REMARKS On Several Late Writings Publish'd in English by the SOCINIANS Wherein Is show'd the insufficiency and weakness of their Answers to the Texts brought against them by the Orthodox IN FOUR LETTERS Written at the Request of a Socinian Gentleman By H. DE LVZANCY B. D. Vic. of Doverc and Harwich LONDON Printed by Tho. Warren for Thomas Bennet at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1696. THE PREFACE THE design of the following Letters was to instruct a private Gentleman who by reading Socinian Books had got a mighty prejudice against the Sacred Doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation He desir'd that he might have the liberty to communicate my Papers to some of his Friends of that perswasion But this being lyable to many inconveniences it was thought much fitter at once to expose them to publick view Whether he will be convinc'd by these Writings must be left to God who best knows the ways of working upon the minds of men Whether there is matter enough to convince him is left to the judgment of the World The general means to clear a Controversy are Reason and Authority I humbly conceive that the first has nothing to do in this dispute For how can we argue from the Principles of natural reason in a point wholly Divine and Supernatural and how can the Philosopher of this World conclude with any certainty in that which is above all the inquiries and decisions of Philosophy I ever thought the Socinians extreamly in the wrong with their pretended contradictions in the belief of our Holy Mysteries and the Letter to both the Vniversities much the worst of all their Writings It being certainly neither just nor candid to use Topicks though never so ingeniously turn'd altogether foreign to the matter in dispute and to give an air of probability to that which when truly stated and consider'd is of another nature than the thing propos'd to us I take it for granted even by these Gentlemen themselves that Faith and Reason are two different things and consequently that that which is the object of Faith cannot be the object of Reason Of what use then can those Arguments be which are call'd Demonstrations against the Doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation Those perpetual descants upon the impossibility of Three being One and One Three of the same substance unbegotten begotten and proceeding of a part of God being incarnate and another not incarnate All this and ten thousand Objections more are a fallacy and an imposition on Mankind The case here being of another nature not tryable at the Bar of our corrupt Reason but call'd to another and a more infallible Tribunal On the other side though it looks much like Charity and Condescension yet it is certainly an Inadvertency to have pretended to answer these Gentlemen in their own way and to run with them upon the same false scent of reasoning on those things which we ought only to believe and adore The Socinians may write till Doomsday to prove the Vnrâ—asonableness and their charitable and learned Answerers may do the same to prove the Reasonableness of our Christian Doctrine I mean keeping still within the compass of natural reason and yet this great truth will never be clear'd because indeed neither of them embrace the true Method to clear it The way then of Authority is both the plainest and the safest It has that advantage that the other is even resolv'd into it For there is nothing so highly rational as a submission of our Reason to an Authority which all sides own to be infallible We all agree that the Divine Scriptures are the rule of our Faith We all acknowledge them to be the word of God and this very name commands naturally and of it self a veneration which no human Writings though of never so much strength and clearness can force from us It is then from thence and only from thence that we ought to reason and conclude in this Sacred Controversy The consent of the whole Christian World must be a strong inducement to a modest Socinian to mistrust all his Arguments To oppose all that has been and is Great and Good in the Church of God in a point of Faith is too much for the most presuming Disputant But when the Authority of God speaking in those Scriptures which we all contend to be the Revelation which he has made of himself to us is superadded to the universal consent of the Church all the reasons which we can pretend to oppose to this ought to be no more to men of sence than talk and noise The Church asserts the Vnity of the Divine Nature in which three distinct and equally adorable Persons subsist The Father The Son and the Holy Ghost of which the second was Incarnate and in the fullness of time became Man To say that this is false because incomprehensible is a lamentable consequence Nor is it sufferable to reject the belief of these Mysteries because our poor narrow and corrupt Reason is pleas'd to state contradictions in a subject so far above our capacity and to say as those Gentlemen urge vehemently that we cannot believe that of which we can have no notion or Idea is much worse since besides that we have little or no knowledge at all of the ways operations and manner of Existence of an Infinite Being to suppose a notion or an Idea of the thing propos'd is to destroy Faith which Heb. 11.1 is the evidence of things not seen that is an assurance and certainty of that which is imperceptible to us because above the reach of our understanding supplying by the Authority of the Revelation that notion or Idea of which these Gentlemen argue an absolute necessity The only way then to satisfy our selves is to hear what the Scripture teaches concerning this For if the Church speaks the language