spirits the Devils themselves pay'd him Mark 3.11 and the unclean spirits when they saw him fell before him .... thou art the Son of God and Mark 5.7 the Son of the most High God If to be the Son of God is no more than to be remarkable by the examples of a holy life though in as great a measure as our nature is capable of Is it not unaccountable that revelation should be necessary that Heaven should inform us that the very Devils should proclaim it that our Faith and Eternal Salvation should be built upon it Does not this naturally incline men to believe that this very Jesus in that despicable nature by which he appears as a Man has another which none but the Father could reveal and is far beyond the discoveries of Flesh and Blood 3ly None but God could descend to the incredible humiliation of Christ Jesus No Man can properly be say'd to humble himself no not to the death of the Cross None humbles himself in dying who is form'd to dye No Creature humbles it self in suffering who is born to suffer and is subject to vanity I understand how God humbles himself in becoming Man This is easy to apprehend But how the best of men can humble himself in becoming Man when it is not at all his choice and in suffering for his Fellow Creatures which even in the sence of bad men is the most glorious thing in the World is past my apprehension None but he can humble himself in whom is found between the state that he is in and that which he assumes an infinite disproportion Nothing shews more evidently what Christ was before his humiliation than that series and order of stupendous Miracles which attend that very state To be figur'd by the Patriarchs announc't by the Prophets to be born of a Virgin to be declar'd by the Angels Immanuel God with us to exercise a despotick power over the whole Creation to rise from the dead to ascond to Heaven to sit at the right hand of God are convincing Arguments that he is more than a Creature 3ly The name of Lord is given him which all the Interpreters agree is the Jehovah of the Hebrews These Gentlemen must own this themselves I know that the Author of the Considerat on the Bishop of Sarum's Fourth Discourse pag. 22. has quarrell'd with his Lordship because he says that it is the peculiar name of God He tells him that the Socinians deny it and pretend to prove that the name Jehovah is given to particular Persons and communities and pag. 23 24. that we are like to have great many Jehovahs since if the word Lord is Jehovah that Pontius Pilate is call'd so Matt. 27.63 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord is no more than Master and Sir Joh. 20.15 But I know also that all this is a quibble and that such things as these are should not drop from the Pen of a Learned Man as this Author is nor to such a knowing Person as the Bishop For who is he that has the least tincture of Hebrew but knows that the facred name Jehovah signifies Essence Existence and nothing else As God himself has express'd it Exod. 3.14 I am that I am which if it is not peculiar to God a Primitive and Self Existent being I know nothing that is peculiar to him This is so true that Chrellius himself has own'd that it follows the nature of proper names It is undenyable that the Translators of the Old Testament have constantly render'd Jehovah by the word Lord and it is from thence that the sacred writers of the New Testament who as the Bishop observes were Jews spoke like Jews and understood the full importance of their own language have Attributed it to Christ And though the word Lord sometimes signifies no more than Sir or Master as in the instances produc't by this Author yet the stream of the Scriptures is against this mean shift Act. 10.36 he is Lord of all Act. 2.36 God has made him Lord and Christ Rom. 14.9 The Lord both of the dead and living 1 Cor. 2.8 The Lord of Glory Revel 19.16 Lord of Lords But particularly 1 Cor. 8.5 6. For though there be that are call'd Gods whether in Heaven and in Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many To us there is but one God the Father of whom