of the Scripture it speaks as God has taught us and to speak after God is the most certain and excellent way of speaking in the World The Challenge of the great Athanasius to the Arrians and of St. Austin to the Hereticks of his time was the most reasonable Proposition in nature to a people who own'd Christianity and that is that laying aside human reasoning and relying upon the veracity of the Divine Oracles they should inquire not what man propos'd but what God has say'd in the matter If the Scripture is positive that God is one and yet asserts the Father to be God the Son to be God and the Holy Ghost to be God If it says that the Son has taken our nature upon him The Church speaks as the Scripture has taught and the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation is the Doctrine of the Church because it is first that of the Scripture Being perswaded then that the dispute must at last be put upon that Issue and sensible that any thing else that is propos'd of both sides though it shews the great parts and abilities of the Disputants can yet give
are not pleas'd to observe that there is in the Text an actual comparison of two natures of Christ as Man and of Christ who is God blessed over all of Christ who in the first capacity is descended from the Jews and is a Jew according to the Flesh and of Christ who in the other has a communication of the Divine Nature and is God blessed over all It is easy to see says the Author of the Answer to Mr Milbourn that these expressions in the places cited by him are only as much as to say according to the Body I grant it But I affirm that it is easy to see that the Apostle speaks in those places Absolutely and without relation to any thing else and that here he speaks relatively to another being which Christ has This appears not only from the thing it self where there is an obvious comparison but from the very way of expressing of the Greek which our language cannot reach In all the places cited by these Gentlemen according to the Flesh is express'd without any Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to determine it to any sence than what really it has But when this is say'd of Christ There the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which it is compar'd to somewhat else The Apostle has it clearly Rom. 1.2 and 3. made according to the Flesh where the Flesh does not signify the body as the places which they have cited to elude the force of this Text but the humane nature of Christ in opposition to these words according to the Spirit of Holiness by which the Divine is express'd This explication is of St. Chrysostom on this place Theodoret and long before of Tertullian adv Prax. Made of the seed of David according to the Flesh says that Father Here is the man and the Son of man And declar'd to be the Son of God according to the Holy Spirit Hic est Deus sermo Dei filius This is the God and the word the Son of God This was the Divinity of Tertullian's time before the Council of Nice Having done with this Text I pass to Act. 20.28 St. Paul taking his leave of the Asian Bishops exhorts them pathetically to that diligence and care which is the source of all Pastoral Vertues He urges it on these two Motives 1st That they have receiv'd their power from the Holy Ghost 2ly That the Church which he exhorts them to feed is the Church for which God has been pleas'd to dye Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own blood This is spoken of a God by nature since according to the Socinian Rule God is nam'd here with an Article It is not only a God but the God He has purchas'd to himself a Church he has bought us with a price and because without remission of Sin there is no redemption and there is no remission without blood he has purchas'd us with blood But the blood of Goats and Calves the blood of others being of it self ineffectual and only Figurative he has shed his own blood for us This cannot be say'd of the Father who these Gentlemen deny and with a great deal of reason to have suffer'd Nor can it be asserted of the Holy Spirit since they assure him to be only a power and an energy and it is ridiculous to say that an energy shed his own blood In can be say'd of none but the Son who having taken our nature upon him became our Mediator and High-Priest and by his own blood that blood which he shed for the Church obtain'd eternal redemption for us But that High-Priest that Mediator that Christ is say'd to be the God therefore he must be partaker of the Divine Nature and since the Father is the God and he is also the God there must be more persons than one subsisting in the Deity This is deciding and conclusive Yet the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 34. makes these exceptions 1st That in the Armenian Syriack and the most ancient of the Greek Bibles the reading is not the Church of God but of Christ 2ly That admitting the reading God in the vulgar Editions of the Greek yet some great Masters of the Greek Tongue have render'd the Greek words thus Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own Son's blood 3ly That admitting the Translation in our English Bibles some learned men particularly Erasmus have noted that the blood of Christ is here call'd the blood of God because it was the blood which God gave for the redemption of the World so Joh 1.36 This is the lamb of God that is the lamb of Sacrifice which God gives for the sins of the world These Gentlemen have the misfortune to call every thing an Answer 1st It is true that in some Copies these words have been read with some alteration but nothing at all to their purpose some few have read the Churc◠of the Lord others the Church of the Lord and God but none the Church of Christ They will much oblige the Common-wealth of Learning if they will produce any of these best and most ancient Copies A very learned Man of this Age has pretended to prove that the Church of Christ is not the language of the Scripture and that when the Church is spoken of by way of eminence as it is in this Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church it is often say'd to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God but never the Church of Christ And this Criticism they will find true if they give themselves the trouble to examine it The Syriack Interpreter is rather an Expositor than a Translator The Latin who is wholly a Translator and not an Expositor reads Ecclesiam Dei The Church of God The second part of their Answer that some great Masters of the Greek Tongue have render'd his own Son's blood instead of his own blood is a crying notorious and unpardonable falsification of a Text. What will be the end of our disputes if when we are press'd with the undenyable evidence of a Scripture we presume to add words to it and usher in that Sacrilegious attempt upon the word of God with saying some great Masters of the Greek Tongue When these Gentlemen talk of Syriack Arabick Coptick Armenian they may easily impose upon the simple but for Greek which is common to all professions in this Kingdom to tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his own proper blood is with his Son's blood to make the falsification Authentick by Attributing it to the great Masters of the Greek Tongue and call this an Answer to a solid Objection is a piece of an Incomprehensible Confidence 3ly Socinus and Chrellius were more dexterous who being press'd by this Text very fairly lay'd aside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own wherein lyes the stress of the Argument but call'd it as Erasmus has done the blood of God the Father that is the blood which God gave for the
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
v. 4. That he is so much better than the Angels that he has by inheritance obtain'd a more excellent name than they I hope that by the name of Angels it will not be deny'd that their being and nature is express't according to the Dialect of Scripture Or else What signifies the distinction of inheriting a name or a name by inheritance from a name given What the Angels are is by the favour and gift of the Creator what Christ is is by nature and inheritance He shews then of the Angels v. 7. what is their name what they are He makes his Angels spirits and his Ministers a flame of fire v. 8. He brings in God speaking to Christ as to his Son discovering his nature his name by inheritance But to the Son he says Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever To this these Gentlemen Answer in the brief Hist pag. 16. That the words are litterally spoken of Solomon and mystically of Christ That this is the opinion of Grotius But that whether they are spoken litterally of Solomon and mystically of Christ neither Christ nor Solomon are here call'd God The place being ill translated The Hebrew and the Greek importing no more than this God is thy Throne that is thy resting place or establishment for ever and ever I began to admire how these Gentlemen deny that Solomon is here call'd God who when we prove that Christ is call'd God in many places of Scripture have made this answer almost thredbare that he is call'd God as Solomon is here and Moses Exod. 7.1 But they unsay this again and are somewhat larger in the answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 8. They cite Grotius who makes this Psalm to be an Epithalamium sung by the maids to Solomon and Sulamitis the Daughter of the King of Egypt They say That we catch at the word God as if the Psalmist and the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews spoke of such a Person as is truly and really God That we should note that Christ tells us Joh. 10.35 That those also are call'd Gods in Scripture to whom the word of God comes That Solomon in this Psalm is saluted by the Name of God according to the known language of those times and Countries to Magistrates and Princes But after all the place of the Hebrews is so pressing that they pass from accomodation and application and are willing to allow that he interprets the words of Christ because The Psalm being compos'd by a Prophetical Poet at the same time that he courted and prais'd Solomon He might Prophecy of Christ That this account is approv'd by the most learned Criticks One would have expected from men of learning somewhat more solid When we say that Christ is call'd God we are so far from catching at the word God that we maintain it to be after a manner so peculiar to the most high God that it is applicable to no Man and that what the Prophet say's and the Apostle after him is visible to the meanest capacity can be said neither of Moses or Solomon or any Prince or Magistrate The business of the Epithalamiums and the custom of the Eastern People are pretty little imaginations That it is not render'd according to the Hebrew or the Greek is notoriously suppos'd The Interpretation of Grotius is both senceless and false It is senceless For what addition is it to the Messias that God is his resting place Is he not so to all good men Are not our Souls made perfect by his grace committed into his hands as unto a faithful Creator to become Eternally happy It is false and that visibly too by the reading of the next verse Therefore O God Thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows I read O God For thus Eusebius demons Evang. lib. 4. Orig. con Cels lib. 1. St. Jerom Epis 140. have prov'd that it ought to be read both from the nature of the thing and the letter of the sacred Text. St. Austin in his Exposition on this very Psalm which in the old Interpreter is the 44th is positive that this is manifest from the Greek This has caus'd several learned men to think that what is written in the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was formerly written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though Eusebius in the place already cited makes it evident from many unquestionable Texts of Scripture that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers fully the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have said is the sence of the place and the reading of Aquila As for Criticks I highly honour them who have really endeavour'd to find out the true sence of the difficult places of Scripture I own Grotius in particular to have been a Man of great learning But to criticise in Texts which are plain and easie and to torture the words of the Holy Writers to make them bear with notions altogether new and unknown to antiquity I think to be insufferable I am perswaded that this Psalm was never intended for Solomon by the argument of the ancient Jews that the 3 4 and 5. verses which represent a fighting and a conquering Prince can never be made to agree to one whose name expresses and whose life was spent in a profound peace The 110 Psalm is understood of the Messias by the Thargum and most of the old Rabbins That it was so by the Jews in Christ's time appears by his publick appealing to the authority of this Psalm That it is an eminent Prophecy of Christ is evident by his own assertion Matt. 22.43 44. St. Peter proves from thence that he is both Lord and Christ Acts. 2.34 35 36. The Author of the Epistle to the Heb. draws from thence most of his Arguments Heb. 1.13 and 5.6 20. and 7.1 and fol. ver And indeed offer no violence to the Psalm but take what it plainly presents It looks more like a revelation of the new then a Prophecy of the old dispensation The first verse expresses clearly the Divinity of J. C. The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou at my right hand One Divine Person is reveal'd to David speaking to another The Lord saying to My Lord. The argument of Christ is irrefragable If the Christ is no more than the Son of David If he has no other nature than that which he draws from him How comes God to call him Lord in that revelation which he made of him The second verse shews his regal dignity that power which he has over all The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Sion rule thou in the midst of thy enemies The third his pre-existence before all created beings and consequently a being in God and from God which can be no other way than by a communication of the Divine Essence From the womb of the morning thou hast the dew of thy youth Or as the old Latin Interpreter St. Chrysostom on this Psalm St. Jerom on the 22. of Matt. Ante
the one it is also to the other and not the Branch the Prince is here describ'd 4ly It is against the true reading of the Septuagint and the old Latin Translation To the 3d that is Jer. 33.15.16 granting the reading of the Text as it is in our Bible which indeed the Hebrew favours It is so far parallel to this as to be a renewing of the promise made by God in the place already cited The sence of the Prophet is that Jerusalem shall be call'd the Lord our righteousness by containing him that is being fill'd with his glorious presence who is really the Lord our righteousness As Jacob Gen. 33.20 erected an Altar and call'd it Et-elohe-Israel God the God of Israel And Ezek. 48.35 and the name of the City from that day shall be Jehovah shammah the Lord is there But what can be more positive and home to the question than the testimony of Baruch chap. 3. the 3. last verses This is our God and there shall be no other accounted in comparison of him He has found out all the way of Knowledge and has given it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved Afterwards did he shew himself upon earth and converst with Men. To offer an enlargment on this Text is to do it an injury The 1st of these verses asserts the unity of God The 2d his great wisdom and goodness to his people The 3d his visible appearing to us in our nature and this not by a sudden apparition vanishing as soon as it is offer'd and leaving the Soul in suspence about the truth of the object but by a continu'd living on the Earth If there be but one Person in God as these Gentlemen so stiffly maintain and that is the Father there must have been an Incarnation of that Person since he has appear'd upon Earth and convers'd with men which they and with a great deal of Reason will by no means admit But the whole Scripture says That God has sent his Son into the World That he has appear'd to put away Sin and we all agree that the Holy Jesus is that Son How then can we deny his Divinity since it is said of him who has thus appear'd This is our God and there shall be no other accounted in comparison of him This is so express that we must not expect to be put off with Grotius or Christ being call'd God as Moses or Solomon or the rare Notion of God coming to us in his Ambassadour Jesus Nothing of this will do and therefore the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 22. answers first That the Book is Apocryphal Secondly That those who admit the Book reject those verses as suppositious Thirdly That the Original Greek may be render'd Afterwards this Book of the Commandments of God and the Law which endures for ever was seen upon Earth and turn'd over by men First That the Book is Apocryphal is an Answer cannot be made by these Gentlemen because it is cited against them by the whole Societies of Christians who believe it to be Canonical But freely granting that the Book is such I must beg leave to say That it is nothing to the purpose Any man of ordinary reading knows that Apocryphal signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncanonical or out of the Canon of the Sacred Books That sort of Writings though not kept in Armario as Tertullian expresses it cap. 3. de hab muli yet were look'd upon with much reverence by them and particularly by the Hellenists They were daily in their hands and the greatest Authority in the World next to the uncontested Scriptures There is a vast difference between being uncanonical and rejected and the saying That this Passage is taken out of an uncanonical though a Sacred Book takes nothing off the force of the Objection These Gentlemen who are so pleas'd with Criticisms that it will with them bear down the plainest Authority in the World must give me leave to Criticize for once I say then That of all the Apocryphal Books none was so like to become Canonical as that of Baruch It is somewhat more than a probable Conjecture that this Book was once read with that of Jeremy whose Disciple Baruch was The ninth of Daniel has lead several Learned men into that Opinion For after he has cited Jeremy v. 2. and began that fervent Prayer for the preservation of Jerusalem He seems to transcribe Baruch Compare Baruch 1.15 16 17. with Daniel 7 8 c. Baruch 2.7 8 9. with Daniel 9.13 c. Baruch 2.11 c. with Daniel 9.15 Baruch 2.15 with Daniel 9.18 I will add to confirm this That several of the most ancient and Primitive Fathers have often cited Jeremy and yet the Texts us'd by them were taken out of Baruch which gives some ground to believe that the Works of these two Prophets were once joyn'd together To the second Objection we must be forc'd to say That no part of it is true First it is not true that ever those Verses were look'd upon as supposititious by them who either admitted or rejected the Book Secondly it is not true that ever these words were a marginal Note no ancient Copy being without them and the rest being only Conjecture instead of Reason The third Objection is the highest Unsincerity imaginable Their Translation is forc'd unnatural and what is worse notoriously false There is nothing in the Text of a Book of Commands or of a Law which endures for ever There is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viam disciplinae as the Vulgar translates it To say not what they have pretended to impose without either Reason or Truth but what can be strain'd from this That the way of Knowledge has shew'd Himself to men and convers'd with them is a bold and ridiculous way of Translating The fifth Chapter of Micah is an eminent Prophecy of Christ The first part of the second Verse gives an account of his Birth and of the place to which God had promis'd so great a Blessing But thou Bethlehem Ephratah though thou be little amongst the thousands of Judah yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel The second part soars higher and tells us That though he is born as a man yet he has that which no man can pretend to and though he has such a visible Being yet he has another which is invisible and eternal whose goings forth have been from old from everlasting or From the days of Eternity This Text has a double advantage First that the Chaldee Paraphrast the Thalmud and the generality of the ancient Jews have follow'd in this the sence of their Forefathers and understood this Text of the Messiah Secondly that from Mat. 2.6 and Joh. 7.42 this invincibly appears to have been the Tradition of the Jews one of the great Obstacles to their Belief that he was the Messias having no other ground than that contrary to the received Opinion That the
true and genuine If I may be allow'd a digression I would willingly know where these Gentlemen found that Constantine dy'd an Unitarian If by an Unitarian they mean that he own'd the Unity of the Godhead I hope we shall all dye in that faith But if by it they mean a Socinian a denyer of the Divinity of Christ It is a gross and a palpable untruth I would also be satisfi'd whether Eusebius of Caesarea whom they so truly call'd the Admirable did not subscribe the Nicene faith To return In an answer to a loving Cosen pag. 3. We hear of nothing but Fathers Tradition Councils c. pag. 8. This general Observation concerning the Fathers is sufficient to make me refuse their testimony and look upon them as no good Interpreters of Scripture and unfaithfull Guardians of Tradition We are then in a very sad case Our Translations are dishonest and the Holy Fathers are no good Interpreters of Scripture and unfaithfull Guardians of Tradition Our Translations and the Fathers should have spoke as these Gentlemen and then all had been right Where will of necessity such wild notions lead Men and when will the dispute end if they are admitted For my part I am of Mr. Chillingworth's mind and think that it is both the safety and honour of the Protestant Religion to cry out The Bible The Bible a place of that eminent Man so often and so justly commended by these Gentlemen I am perswaded that the word of God ought to be the rule But then I am satisfi'd that no Scripture is of private interpretation That this Bible must be well understood and that Tradition is the greatest human Authority in the World I take this point to be so clear particularly to Men of learning that if any Society of Christians could produce for what they have to say for themselves such a Tradition as Vine â—ius Liâ—inensis has establisht and is the true notion of Tradition we must all come over to it This is so just in it self that these very Gentlemen cannot forbear expressing their joy when what they produce is not altogether their own and has some great names to introduce it They speak then with a certain sort of assurance which they have not at other times I do not know whether I am as other Men or wheit is a singularity in me but if I have never so pretty a notion and find it contradicted by the concurrent testimonies of Men who have united a profound Piety to an admirable Learning such as are the Basil's The Chrysostom's The Theodoret's The two Gregorie's The Eusebius's The Cyrill's The Jerom's The Austin's and many more If I sind primitive and General Councils exclaiming against me If I meet in my way almost all that has been valuable in the last and this present Age in the Common-wealth of learning Though I might perhaps maintain the notion and spin it into a Letter or a small Book not perhaps without some Admirers yet I presently strike and think it both most honourable and conscientious to call the pretty thing in 5ly I have a just value for Criticks though whether a Critick is Master of any one sort of Learning is a great Question to me But to make Criticks the Judges and Criticisms the Touchstone of Faith is insufferable Like Anatomists they dissect till they leave neither Form nor Figure A Criticism is much different from a good reason Allowing one to be good a hundred amount generally to no more than a probability They are a sort of Arrows shot at random which sometimes hit the mark and generally go above or below it I insist the more on this because it is the Palladium of these Gentlemen When a Text is plain and stares in the face then comes out the Criticism This is the dissecting Instrument which runs through the Text till wrangling arises about a Particle or a Punctuation and makes the substantial part of the dispute to vanish When Reason is oppos'd to Reason and Argument to Argument the stander by may in a very short time feel the impressions of truth But when a plain Authority is evaded by a Criticism and this Criticism perhaps answer'd by another For these Gentlemen are great but not the only Criticks There is jarring and clashing and not one step made towards the truth In the Letter of Resolut concern the Doctr. of the Trin. and Incar p. 10. the Author says and he is very much in the right that we pretend That the Trinity and Incarnation are Traditions deriv'd down to our times through all the intermediate Ages and by all the Churches professing Christianity The rational way to prove the vanity of the pretence is to shew that there was a time and some Church or other where these Doctrines were not believ'd Instead of this he spends three pages to prove how we have differ'd and do differ amongst our selves in the explication of these Doctrines which rather supports then weakens the Argument It does evince that we agree in the thing though not in the manner of explaining it which is that that I insist on with the rest of my Brethren the Divines of the mob as these Gentlemen call us But this is only to criticise at large All the Criticks says this same Author in the same Letter without excepting one who have made a judgment of the writings of the Fathers for the first 300 Years and particularly which of those writings are genuine and uncorrupted which wholly feign'd or otherwise corrupted I say All the Criticks constantly make this a Note of forgery or corruption if those writings speak any what expressly or evidently of these Doctrines If the Criticks mean that the writings of the Primitive Fathers which speak of those Mysteries in the Terms us'd by the Schools long since the Nicene Council are supposs'd They are in the right But this Criticism is against those Gentlemen themselves It regards only the manner of the expression not the thing express'd But if the Criticks mean that the Trinity or Incarnation were unknown to and were not the Doctrine of the Fathers before the Council of Nice which is that which these Gentlemen must make the Criticks to say or else they say nothing I beg leave of these Gentlemen and of all the Criticks not one excepted to tell them that they are invincibly mistaken I have no criticism to offer here nor will I sill this small writing with citations of these Fathers it being the thing in question Though I conceive with submission to the high and mighty Criticks that most of these citations may be prov'd genuine I have only two plain Reasons to offer 1st With what equity and assurance did the Nicene Fathers declare their decrees to be according to the Doctrine taught by the Fathers who had preceeded them if the Trinity and Incarnation was not the Doctrine of those Fathers The Council was an August Meeting of the most learned and Religious Persons in the World even by
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
that nature The Place cited out of St. Peter has no relation at all to this That of St. Paul to the Corinthians is as much foregin to it being only an excellent Metaphor to express our future state That to Timothy is indeed more to the matter in hand but the Apostle has prevented the objection by speaking positively of God's decree in respect of our Election Who has call'd us with a holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose ... which word the Author was pleas'd to overlook What has been said will give light to some difficulties which these Gentlemen judge to be unanswerable The 1st is taken from this very Chapter Joh. 17.3 and this is life Eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent The Author of the answer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 22. is positive that the Father is call'd the true God exclusively to any other and that nothing can more effectually evince that Christ is not God but only God's Ambassador This is one of those very many Texts says the Author of the Brief Hist pag. 5. which directly affirm that only the Father is God The objection is not new It was made by the Arrians in the Council of Nice and exploded by the Fathers The truth is these Holy Men never understood the words as fixing and restraining the Deity to the Father with exclusion to the Son and the Holy spirit nor their sence to have any regard to either of them or else this would absolutely have decided the Controversy Nor is it comprehensible that the Fathers before the Council of Nice would have spoken so fully to the Divinity of Christ or that those of the Council of Nice and the Fathers after them and the whole Christian World durst have embrac't it as an essential part of our Faith if they had look't upon the sence of this Text to be no other than what is pretended by these Gentlemen The Good the wise the Learned cannot be conceiv'd to have willfully run into an errour contrary to the open and known sence of such a place of Scripture They constantly understood these words The Father the only true God to be spoken not exclusively to the two other persons but in opposition to the Gods of the Heathen those false Deities which had usurp't amongst them the place of the true Nor is it unusual in Scripture by the Father to mean not so much the first Divine Person as the Deity in general I will not spend time in setting down the many ways that this Text may be read in or what order the words might be made capable of to take off their pretended inconsistency with the Christian Hypothesis of three Persons subsisting in the same Divine Nature St. Basil and St. Chrysostom have effectually done it and shew'd how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have render'd only is rather comprehensive than exclusive in the dialect of Scripture I have a plain and obvious reason why the only True God must be understood in the sence of the Fathers in opposition to false Gods and not in exclusion of Christ and the Holy spirit and that is that Christ in Scripture is call'd the true God and the only Lord God which can never be if the only true God here must be restrain'd to the Father as these Gentlemen would have it 1 Joh. 5.2 and we know that the Son of God is come and has given us an understanding that we may know him that is true and we are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille he is the true God and Eternal life I take this to be positive and decisive that the only true God cannot be understood in relation to the Son or the Holy spirit since the Son is also call'd true God No says the Author of the Brief Hist p. 43. This is a very negligent translation and no sence can be made of the words The latter part of the Text ought to have been render'd we are in him that is true by his Son Jesus Christ and not in his Son Jesus Christ This Text plainly denys that Chirst is the true God The outlandish Socinians had made a miserable exception to this Text which these Gentlemen thought fit to forsake as ruinous But this is to the full as bad The translation is directly against them Therefore it is negligent and nonsensical The translators cannot be made to speak as they would have them Therefore they are careless and speak nonsence The particle in Jesus Christ ruines their opinion Therefore it must be by contrary to the Faith of all translations contrary to any possible construction of the place contrary to the sence of all Interpreters You see Sir how desperate is that cause which cannot support it self without these mean shifts and has nothing to oppose to a plain and deciding Text but the bold and presumptuous altering of a Particle I use these words which perhaps may seem too sharp because the thing of it self is so extraordinary and this Text in the original so infinitely clear that I durst give up the cause if of a thousand Translators strangers to the controversy any one does translate by and not in his Son Jesus Christ I think that Jud. 4. is much to be consider'd There is a description made of unhappy Men who are crept in unawares Their Character is to be ungodly to turn the grace of God into lasciviousness and to deny the only Lord God and Lord of us Jesus Christ That the whole is spoken of Christ appears from the Greek construction of the Phrase from the singleness of the Article and the continuation of the Text without the least punctuation The whole running thus denying Jesus Christ who is the only Lord God and our Lord. This is so obvious that to prove it is to lose time It not only asserts the Divinity of Christ but also shews how vain is the pretence that in the disputed Text the only true God should exclude the Son or the holy spirit As if any rational Man durst infer from thence that because Christ is call'd the only Lord God Therefore the Father is neither Lord nor God These Gentlemen have taken no notice of this Text in any of their writings that I have seen and so have say'd nothing to it But yet because a proof must be clear and candid and remove if possible all objections what can be oppos'd to it amounts to this That the old latin Interpreter and some Greek Manuscripts of a considerable Authority do not read the word God and that Erasmus has translated not the only Lord God and Lord of us Jesus Christ But God who is the only Lord and our Lord Jesus Christ Erasmus and one or two more Modern Interpreters who with all the care imaginable have endeavour'd to obscure or prevert all those Texts which speak openly of the